"God's Not Dead" (film) - Some Sadly Flawed Arguments

8/12/2014

It’s true. The existence of God has come into question during our time. Christianity really is under more attack today in America than ever. If you call yourself a Christian you are sure to be labeled as a bigoted, uneducated, mean spirited, prude, with a huge chip on his shoulder. So when a film comes out that holds to a Christian worldview and even promotes a belief in God it’s hard not to get excited about it. The growing attack against the existence of God fuels the intriguing story lines in the movie “God’s Not Dead.”

When I first saw the trailer for the movie I have to admit that I was kind of excited about it. Finally we would have a movie that could help answer some of the more difficult questions being thrown at us in academia. Apparently, I was not alone in my excitement. Despite the fact that “God’s Not Dead” was only shown in 780 theaters it still made the top 4 in box office results. It actually made a whopping 9.2 million dollars in its first weekend which understandably shocked the Hollywood world.[1]I believe that the reason the movie was so popular was because it deals with the most important question anyone could ever ask: Does God exist?

In short, the movie is about a young college student who stands up to his teacher who had boldly proclaimed on the first day of class that God is in fact dead. Josh is college freshman with aspirations of becoming a lawyer. He has to find a philosophy elective that fits his schedule so he lands on the class Introduction to Philosophy. Dr. Radisson, the professor of the class, is infamous for his atheistic rants in the classroom. In the very first class period Dr. Radisson gives a short lecture about the advantages and academic superiority of atheism. His first assignment for the class is that they all write on a white piece of paper three simple words: “God IS Dead.” Writing the words down and turning the paper in will result in a passing grade. Josh refuses to do the assignment. Dr. Radisson then offers Josh an alternative assignment. Josh will be given 20 minutes of time in during the next three lectures to prove the existence of God. If the students are convinced at the end of Josh’s lectures that God is NOT dead Josh passes the assignment. If not, he will fail the class.

As I sat watching it was at this moment that I was ready for the movie to make its lasting contribution to my life. Who doesn’t want to hear three compelling lectures on the existence of God? As a former high school and college debater I was eager to hear some of the arguments that Josh would present in the movie. To my chagrin I was left disappointed by what Josh had to say when he gave his very first argument for God’s existence.

First Debate Scene
In his very first session Josh equates the big bang to what we would expect if God spoke the universe into existence. Let me rephrase that so you are completely clear on what I am trying to say. Josh Wheaton, the main character in this movie, uses the big bang and theistic evolution as arguments for the existence of the universe. While there are those such as Tyler Franke who blogs for the site godofevolution.com that are thrilled about Josh’s views about evolution, I do not share their sentiment. Francke, a professing theistic evolutionist said this about the movie: “I was glad to see the Big Bang used as part of the defense for the existence of God.”[2] I disagree with Mr. Francke. I was not glad to see Josh use the big bang theory as one of his proofs. I saw it as a watering down of the arguments and even a frightening compromise.

[I want to be very clear before we go any further. I understand that there are those who will disagree with me about that claim. I also understand that I am not the only one to lay such a claim on this movie. After reading the transcript of this section of the movie and refreshing myself on theistic evolution, however, I have become increasingly convinced that Josh was indeed teaching theistic evolution.]

Let me explain. In his lecture Josh references Georges Lemaitre. Josh uses Lemaitre’s arguments to attempt to reconcile the big bang model with the Genesis 1 account of creation. Here’s an exact quote from the movie:

Josh: He [Geoges Lemaitre] said that the entire universe, jumping into existence in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, out of nothingness in an unimaginably intense flash of light, is how he would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the command in Genesis 1:3, “Let there be light.”

So who is Lemaitre and why is it such a big deal that Josh would use his arguments? Lemaitre is remembered in history as being the “Father of the Big Bang.” He was a Roman Catholic priest and a professor by trade. He actually taught at the French section of the Catholic University of Louvain for years. He was the first to propose that the universe expanded from an original “cosmic egg.” This proposal that he called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” is what we know as the “Big Bang Theory.” In the movie Josh Wheaton is suggesting that the big bang explains exactly how we would assume the universe to be formed if God were to speak it into existence.

Is Josh correct? Does the account in Genesis 1 really align itself with the big bang theory? Before we run off and accept Josh’s argument let’s stop and compare the account in Genesis 1:1-5 to the big bang theory. The big bang was supposed to have happened millions of years ago with the sun allegedly appearing millions of years before the earth was formed. This stands in stark contrast to the account in Genesis 1:1-5.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”

The big bang theory stands in direct opposition to the very Genesis passages that Josh is supposed to be defending. Josh is even affirming that the age of the earth is billons of years.

To be fair, this first argument that Josh gives is not all bad. Josh actually provides us with a solid apologetic for the question, “Who created God?”

Female Student: But, in his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that if you tell me God created the universe then I have the right to ask you who created God.

