OJBs Web Site: Instagram Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

(Go Up to OJB's Instagram Page)

The Greatest Message Debate

Entry 133, on 2015-02-02 at 10:26:28

This was a debate with a devout believer (who referred to himself as a "pulpit pounder") regarding the validity of religious laws, and inevitably evolving (see what I did there) into an argument about evolution.

Me Not rules and regulations in the sense of those created by a bureaucracy like courts or governments. Morality is more like an emergent property of social evolution.

Me Creating a god doesn't make the often arbitrary rules of your church any more real than they are without one. Those rules are still created by men, just like the god who is supposed to give them credibility is a creation of men.

Me In both theological and practical terms, John 3:16 is the essence of true bizarre nonsense. Think about it (for a change): God created man knowing he would sin, when he sinned God had to send His son/Himself down and then have him killed so that the sin which He created could be somehow neutralised. And you believe this crap? God sounds a bit mixed up to me!

Opponent I'm not surprised by your comment, for the Bible says the preaching of the Cross of Christ will seem like foolishness to the duped, deceived, and ignorant (1 Corinthians 1:18). Since in your worldview you deem yourself a glorified frog, the product of mere time and chance, etc., I can see why you have such an aversion to spiritual things, especially as it relates to the matter of sin. The Cross is God's cure for human sin, including your own. You have sinned, haven't you?

Me Define sin. According to some interpretations of your corrupt and immoral doctrine I have sinned, according to others I have not. How should I know which particular interpretation of sin I should follow? I prefer to follow natural morality instead. Sometimes that matches up with Christian doctrine, sometimes it doesn't.

Opponent Sin is the violation of God's law, or any sort of rebellion against His nature and will. This is not my definition, but God's, as no man can fabricate his own convictions when it comes to the matter of spirituality (See Romans 3:23). You say you prefer to follow "natural" morality, which, in essence, is no morality at all, because every action and behavior can be deemed "natural." Reject God and you have virtually NO moral valid, authoritative moral foundation to assert or embrace.

Me OK, so sin is violation of God's law. Which god and which interpretation of his laws? I'm sure Christians think it is their god and the Bible's interpretation but what if you're wrong? it could be another god and he might get mad if you follow the wrong one. Seems a bit risky to me. The best thing is to try to be moral according to your own ideas. If there is a god that should make him happy.

Opponent The whole "which God" argument is way overblown. It's just another light resisting, truth suppressing excuse designed to free you from any sense of accountability toward the true and living God. This is exactly what Psalm 2 declares (read it). You are "raging" against the reality of divine authority.

Me So you deny there are other possible gods? Do you deny there are people who follow other gods who are probably as committed as you? And do you deny that different groups have quite different interpretations of what is supposed to be the same god?

Me You say that without god there is virtually no moral foundation. That is only true if god is real and he is moral. We have no evidence supporting either of those points. The fact is humans have evolved a moral code which allows them to live together. This is similar in many different populations around the world, whether they accept Christianity or not. God is an invention of humans reflecting their moral code, not the other way around.

Opponent I said that without a law giver, without a belief in a Creator, there is no absolute, authoritative moral code. What is "natural" to you may not be "natural" to me when it comes to behavior. If society passed a law stating that incest and child molestation were legal, would that make it right? What I'm saying is absolutely correct. Without God there is not absolute moral foundation. Admit it, your godless, naturalistic viewpoint leaves you without a credible moral premise.

Me I agree there is no absolute morality without a moral god. But just because we want an absolute morality we shouldn't just invent a god to give it to us. Accepting the rules of an invented god is less moral than accepting your own natural morality, in my opinion. Also there are basic rules which all psychologically balanced people agree on: murder, theft, etc is bad in most cases. That is agreed with oir without a god.

Opponent Basically, what you are really saying is that theft and murder are "socially disadvantageous," but not actually wrong or evil. You say they are "bad", but according to what or whose moral code? What if I say they are good? Why the would your view be more valde than mine? Listen, you will never escape the FACT, FACE or FEELING of evil, because evil is a reality. Evil exists because there is indeed a God whose laws have been violated.

Me Yes, I don't think there really is something as simple as good and evil. Everything is related back to humans living together effectively. There are things which people almost universally see as good and evil though so the words are a useful description for these more complex ideas.

Me One more thing: if you think there are ultimate goods or evils can you give me an example of one?

Opponent Um, If you can't come up with one you've got a serious problem.

Opponent What is "bizarre" or, rather, "ludicrous" is the created thinking his wisdom is superior to his Creator. That pretty much describes you and your mentality. You aren't a glorified frog. Deal with it.

Me If there actually was a creator you might be right, although I would also say there are situations where the created could surpass the creator. Unfortunately for your argument we have no credible evidence at all that the creator even exists so the debate over who is superior is pointless! Don't even know how to respond to the "frog" comment. What's that all about?

Opponent Denying a Creator is the ultimate act of truth suppression. The universe did not evolve out of nothing, and certainly not by random chance and naturalistic processes. There is only ONE answer to what we see today, and that answer is belief in a supreme, all-powerful, all-wise CREATOR.

Me No, to be a truth-suppressor I would need to establish the truth first and there is no objective evidence your god exists so claiming his existence is true is itself not true! Strange as it may seem to you many intelligent people think your ONE answer is so full of holes that they are prepared to consider many others in preference.

Opponent The natural world alone dictates a Creator, and that is a reality you are indeed "suppressing." You've bought into the lie that man was an accident, a product of time and chance, and that is an absolutely absurd premise. Can you sufficiently answer the origin, purpose, morality and destiny questions from your atheistic worldview? You cannot. In fact, from the standpoint of your present worldview you are forced to "appreciate" all religion, because it must be "natural", right?

Me You offer your personal opinion that man being an accident (which is not what evolution claims anyway) is absurd. Maybe it is to you, but it isn't to almost every expert in the field. Who should I believe? Whether I can "sufficiently" answer the questions you state depends on your expectations. At least I can offer some sort of answer instead of "god did it" which isn't really an answer at all.

Opponent DNA is proof enough. Why do you continue to suppress the obvious? Life could never have come into being by accident, or by random natural processes. The only logical, sensible and satisfying premise to explain the world and universe today is... GOD.

Me You continue to offer your opinion that this couldn't have happened through a natural process even though it contradicts almost every expert on the subject. Did you ever consider that it is *you* who has the deficiency (an inability to accept the truth) rather than the theory of evolution being faulty in some way?

Opponent Design dictates a Creator. It's that simple and that logical. The wondrous creatures of this world are too improbable and too beautifully "designed to have come into existence by chance.

Me Well that's your opinion, but the facts are as follows: life on Earth is full of poor design and obvious flaws caused by one random change modifying the function of the one before it. And evolution is a "creator" in one sense, it's just a process of creation based on natural laws rather than some supernatural entity.