Josh: Dawkins’ question only makes sense in terms in a god who has been created. It doesn’t make sense in terms of an uncreated god, which is the kind of God Christians believe in. And even leaving God out of the equation, I then have a right to turn Mr. Dawkins own question back around on him and ask, if the universe created you, then who created the universe? You see, both the theist and the atheist are both burdened with answering the same question of how did things start. What I’m hoping you’ll pick up from all this is that you don’t have to commit intellectual suicide to believe in a Creator behind the Creation. And to the extent that you don’t allow for God, you’d be pretty hard pressed to find any credible alternative explanation for how things came to be.

Second Debate Scene
In his second debate Josh addresses the problem of life coming from non-life. He moves from this into a dialogue on biological evolution. Using the analogy of a clock Josh attempts to explain the existence of life on earth. His conclusion is that God must have guided the process.

There are some things worth noting in this section. First, Josh clearly denies Darwinian evolution.

Josh: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for the last 150 years, Darwinists have been saying that God is unnecessary to explain man’s existence and that evolution replaces God, but evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So, where did that something that’s alive come from? Well, Darwin never really addressed it. He assumed maybe some lightning hit a stagnant pool full of the right kind of chemicals—Bingo—a living something. But, uh, it’s just not that simple.

Dr. Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) and Josh (Shane Harper)

Many people see this in the movie and immediately assume that Josh is not teaching evolution. The thing that they forget in making that assumption is that Darwinian evolution is not the only form of evolution being taught or adhered to today. Denying Darwinian evolution is actually a popular approach taken by those who accept a cosmological or geological evolution. This is the belief that evolution took place over billions of years but was not some kind of blind, random process like that taught by biological evolution. What Josh is holding too appears to be very similar to that taught by the Intelligent Design movement. Basically, Josh believes in a big bang and then a long, slowly developed process that was controlled by God.

Looking at this at face value I would conclude that Josh’s comments in the section of the movie are a ringing endorsement of theistic evolution. I strongly believe that this argument does not correspond the teachings of Scripture. Josh’s old earth view does not fit with a plain reading of the creation account.

The creators of this movie really missed a big opportunity with these first two arguments. Not only were the arguments flawed Biblically they would also have a difficult time holding up in any informed debate. While the professor in the movie was left reeling by Josh’s arguments most any informed atheist would not have a difficult time shooting them down. An informed atheist would no doubt point out that evolution is a cruel and wasteful process. Why would anyone want to believe in a God who would use such a flawed method? Furthermore, the producers clearly must not have heard Richard Dawkins, a committed atheist, say that he believes those holding to theistic evolution are diluted.

Third Debate Scene
After watching the first two debate scenes I have to admit that I wasn’t too thrilled about the impending third debate. But that’s where I got it wrong. The third scene was actually a welcome reprieve from the flawed arguments Josh had been using earlier. This was a uniquely powerful part of the film and I am sure God has and will continue to use this scene for good.

Josh tackles the problem of evil. In this scene Josh uses God’s character as the basis for recognizing absolute truth. He appeals to the innate sense of morality in all of us. During this argument you can sense even in Dr. Radisson’s eyes that the momentum has swung in Josh’s favor.

But Josh has a problem. The foundation that he has laid does not provide a pedestal from which he can preach about a God who wishes to eradicate all forms of evil. The account of creation that Josh has laid is that of an old earth view. Thus, Josh is forced to accept that earths history has always been filled with pain and suffering. Notice in the transcript that Josh nowhere mentions that God originally created a perfect world where there was no pain and suffering

Josh: It has been said that evil is atheism’s most potent weapon against the Christian faith. And it is! After all, the very existence of evil begs the question [sic], “If God is all good and God is all powerful, why does He allow evil to exist?” The answer, at its core, is remarkably simple: free will. God allows evil to exist because of free will. From the Christian standpoint, God tolerates evil in this world on a temporary basis so that one day those who choose to love Him freely will dwell with Him in heaven free from the influence of evil, but with their free will intact! In other words, God’s intention concerning evil is to one day destroy it.
Professor Radisson: Well, how convenient. “One day, I will get rid of all the evil in the world, but until then you just have to deal with all the wars and holocausts, tsunamis, poverty, starvation, and AIDS. Have a nice life.” Next he will be lecturing us on moral absolutes.
Josh: Well, why not? Professor Radisson, who’s clearly an atheist, doesn’t believe in moral absolutes. But his course syllabus says he plans to give us an exam during finals week. Now, I am betting that if I managed to get an A on the exam by cheating, he will suddenly start sounding like a Christian, insisting it is wrong to cheat, that I should have known that. And yet, what basis does he have? If my actions are calculated to help me succeed, then why shouldn’t I perform them? For Christians, the fixed point of morality, what constitutes right and wrong, is a straight line that leads directly back to God.
Professor Radisson: So you are saying that we need a god to be moral? That a moral atheist is an impossibility?
Josh: No, but with no God there is no real reason to be moral; there is not even a standard of what moral behavior is. For Christians, lying, cheating, stealing, and my example, stealing a grade I didn’t earn, are forbidden as a form of theft. But if God does not exist, as Dostoyevsky famously pointed out, “If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” And not only permissible, but pointless. If Professor Radisson is right, then all of this—all of our struggle, all of our debate, whatever we decide here—is meaningless. I mean, our lives, our deaths are of no more consequence than that of a goldfish.
Professor Radisson: Come on, this is ridiculous. So after all of your talk, you are saying that it all comes down to a choice—believe or don’t believe.
Josh: That’s right. That’s all there is. That’s all there’s ever been. The only difference between your position and my position is that you take away their choice. You demand that they choose the box marked “I don’t believe.”
Professor Radisson: Yes, because I want to free them. Because religion is like a . . . it’s like a mind virus that parents have passed on down to their children. And Christianity is the worst virus of all. It slowly creeps into our lives when we’re weak or sick or helpless.
Josh: So religion is like a disease?
Professor Radisson: Yes, yes. It infects everything. It’s the enemy of reason.
Josh: Reason? Professor, you left reason a long time ago. What you are teaching here isn’t philosophy; it’s not even atheism anymore. What you’re teaching is anti-theism. It’s not enough that you don’t believe, you need all of us to not believe with you.
Professor Radisson: Why don’t you admit the truth? You just want to ensnare them into your primitive superstition.
Josh: What I want is for them to make their own choice. That’s what God wants.
Professor Radisson: You have no idea how much I am going to enjoy failing you.
Josh: Who are you really looking to fail, Professor: me or God?
Josh: Do you hate God?
Professor Radisson: That’s not even a question.
Josh: Okay, why do you hate God?
Professor Radisson: This is ridiculous.
Josh: Why do you hate God?! Answer the question! You’ve seen the science and the arguments. Science supports His existence. You know the truth! So why do you hate Him?! Why?! It’s a very simple question, Professor. Why do you hate God?!
Professor Radisson: Because He took everything away from me! Yes, I hate God! All I have for Him is hate!
Josh: How can you hate someone if they don’t exist?
Professor Radisson: You’ve proven nothing.
Josh: Maybe not, but they get to choose. Is God dead?
Students [as they stand]: God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead . . .

Josh missed the boat when he elaborated on his first two arguments. From an old earth perspective there has always been evil. Death is not a result of the fall but a process of creation. Because Josh did not form a foundation of a young earth creation he has nothing to stand on now. While his arguments in this third debate are solid there is something missing and that something should have been there at the beginning.

Concluding Thoughts
“God’s Not Dead” has much to be commended for. It absorbing, entertaining, and provides much food for thought. It also addresses a real issue that we all need to be aware of. As the credits rolled out all the college organizations that had been attacked because of their religion I was overwhelmed. The movie is actually authentic to the college experience. God really is being put on trail every day in colleges across America.

With that said there is much to be wary of in the movie. The greatest danger I see is Christians using these arguments in their own personal conversations. Given the overtly flawed nature of most of the arguments we are best served never using them. Most likely you’re scenario will probably not go the way Josh’s did. In that instance you may be tempted to doubt the veracity of your beliefs rather than the weakness of your arguments.

I’ll admit some trepidation in writing this piece simply because I know how greatly impactful this film has been. I trust this blog has at least made you think.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-24/u-s-movie-box-office-grosses-for-march-21-march-23.html
[2] Francke, Tyler. "Review: 'God's Not Dead' (because we made a movie about him)." God of Evolution. 12 August 2014 <http://www.godofevolution.com/review-gods-not-dead-because-we-made-a-movie-about-him/>.

Posted by Caleb

29 Comments

Matt

8/15/2014 03:56:10 pm

The claim that Josh supports theistic evolution is a flawed argument from silence (aka. absence of evidence). Josh makes no such claims of an old earth. He even mocks the idea of evolution being possible. There was no poor theology teaching. Your knowledge of lesser popular theories, and Josh not debunking them does not mean that the movie was supporting them. This is absurd thinking requires a huge blog post just to setup such a stretched argument. Most of this post falls apart without this jump of accusation.

I'm not sure if you watch very many movies, but this was not a documentary or a class on apologetics. You should have never expected to hear a true debate. If you want that, there are classes and documentaries that do that. This was a movie to a broad audience of both believers and unbelievers. Jesus never debated. Debate is a fun, but futile practice. There are times to stand up and defend your faith (1 Peter 3:15), but this was a movie. So when "you can sense even in Dr. Radisson’s eyes," it is because he is an actor. The time spent in debate was adequate for the story line of the movie.

The movie was fairly well done for a Christian film. I only wished that the reporter that appeared to get saved at the end had a clearer statement of Faith. Most people cannot get prayed over by the Newsboys, which left in my mind a missing gap in what is really needed for salvation. The movie did say to trust in Jesus so I can't be to critical, but I wished for a little more on just that one scene. Salvation on film can be very hard. It is possible they even cut it later because it might have not come across natural... who knows. That was my only real critique.

Tommy

8/18/2014 11:19:44 am

Matt,

I think your thinking that what the author was bringing up were "lesser popular theories" is deeply flawed. I have to admit that this post made me think a great deal. In fact, at first I vehemently disagreed with the author of this post. But after some reading and researching of my own I become more and more convinced that he was right.

You may be correct in saying that this was a movie and not a debate. However, just because it's a movie does not exclude it from being theologically correct. The movie was actually very well done for a Christian film but I must agree with the author of this post. The movie is "sadly" lacking in the theology department.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to read some of these articles that I read from other sources that seem to agree with this author:

* https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/gods-not-dead-movie-review/

* https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/gods-not-dead-revisited/

*http://creation.com/gods-not-dead-review

Emily

5/11/2016 10:16:14 am

Just saying. Of course the argument is going to be flawed there is no scientifical evidence proving Gods existence. There is no way it is going to be perfect. They are showing how even the smartest people like Darwin can be wrong or right. It is a matter of opinion we have no proof that God or gods ever existed just opinions of people

edward

5/12/2016 11:01:36 am

this is terrible, you all are uneducated atheists

Name

10/28/2024 01:22:35 pm

*This is terrible, you are all uneducate atheists.

Late to the party

12/29/2024 07:00:33 am

This is all terrible. I am an educated atheist.

Steve Miller

7/13/2016 02:12:30 pm

Lets not confuse how many people saw the film, or how much money it made with how good it was. Lets be honest - it was really bad.

Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 15%

Average Rating: 2.8/10
Fresh: 3
Rotten: 17

Blaise Carie

9/16/2021 01:14:47 pm

I thought it was a thought-provoking read. I will have to do more research and dive into why I believe what I believe. I know what I believe, but I want to be more versed as to why. Thank you for the article.

What was the saddest thing to me is that this comment board (probably a group of professing Christians, as am I), was just as mean-spirited as any other comment sections on youtube.

G.K. Chesterton

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

John Terrell link

1/4/2023 05:26:47 pm

I am an agnostic. It doesn't offend me that some people believe in a god, or many gods. What does offend me is that many Christians claim there is no moral code except that handed down by God an evidenced in the Bible.

But the primal code has existed since human became social creatures, and that was a long, long time ago. At some point, humans came to the realization that they could greatly enhance their physical security and food security by banding together. but to do that, they had to mutually agree to the primal code, which is simply this: do no harm to your fellow tribe members.

Harm can be parsed out in several senses: physical harm would be the top of the list: economic harm (stealing), social harm (lying, false witness), and so on. but it's just common sense: it would be self-defeating to injure the person you've joined with to protect you.

1/5/2023 07:39:46 am

Why does it offend you that "Christians claim there is no moral code except that handed down by God"?
Truth is exclusive. You are no more claiming a truth statement that your source of morality is right any more than a Christian. I don't get offended that you have a different starting point for morality, I just think their is no objective way to have morality as an agnostic. It would be beneficial to have more abortions in order to 'save the planet' according to many environmentalists so should that be encouraged? Under your morality or another's morality that might mean that this abortion practice is okay. We are now giving rivers personhood in parts of Europe while we abort millions of babies every year which are actually persons.

We can agree to disagree, but in my search for truth I just never found anything more verifiably accurate in the ancient world as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Bart Ehrman even agrees, and he is an agnostic Biblical studies scholar. I have never found anything that best explains the problems with this world, gives solutions for these problems, more radically changes people, and gives a person hope and meaning which we all long for. I can expound upon any of these or give you sources if you would like.

But either way, your claim that you are right is no different than a Christian's claim that we are right. I just don't get offended by it. I know truth is exclusive and everyone is claiming truth. And the Law of Non-contradiction essentially says that two competing ideas can't both be right at the same time and in the same sense. The question is what is the most reasonable and relevant in our world and in someone's life, and I have faith (not in spite of the evidence, but because of the evidence) that Christianity is the one true worldview.

1/5/2023 12:38:26 pm

Blaise Carrie says nothing to refute the logic of my argument. My argument isn't based on a belief: it's based on evidence.

Carrie refers to Christianity as a worldview. But which Christianity? There are at least seven major "flavors" in the US alone. The major division is between Catholic and Protestant. The Catholic position is the the only way to heaven is through the Catholic Church. How's that for divisiveness?

The Bible not only didn't originate the first moral code it also wasn't the first to codify a moral code. Here are two precedents: The Code of UR-NAMMU ( Mesopotamian circa 2100 – 2050 BCE) and The Code of HAMMURABI (Babylonian circa 1754 BCE).

Fortunately, in the US we have a moral code that is for every citizen: it is embedded in our Common Law. One can see that it embraces the concept of do no harm to others. No, it's not based on the Ten Commandments or the Bible. It's based on British Common Law, which traces its history back to the Magna Carta, which predates the arrival of Christianity in the British Isles.

Emma

4/26/2024 11:23:23 am

Whether or not morality can exist without a God is up for debate, however I would challenge you to ask yourself this: If morality is simply a man-made construct, and we are the result of a purposeless, random, meaningless process, why should we follow it?

There is a part of every human being that knows the holocaust was wrong, but if it doesn't affect you and your survival why should it even matter? Why is it wrong if it doesn't affect us or our "tribe members"?

Without a God, everything is meaningless and unless it affects your survival directly, so is morality. Just something to consider.

As a Christian myself, I don't claim that the Bible was what made morality, God did, before the Bible was ever written down. The Bible is God's word that helps us navigate, define, and understand it.

Let me know your thoughts on this, I would love any discussion.

4/26/2024 05:07:05 pm

To Emma:
Morality, as I have described it previously, is not a man-made construct. It is a universal concept that early man-kind adopted, once their brains were able to grasp it. And the concept of what constitutes a tribe continued to grow. Without those concepts, man-kind could not have been able to build larger and larger societies.

We are not “the result of a purposeless, random, meaningless process”. Our purpose is to propagate, care for our off-spring until they can fend for themselves, and then die.

The moral code applies to everyone, all the time. Society after society have fallen because they failed to maintain the moral code.

5/1/2024 11:09:46 am

To John Terrell-for some reason I can't figure out how to directly respond to your comment, so I hope you find this.

My point that it is a man-made construct is based on your previous comment talking about how the moral code is based on the "British Common Law" that can be traced back to the Magna Carta, I am sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I don't know what your perspective is on how the universe came to be, but there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Universe had a start. The common World View we see from most mainstream Scientists is that macro-evolution created all living things after the Big Bang. That is what I was referring to as a "random, purposeless, meaningless process" because leading scientists who have this world view would and have described it as such.

So coming from that view, my point was simply that if the universe was created this way, how exactly did we get this "universal concept." Most atheists would say that society created it, which would be a man-made construct. If it was however, why follow it if it is no longer required for our survival or comfort?

The point isn't that we don't have a better society when we follow moral codes, I agree that we do. The point I was trying to make is that why follow them when they are no longer helpful, or convenient? Why have integrity? If no one sees you doing bad things, if it doesn't affect their perception of you, why not? Why not if it makes you happy?

Also, your point about purpose falls flat to some degree. If that is our purpose what about the single folks?

I really appreciate your response and intellect.

1/5/2023 02:14:48 pm

I appreciate your response, but you misunderstood or did not thoroughly read my post. I was not advocating for my viewpoint as much as I was just commenting on the fact that you are doing the same thing as any other view on morality: You are claiming that yours is right all the while blaming Christianity for saying that they are right.

And yes there are different "flavors" of christianity to use your terminology but there are just as many "flavors" in all other spheres in our country including the atheistic/ agnostic realm. My whole point was not based upon solely blind belief which is what I assumed you meant when you said belief. My belief is because of the evidence not in spite of it. I have sources and all kinds of other data to support my viewpoint. If you would like some of the sources I can give them to you or further elaborate.

Bottom line: Your view and my view both can't be right. Your view and my view can both be wrong, yours can be right and mine be wrong or vice versa, but ours both can't be right.

Based upon evidence (I am a high school science teacher for 10 years with 50+ graduate school hours), I believe my view BECAUSE of the evidence not in spite of it. And I don't think that you have any objective morality to stand on. It is just majority rules, culture rules, which is why a youtube video had to be removed because an atheist in a debate had to honestly admit that he couldn't claim the holocaust was objectively wrong. He could claim he didn't like it, but he could not claim that it was morally wrong or evil. This is all I need. I don't want to live in a world where a belief system can't and/ or won't be able to admit that holocaust is objectively wrong or even evil.

Again, I was never trying to refute your argument but tell you that you were getting frustrated for doing the very same thing you were claiming Christians they were doing: thinking they were right and others were wrong. Truth is exclusive. We all can't be right. And if you think we can then that is an illogical position and one I cannot believe in.

1/6/2023 08:36:51 am

To Blaise Carrie:
I have a Masters degree in Geology. My thesis dealt with radiometric age dating of certain strata in West Texas, but my education was broad-based, touching on interfaces with biology, anthropology, chemistry, and physics. I also have a broad base in software and practical application of computers.

The starting point for my moral origins theory was Darwin's "Descent of Man", where he describes man's social evolution. And from there, anthropological history-- thousands of years as hunter-gatherers.

While I think my historical data is sufficient to prove my point, here's something you can see today. We start learning and internalizing the moral code as soon as we're able to interface with others. For example, little Jimmy learns it's not nice to pummel, kick, or bite (physical harm) little Tommy. What "teaches" him is a sharp swat to his backside. and it is an even greater lesson to the victim, little Tommy. And you can envision the cases for stealing, false witness, and so on, Later, as they mature, they can see this is how, and why, Society works.

That said, I would very much like to see the sources of your evidence. I would also like a citation on the inept atheist who couldn't find a moral objection to the Holocaust.

Regards

1/6/2023 02:00:45 pm

I will get back to you. It will take me some time to find the article and sources. I still feel like we aren't on the same page though. Jimmy kicking Tommy and it not being nice is different than it being morally wrong. And if evolution and anthropological history are true then our "moral code" is just a random product of matter + plus + chance and ultimately is an unguided process with no mind behind it. Therefore in my opinion, you can say something is morally wrong but if I disagree with you, you have no rationally compelling reason to disagree.

We are just random products of evolution. Something that is "bad or good" for society is not morality. Something that is right or wrong has to have a standard. And I believe your standard is one of a mindless process.
And if our minds are products of a mindless process then how can we trust anything that we think or say? I believe we were given a mind and given a logic by Our Creator. And morality is objective. It is not circumstantial.

I just made this post because I do not think we were using the same definition for morality. Good and bad or right and wrong seemed to need clarification. If I misrepresented your view of the term morality please correct me. I will get back to you about your questions. Love the debate. Thanks and enjoy your weekend.

Gary link

5/26/2023 06:52:22 pm

For us to be on the right half of history, our reality and change — as opposed to our obliteration — need to extol God.

John Terrell

5/30/2023 05:20:02 pm

To Blaise Carie: I'm still waiting for your promised response.

5/31/2023 05:26:22 am

You are right. I have not responded. But it doesn't matter what I say, it is not going to convince you. We are both intelligent individuals with many hours of graduate school work, and we both have arrived at different conclusions. It is the evidence that convinced us both of very opposite conclusions.

You talked about a Moral Code, but without a Creator there is no Morally right or wrong. It is just human opinion. As for do no harm.... what about abortion which I would assume you support. According to any human embryology textbook life starts at conception.

Now if you want to talk about personhood and a women's right to choose, what about the babies right to choose. Your "do no harm" moral code falls apart in light of the Christian worldview.

As for worldview, we all look through the world with a lense. To say you don't have a lense is absurd and a lense in itself.

Atheists said that there was no King David and have never found any historical evidence of him, then we found evidence of King David. Atheists didn't all of a sudden become believers. Atheists just get new questions when other questions get answered.

The bottom line is I can't convince you. Many smart intelligent atheists have looked at the evidence and arrived at different conclusions over the years.

If Christianity were true, would you change your mind?

This is my last post. It is not my job to change your heart. It is God's. I am going to love on my 3 children and My Beloved Wife and those around me as best as I can in light of God's leading in my life to daily die to myself and put him and others first. To me this is beautiful. I wish it were beautiful to you too.

Take care.

6/1/2023 04:48:09 pm

To Blaise Carie: Thanks for responding.

I did not say my morals base was "Do no harm"; rather, I said it is "Do no harm to your fellow tribe members". There's a world of difference.

And I do have a worldview, one based on logic, the scientific method, and physical evidence. The evidence shows that humans formed social groups very early on, multiple thousands of years before Christianity arrived. The only way they could have lived together harmoniously was by agreeing to the moral code; not their opinion, but the moral imperative.

Regarding abortion. In my worldview, a fetus is a potential person. Since approximately one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth, there's no assurance that any one specific fetus will be born. Also, for those who believe a person is formed at the moment of conception: less than 50% of fertilized eggs make it to the starting line, that is, to the uterus, and not every one that does make it will successfully implant, to begin a pregnancy. And all those person-eggs that don't make the cut: well, they die! So, if God is tending to all this, that would make Him the worst mass-murderer of all time.

Have you considered the harm done by preventing an abortion? If you're skeptical, let me know. I can spell it out for you.

Regards,
j.h.t.

5/22/2024 07:21:15 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slkJAC1cmKs

Here is the atheist who states that the holocaust isn't wrong. Just happened to pop up on my feed. It is just his opinion and society's as to why the holocaust is wrong. Both are looking at the same evidence. Both are smart individuals, but they arrive at different conclusions because they start with different presuppositions and ultimately have completely different worldviews.

P.S. There is never harm done by preventing abortion. I can't find the article, but there are accounts of people being raped by ISIS and people trying to force them to have an abortion. The victims said, "No, what Satan meant for evil, God meant for good" and they chose to have the children. Probably not a worse situation of rape out there and they chose the "inconvenience, heartache, suffering, pain, etc." because their perspective and worldview is radically different than yours. This is far more beautiful to me that a person would lay down their "rights" to an abortion and yet choose to have the strength to die to themselves and give this innocent child a chance at life despite the circumstances. There is no "potential person" anymore than me saying that my four children are "potential adults." They are in a different phase of development but it is not scientific and it is illogical to say that we can kill them because they are "potential persons." I don't expect you to understand, but I at least want you to realize that the Law of Non-contradiction says that we both can't be right since are views are completely contrary to each other. My belief is grounded in an objective standard outside of myself, yours is just opinion. I don't want the holocaust to be wrong just by mere opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr6g6FsnJg
https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

John H. Terrell link

5/22/2024 05:39:54 pm

Moderately entertaining video: two opinionated blowhards displaying their abject ignorance for all to see. The atheist claiming all morality is relative, the religious guy saying our morals can come only from a higher source, namely God. They are both wrong. As I have said before, there is an objective, universal moral standard. What both Turek and Silverman don't understand is that the moral standard governs what you must not do, which develops naturally from the concept of do no harm to your fellow tribe members. the definition "tribe" probably started with "extended family' and grew from there.

Concerning "The Holocaust": On any rational basis, The Holocaust was wrong. So how did Hitler pull it off? His Propaganda staff bore false witness, claiming the Jews were traitors, working to destroy Germany and, perhaps worse, were threatening the purity of Aryan race. Thus they were no longer members of the tribe and warranted expulsion, or death. The worst case we've seen of violating the Do no harm... precept--so far.

You say there is no harm done by preventing abortion. You couldn't be more wrong. That is typical of a conservative view, taking abortion out of context. In context it is surely a financial harm, and in some cases a condemnation to poverty. Not every unintended pregnancy is a case of a slut engaging in unprotected sex. Many abortion seekers already have a child or two. And there is the question of autonomy. Why should a legislator, rather than a doctor and the woman, determine what's best for her.

Regards,
j.h.t.

5/23/2024 08:24:30 am

Frank Turek said that there is no objective universal standard for morals. The "Do no harm" was evolved by evolution according to you. Therefore there is no 'objective' standard outside of randomness and chance. We could look at the infinite 'multiverses' theory and there could be an infinite amounts of morality. And the only way you can say one is right and one is wrong is just your mere opinion. It is intellectually dishonest or foolish to say otherwise. Lawrence Krauss has even said in a talk that 'you are far less valuable than even you think you are. But rejoice because this is your time in the sun.' Do you have value or not? Are you just a higher evolved ancestor of an ape?

The atheistic viewpoint is all over the place with inconsistencies of value and worth. Nietzsche said, "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." You are borrowing from the Christian objective worldview to affirm your worldview. If you have no worth or are far less valuable than even you think you are, then who cares if you get harmed? The "Do no harm" is not an objective standard. It is still an earthly opinion.

As for abortion causing harm. That is what is sad in our culture. You are willing to kill to keep someone out of poverty or at least not stop the killing of a child all under the cowardice of "it is their choice." They sacrificed babies on the altar of the God of Molek in the OT and we are doing it in a more sophisticated way but it is still the same evil. You can't say anything is evil unless you have an objective unchanging standard for good. As C.S. Lewis states, "You can have the Sun without shadows, but you can't have shadows without the Sun." If something is bad or wrong, then there must be a right. What is your standard for right? Evolutionary mindless, random social interactions? That is the opposite of objective. That is subjective.

At least the article I sent you, the woman is being intellectually honest that she is killing a human being, but admits that the motheris more valuable than the unborn child. The Pro-life view is the most inclusive view on the planet.... every child no matter what circumstances they are born into, the disability they may have, the illness they may have, the 'harm' it might cause another, etc. No matter what, all babies make the cut.

I am not talking about should legislatures decide what women do with their body. I am talking about what women decide to do with the body of another that is temporarily inside of them. My wife and I for our 4 children and decided that if it actually came down to the child or her life, that I would choose the child. "For no greater love is there than this, to lay down one's life for his friends." Your position is to allow the killing of an innocent life for the convenience, heartache, pain, poverty, etc. for the mother or child.... You have forgotten the great joy of laying down your life for another. I pray that you would have your eyes open to the evil in your heart, but realize that Jesus is far greater than any evil in your heart.

I know I ramble and for that I am sorry. But again the Law of Noncontradiction states that Lawrence Krauss, the woman in the article, and you can't all be right since they contradict. The Pro-choice argument is all over the board and allows for extreme abuses of human life. Hence the article below about euthanasia.

https://breakpoint.org/deciding-whos-better-off-dead/

5/23/2024 04:08:03 pm

I couldn't care less what other people think about morals. The thing that's different about my opinion is that I have logic and the evidence of history to support it. Sorry I have to keep repeating this. Humans began forming larger and larger units, always for the purpose of gaining physical security and food certainty. As a corollary, they had to live peaceably together. Through logic they found (not invented) the concept "do no harm to your fellow tribe members". No, that concept has not evolved. Today, it is exactly what it has been since the beginning.

Regarding the Law of Noncontradiction. You left off this essential proviso: "all else being equal". In the absence of that, both arguments might well be wrong---or right.

You say you have four children, and apparently you are doing well financially. From that position, it may difficult for you to really understand what poverty is. I haven't experienced it either but I was very close to it for my entire childhood. It sucks. One of my objections to the Roman Catholic Church is its position that poverty is OK for us, but not for the Church. Just look at how poorly the people in Catholic dominated countries have fared. So of course, the Church declares abortion a sin. The Church wants that future parishioner's tithe regardless of the cost (to anybody else).

Here’s what caught my eye in the euthanasia post. David Harsanyi says: “If eugenics is a social good, why stop at Down syndrome?" Whoever said eugenics was a social good? We tried it here and found it wanting. Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion are all intensely personal and should be treated as such. I don’t want any government or Church official making one-size-fits-all decisions for me or anyone else. I believe an entity in the womb that is totally dependent on the woman is simply an integral part of her. It becomes a person only if and when it becomes viable. So basically, it comes down to personhood.

Regards,
j.h.t.

5/30/2024 04:40:32 am

Another atheist claims that objective morality doesn't exist and the holocaust isn't objectively wrong. With atheism, and evolution (matter plus time plus chance), there are no objectively wrong actions. Everything is just personal opinion. Many intellectually honest atheists admit this. And you say that you have logic yet logically speaking you have no 'objective standard or morality' to base any of your ideas upon. Therefore, you do not have 'logic' on your side. You have no objective standard for your ideas, morals, logic, etc. It is just your mere opinion that the Holocaust is right or wrong, abortion is right or wrong, etc. And in fact you have no objective standard to be able to say that something is right or wrong. It is all just your opinion. This is logically what your worldview leads to.

P.S. The Catholic church still has the same doctrines that they had in the 1500's with the Council of Trent when they were burning at the stake hundreds of reformers. The Protestant reformers were calling the Pope and the Catholic church the antichrist. The Catholic church is not a Bible-believing church, i.e. they are not a true church.

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." - G.K. Chesterton

Sorry for the Catholic 'church.' They are not a true church as depicted in Acts 4:32-35,

" All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all
34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aJ3wTrzHpU0

5/31/2024 11:49:26 am

Sorry, but I can’t tell what you’re trying to say. Previously I thought you were saying there is an objective, higher standard for morals. Now it looks like you’re saying there’re no standards, just opinions. If so, I disagree. My opinion is based on an objective standard, rather than the other-way-around. The standard I follow is not biased by politics, religion, race, or gender: It is universal. And by that standard, there is no doubt that the Holocaust was wrong and wrong on more than one count.

You may be surprised at how the Catholic Church has waffled on the issue of abortion. See the article titled “Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/

I disagree with Mr. Chesterton. Such people are certainly hypocrites. But most atheists and agnostics never pretended to be be other than what they are. As for the whole world’s situation: it’s complex, with competing religions. And in the US more and more people are declaring their status as atheists, agnostics, and believers in God but not church, now that it is relatively safe to do so.

Regards,
j.h.t.

6/3/2024 09:16:59 pm

I didn't quite understand what you were saying on the last post either. As for the Catholic church waffling on the issue of abortion, it is interesting (I did not read the article) but that doesn't change anything. The Catholic church believes a lot of made up non-biblical doctrines and frankly logically flawed arguments and reasons for them too. The Catholic church is not a Christian church. It is a cult and the reformers called the catholic church the a prostitute and the pope the antichrist.
https://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/docs/nich/nich_a.htm

There is an objective moral standard and it can only be found outside of yourself. If it was programmed or there from the beginning of life, then there had to be a Moral Law giver. We have to agree to disagree because two other atheists that I have shown state that there is no objective standard of morality in the atheist viewpoint and Dan Barker, Dawkins, Krauss, and many others state there we have no objective value either without a god. If you have no value, then why and how in the world did a "do no harm ethic" start in our genetic code, social constructions, etc. randomly? And if it is randomly placed in us from the beginning by no mind then you have lost your objective morality because it requires a mind outside of yourself. Your 'objective' morality falls apart. it is anything but objective.

We now know that we are more insignificant than we ever imagined. If you get rid of everything we see, the universe is essentially the same. We constitute a 1 percent bit of pollution in a universe . . . we are completely irrelevant. -Lawrence Krauss

You both can't be right. We either have value or we don't. And if we don't then the "do no harm" 'standard' is foolish and ridiculous to say the least. It doesn't fit logically why 'do no harm' would be present if 'we are more insignificant than we ever imagined.'

Your worldview about having an objective standard outside of yourself is bankrupt. It doesn't stand the test of logic, truth, or objective reason. When faced with the facts it is a house of cards. Please God open the eyes of John to see the truth that he can't see, unless you bring him from death to life.

6/4/2024 04:33:07 pm

Apparently I didn't make my position on the Roman Catholic Church clear. I am not a fan. One of my favorite quotations is: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton). usually I use the Church as an example, though it's certainly not the only one

You appear to think atheists are a monolithic bloc. There is no individual or governing body that speaks for them. I'm sure you will find many atheists who would agree that there is no objective standard of morality. Well, it's their opinion and they are welcome to it. But they are not, and cannot be, the voice of atheism.

You say: "There is an objective moral standard and it can only be found outside of yourself" So where did your moral standard come from and how did you determine that it is objective?

You speak of value. It has meaning only in context. Do individual lives have value? Yahweh did not seem to think so. Did Abel really have to die, just because Cain was envious? Or did Job's whole family have to die, just to prove Job's devotion? By contrast, when early humans banded together for mutual security, every person was valued.

You claim the concept I adhere to is illogical, but you can't or won't say what is illogical about it. Please enlighten me.

Regards,
j.h.t.

"God's Not Dead" (film) - Some Sadly Flawed Arguments

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Archives

About Us:

What People have to Say: