Atheism's Dishonest Redefinition of Faith

Atheist popularizers dishonestly conflated faith with blind faith to support their dishonest argument that materialism has evidence while no religion has evidence.

It's human nature to get frustrated, even angry, when people use dishonest arguments to argue against your position. Atheists always irritate me by using a dishonest definition of faith to score rhetorical, but illogical, points. Most do so in ignorance, so I have to practice some self-control when responding. If I point out the dishonesty of the rhetoric, I have to emphasize that I'm accusing the originators of the trick of dishonesty, not them.

Faith is not necessarily decided in the absence of evidence. That definition was popularized over the couple of decades by promoters of Atheism such as Dawkins and Boghosian. Those pop-science writers equivocated by conflating faith with blind faith. 

Faith, honestly defined, is active trust in the absence of absolute proof. I use the redundancy in “absolute proof” for emphasis. Blind faith is a subset; classifying all faith as meeting the definition of blind faith and then relegating faith to religion, to the exclusion of other matters, especially science, was deceptive rhetoric on the part of the popularizers.

Belief overlaps faith because it is a decision about a claim. The difference is that faith is active. Faith influences decisions, whereas belief can be active or passive. That is, one can accept a claim “in theory” without letting it influence decisions. 

(Grammatically, believe is a transitive verb: one believes a claim. Sometimes, the believed claim is implied. In contrast, faith is a noun that labels an active belief.) 

Can anthropogenic climate change be proven? No. Can the claim be believed? Yes. Can one put faith in it? Yes. Is there sufficient evidence (e.g., long-term history or evidence that politically- or career-motivated managers in the science industry fudge the numbers) to create reasonable doubt? Also yes.

Since issues such as climate change depend on evidence in the absence of proof, believe and faith are perfectly applicable terms in the realm of science. Technically, they lie outside the rules of the process of science, but they certainly apply to scientists, the public, and the policies and cancel culture that rely on scientific issues and evidence. One can honestly conclude, based on observation,  that fearmongering over climate-change crosses into religious (or at least ideological) zeal. 

To say that faith applies to religion and not to science is to mislead — and on the part of Atheists who popularized the bad definition, to use such rhetoric is to deceive. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Judge Jesus: "Full of Himself?

Answering a question on Quora:

Why is Jesus so full of himself that he would condemn good loving peaceful people to an eternity in a burning lake of fire that doesn't worship him as a god?

First off, you’re not really “full of yourself” if you really are “all that.” Jesus is “all that.” If you understood the unimaginable precision of the constants of physics required to keep the universe from collapsing or exploding, you’d be just beginning to understand the greatness of God the Son. If you understood the virtual impossibility of the chain of events beginning with the formation of the right types of amino acids all having the same geometries, forming the right proteins, forming the right components that enable self-replication of RNA and DNA, and the half-gigabyte of quaternary-encoded information that enables the duplication of that environment (as well as itself) in even the simplest hypothetical biological organism, you would be just beginning to grasp how great God the Son is. He is “all that.” He is all that by nature, He is all that by virtue of being your Creator, and He is all that by virtue of the price He paid to secure your potential redemption.

Second, if you grasped the utter perfection and holiness of God the Son, you would never pretend that there’s such a thing as “good” people, This error normally results from judging people relative to ourselves or from judging ourselves relative to other imperfect people, rather than judging relative to God’s standard. What, you think your “good” outweighs your bad? Do you really think you can pay off your debts with what you already owe to your Creator? What, you think you’re perfect? You’ve never done anything wrong? Now who’s full of himself?!

Third, the unholiness of man and the holiness of God’s presence cannot coexist. The unholiness of a human would defile and insult an utterly righteous and holy God, and the glory of God would be unbearable to an unholy, unregenerated human. Neither could stand the other! Hell is not a problem, but rather, a solution.

Fourth, saying that not worshiping Christ as God sends people to hell is like saying one link in a chain suspends the load. It’s a flawed focus on a single symptom. God provided a means of redemption and regeneration. He offers it as a gift. Refusing that gift is the ultimate sin; it is a sin against oneself. But nobody goes to hell for that sin alone; it is merely one among many.

Hell was created for Lucifer and the angels who followed him in rebellion against God. We are born as citizens of Lucifer’s kingdom, and we all ratify that with by breaking God’s commandments. God’s gift can regenerate us so we gain citizenship in God’s kingdom. If we are so full of ourselves that we fail to receive that gift, we have only ourselves to blame.

Fear of hell is not a wrong reason to receive the gift and then worship God. But there is a better reason. God is good. In fact He is the ultimate standard of goodness. He not only gave us life, but also, at His own expense, created the means for our forgiveness, redemption, and regeneration. He balanced justice and love by paying a price that would have destroyed any mere human. In His kindness, He freely offers that to each of us.

When we rebel against physical laws, we pay a price. The price of rebelling against gravity by walking off a cliff is paid when you hit the bottom. You have only yourself to blame. Likewise, there is a moral law. If we fail to receive the gift of redemption, we will hit the bottom in hell. And how much more accountable will be those who actively reject the gift.

You can reframe the consequences to shift the blame to the One who enforces the law. You may rage against Him for all eternity. But in all honesty, you will have only yourself to blame. 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please cite sources when copying.

Benevolent Hell

Answering a question on Quora:

Is there anything benevolent about hell, no, right?

Yes, wrong.

First, consider the question’s two non sequiturs.

A. Taken literally, the question assigns moral significance to hell. However, hell is merely a place. In itself, it is neutral. Saying, “no, right?” is like saying that the law of gravity is evil because a tourist stood too close to the edge of a waterfall. Any moral significance derives not from the existence of hell, but from how it is used. In other words, whether it is benevolent or not depends on whether it is used justly or unjustly.

B. Whether hell is used at all by a human is like the tourist and the waterfall. The tourist can use the trail to walk away, and the human can use the Way God provided to walk away from a sentence of hell. The Way (John 14:6) is available to all. An intellectually honest person will realize that any fault, any lack of benevolence, must be assigned on the basis of the answer to this question: If there is a lack of benevolence, who is responsible, the One who provides the way of escape, or the one who decides to ignore the law of justice? 

Ignoring the non sequiturs, consider the question itself.

Violating God’s laws insults infinite God and disrespects His plans for us to have relationship with Him. Would God be benevolent to Himself if He ignored such insult and allowed unredeemed sinners to defile His presence?

Let’s take an extreme case: When Hitler’s Dr. Joseph Mengele dissected people alive, would it have been benevolent to Mengele’s victims if God ignored justice?

Now let’s take the case of people who use their judgment about hell as a rationalization for refusing God’s gift of redemption. In essence, they refuse to be rescued from a sentence of punishment for their sins. (Rejecting God and His gift is merely one sin out of many.) They refuse the post-mortem transformation that would allow them to enjoy God’s presence. Would it be benevolent to force them to endure the “unapproachable light” in which God dwells (1 Timothy 6:16)?

Hell was created not for us, but for the devil and the demons. By tempting Adam to revoke his citizenship in heaven, the devil trapped all of us in his own kingdom. He triggered all the suffering and death in history, including the suffering of any human cast into hell. If God did not prepare a hell in which to punish the devil, would God be benevolent to the human race?

My conclusion is that hell is, indeed, benevolent. But by itself, it is a half-truth.

God prepared a way to resolve the tension between justice and love. He provided Himself a sacrifice sufficient to redeem us from our sins and rescue us from the consequences of justice. God the Son paid the price at His own expense. This leads to a final question that returns us to the first question: If God debased the price He paid to rescue us from hell and thus demeaned Himself, would He be benevolent to Himself?

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Jesus: Only Way to God the Father

Answering a question on Quora: 

Where in the Bible does it say the only way to the Father is through the Son?

New Testament

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Acts 4:12

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

Note that approaching the Father requires “being saved.” This means that God must do what we cannot: redeem, regenerate, justify, and sanctify. Since the Son provided the means of redemption, it is not too much to ask that we acknowledge that the Son is whom He is and receive the gift as a free gift.

Old Testament

Psalm 2:11–12

Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Additional Evidence

The relationship between the Son and the Father is defined explicitly in the New Testament. Old Testament clues are there, but relevant passages are better interpreted in hindsight, that is, in light of the New Testament.

The first clue is in the opening lines of the Bible, where God says, let us make…. People who deny that the one God used creative power over space-time to experience it as three Persons frequently explain away “us” as a “royal we.” However, the literal interpretation is reinforced by the plural, “Gods,” in In the beginning Gods created the the heavens and the Earth. And the unity of the plural Gods is reinforced by the singular number of made. The best interpretation is that one God exists in space-time as three Persons in communication with each other.

Another clue, less clear in the Old Testament, is that, while God remains in heaven and unseen by any human, He also walked the earth in the appearance of a human. This can be traced from the Garden of Eden, through Abraham’s entertainment of strangers, to God’s revelation of Himself to Moses. The earthly liaison, so to speak, gave Himself a descriptive name, I AM — as contrasted with all other gods, who are not. He chose this name for our sakes but does not actually need one. No previous god existed with the authority to name Him, and no other god exists from whom He needs to be distinguished.

(The Hebrew word translated I AM and the LORD is YHWH. Note that the word has no vowels and the pronunciation was lost a few centuries before Jesus was born. Anybody who makes a big show about its pronunciation “knows” more than what the facts establish.)

To prevent desecration of God’s “name,” translators began a tradition of translating YHWH as the LORD (in capital letters). This is the God whom all Jews and Christians aspire to know.

In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth reveals Himself to be YHWH, the I AM (John 8:58), the Word who was God, who was in the beginning with God, and through whom all created things were created (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). In this light, passages such as Isaiah 9:6 make sense:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

If you aspire to know the Lord, that is, God or God the Father, you aspire to know the Son. If you know the Son, you know the Father as well (John 14:7–11), but you cannot know the Father if you reject that the Son is who He says He is (John 8:9).

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

God Shoulda Created an All-Good Universe

An Absurd Atheist Remedy for the Problem of Evil

Many atheists argue that, if God has foreknowledge, He should have created a universe in which evil would not exist. The argument has multiple non sequiturs.

• Evil is not a thing that "exists." As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good and therefore the rejection of God. 
  
  
• The argument assumes that preventing His rejection (i.e., creating a vacuum that constitutes “evil”) would have been better than what He did create. 
  
  
• Using the word “better” makes a moral judgment based on either the atheist's mere personal preferences, which have no authority, or a standard the atheist rejects, God's goodness. So the atheist has no foundation on which to say one thing would be "better" than another.
  
  
• The argument assumes that no higher purpose exists that justifies God's allowance of His rejection. For example, it ignores that, in an all-good-always universe, love, mercy, and grace would be meaningless, and no creature would, by nature, be worthwhile for God to have a relationship with.
  
  
• In an all-good-always universe, only one option exists: God's perfect will. Any other choice would be non-compliance and, therefore, evil. If non-compliance with the perfect were an option, evil would happen. But if evil cannot happen, only one option exists. Thus, choice would be non-existent. Love, mercy, grace, and any other good would be meaningless because they would be forced. In fact, love, mercy, and grace would not exist because they would not be needed.
  
  
• The argument assumes that temporary material existence, not an everlasting spiritual existence that takes into account things done during material existence, is the correct courtroom in which to judge God’s plans. 

The argument is often accompanied by a claim that God created imperfection or evil. That is like saying that if I build a house and my client rejects me by vandalizing the house, I made a vandalized house. Like the main argument, it’s logically absurd. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. For your own conscience's sake, please give credit where credit is due. (You do know what remunerated means, don't you?)

One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated

Responding to questions in a thread:

One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated

Background

Me: The “religion” of Noah and Moses was the same “religion,” handed down from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Jacob’s (“Israel’s”) twelve sons. In Egypt, most of Israel forgot those beliefs and adopted Egyptian practices. Moses merely wrote it down as God restored it and elaborated on it.

Response: Does that mean Jesus modified and changed the eternal religion by deeming everything allowed to be eaten?

Secondly, do you have a proof of your claim that it was the same religion, or is it just a conjecture?

Response

First, the trend of the “religion” of Elohim/YHWH/Jesus as defined in the Bible has a constant thread of depending on God instead of on self-righteousness, and being rewarded with enjoying a personal relationship with God. The doctrines of the “religion” developed through punctuated elaboration. That is, at various times, more details were added so that it forms a continuum, just like the education of any student. The Jewish authorities of Jesus’s time dropped out by rejecting the next layer of elaboration and the corrections that laid its groundwork.

To me, calling that process “modifying and changing” is like saying that conducting a student from sixth grade into seventh grade is “changing” his education. There is a change in the student’s stage, but the stages of the plan have been there all along. So, from the religionist’s perspective, perhaps; from the Planner’s perspective, no.

Just as some schools will put part of their students on a path toward manual vocations and others on a path toward college, God separated the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the world. The purpose of the Abrahamic path became clear when God singled out Jacob’s descendants to become Israel, a nation of priests to the world (they failed miserably) and the path through which the Redeemer would come. A special role required special policies.

The Mosaic Law had a number of purposes, among which was conveying a message about holiness. The need for holiness was symbolized, for example, by dietary regulations. However:

• The dietary regulations were part of the Mosaic Covenant (or “Law” or “contract”) between God and Israel. The Law never had jurisdiction outside of Israel (“gentiles”).
  
  
• Israel abrogated the Law through breach of contract, violating it repeatedly, ultimately by rejecting the promised Messiah.
  
  
• God abrogated the Law by fulfilling it through the Messiah (“Christ”).
  
  
• God supplanted the Law with a new covenant (“New Testament”) with simplified requirements: Trust the sacrifice of Christ for redemption instead of trusting self-righteousness; Love God; love your neighbor; and love fellow believers. The simplification was new, but it continued “the spirit of the Law” that had always existed.

The butterfly is still the same creature that it was when it was a caterpillar. When a child discards the toys of a toddler in favor of the toys of a pre-pubescent, the process of maturation is not “modified or changed.” You aren’t changing the “religion” by moving it into a more mature phase.

Second, the genealogies do not say, “X begat Y and taught him his religion, and Y begat Z and taught him his religion,” etc. However, the whole of the scriptures emphasize that beliefs are passed from generation to generation; that the beliefs God defines should be passed down; and there were generations such as Abel, Seth, and Enoch between Adam and Noah that were specifically said to walk with God. And isn’t it the hope of every parent that their child will follow their religious (or non-religions) belief?

I’m accustomed to people (specifically, atheists) who ask for “proof,” demanding unreasonable, tangible, irrefutable, complete, and constantly available evidence. Since time machines are fantasy, I’m prejudiced to say that, according to their standards, “No, there’s no proof.” But if you’re a reasonable person, I’m sure a time machine won’t be necessary. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated reuse. Please give credit where credit is due.

Why the Universe Couldn't Always Have Existed

 Answering a question on Quora:

If God always existed and did not need to be created, why is not possible that the universe always existed and did not need to be created?

The question needs a two-part answer. First, I want to clarify: For many, establishing the existence of God must precede establishing that God has revealed Himself. A debates over Big Bang cosmology versus various versions of Creationism is a subsequent issue. It can wait. One step at a time.

...why is [it] not possible that the universe always existed and did not need to be created?

Theoretical physicists don’t believe the universe is eternal. They believe it began 13.787±0.020 billion years ago. According to General Relativity, “universe” includes not only mass and energy, but also space-time.

1. Obviously, if the universe began to exist a finite time ago, it could not have always existed.
2. “Always existed” implies an infinite past. If space-time began during the inflationary period as physicists believe it did, then there was no earlier past in which the universe could have existed.
3. Due to increasing entropy, an infinitely old universe would have experienced heat death, long ago. Even if the universe were cyclical or a child universe, entropy would have been preserved through the rebirths or births, so an infinitely old series of cycles would still have produced a dead universe long ago.
4. If the universe began in the infinite past, it would be impossible to traverse an infinite time to get to “now.”
5. It would be impossible to traverse an infinite series of real things or events such as birth-rebirth cycles.

At the minimum, the universe had to begin to exist. This leads to a tangent: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. From the characteristics of the universe and of life, we can infer a number of attributes such as unimaginable power, creative power over space-time that enables spatial and temporal omnipresence, unimaginable levels of intelligence and craftsmanship — attributes of a Creator-God.

If God always existed and did not need to be created….

Again, “always existed” implies an infinite past. That has already been refuted. Theist apologists familiar with cosmology do not say God always existed. They say God had to exist “before” the universe. Since time is an attribute of the universe itself, and the universe had a beginning a finite time ago, God existed outside of time (not “always”).

While God existed outside of time, He also can enter into time. If God created the universe, and time is an attribute of the universe, then God has creative power over time. With such a creative power, God can enter into time, experience it, and interact with His creatures.

In fact, with such creative power, God can enter into space-time as multiple Persons or centers of consciousness. Being Spirit and not matter, the impossibility of two masses existing at the same time and location do not apply. And being timeless and spaceless combines with creative power so that coexisting as three Persons having the same essence (spiritual “substance”) does not create any paradoxes. But the fact of a triune God must be revealed; it cannot be deduced, sensed, or detected.

As with an infinite universe or cycle of universes, an infinite regression of gods creating gods is impossible. If there were a chain of gods creating gods, one of them must be the First Cause. This might make sense causally, but remember, you lack time during which sequences such as need and creation could occur. The idea of God being created is nonsensical in a condition that lacks the dimension of time.

One link in the chain of gods is as far as the evidence and logic permit us to go, and One is enough. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use; and remember to give credit where credit is due.

Jesus was not Joseph Campbell's hero

Answering a question on Quora:

Is the book of Matthew a monomyth?

In my opinion, the Gospel According to Matthew has some elements of a monomyth but lacks the most critical characteristic.

According to Wikipedia, monomyth is a term from narratology Narratology and Comparative mythology, popularized by Joseph Campbell as the Hero's journey. The monomyth, is the common template of stories that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, is victorious in a decisive crisis, and comes home changed or transformed.

Atheists believe Matthew is mythological, but it was intended as biographical; and good historical evidence supports that. While the book may be biographical, it remains narrative, so I would not exclude it from being a “hero’s journey” just because it is factual. There are better reasons.

Wikipedia includes a quote from Campbell that boils the Hero’s Journey cycle to such simple elements that Matthew could qualify as monomyth. However, that quote oversimplifies the cycle.

If you are familiar with Matthew and compare the events in Matthew to the graphic on Wikipedia’s page, you will find monomyth elements such as a mentor (God the Father), although mentorship precedes the narrative. Jesus of Nazareth has helpers (primarily the God the Holy Spirit), but his disciples are more dependents than helpers. Jesus of Nazareth gains victory over a climactic challenge — a torturous, humiliating death — resulting in the transformation of His body, but His character remains unchanged, since the core of His being was always fully formed. Jesus does not really return “home.” After His victory, He sporadically appears to His disciples to convince them of His victory and
deliver parting messages, but Matthew does not include the return home because "home" is God's throne. (The return home is described in Luke’s book, The Acts of the Apostles.)

Matthew lacks a self-revelation that transforms Jesus. Rather, Matthew turns much of the template upside down. Instead of being changed, Jesus changes the world. Specifically, Jesus transforms the relationship between God and humans. What people previously saw only through ceremonial metaphors and through clouded prophecies, they came to know historically and personally. What was previously conditional and superficial, He made unconditional and everlasting. (To support this statement, I would need to go into theological differences between Old Testament and New Testament salvation, which would stray off topic.)

Matthew does not qualify as monomyth. Rather than experiences transforming the Hero, the Hero’s experience enables transformation of the audience. The intent of Matthew is not to entertain readers with a transformed hero’s journey, but rather, to transform readers and send them on their own journeys.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated purposes, provided credit is given where credit is due.

God's Name: Holy, But Not Magic

Another question from Quora

Why are some words capitalized in the Bible?

Which Bible? Which words?

A. Others have explained how words such as pronouns are capitalized out of reverence when the words refer to God. Sometimes that practice is helpful because ancient writers were not always clear about whom a pronoun referred to. If a sentence referred to a prophet, a king, and God, figuring out which one of them “he” refers to might be difficult. When the pronounce is capitalized, you know that at least the translator believes it refers to God.

B. The New American Standard Bible uses all-capitals to identify quotations, particularly quotations from the Old Testament.

C. But I think what you really want to know about is the word LORD, in all capital letters.

Before the time of the exodus from Egypt, those who worshiped God referred to Him descriptively as “God” or “Lord.” Egypt had many gods, so after God told Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses wanted a name so he could tell the Israelites who sent him to them. God answered, “Tell them I AM has sent you.” That name was spelled YHWH. Hebrew did not have vowels, so if you did not learn Hebrew by hearing it, you would not know how to pronounce the name.

A thousand years later, Israel had departed from worshiping YHWH. God removed His protection, so other nations destroyed Israel and deported the leaders for seventy years. When the leaders were sent back to Israel a few years before 530 BC to re-establish the nation, they had learned their lesson and become extremely serious about worshiping God.

They became so serious that they refused to pronounce that holy name, YHWH. Consequently, later generations forgot how to pronounce it! By the time of Christ’s birth, it had become regular practice to add the vowels from Adonai (“Lords”) to YHWH to make YaHoWaH.

Since the actual pronunciation was lost, this new pronunciation stuck. Over time, the name was Hellenized for Greek translations. Then that was Latinized for Roman translations. Then that was Anglicized for English translations. That’s how it came to be pronounced Jehovah. Sometimes, some translations use the name Jehovah; other times, they use LORD in its place.

LORD is still used in place of YHWH in many modern translations. Sometimes LORD is used for Adonai, too, especially in compound names such as Adonai Elohim (literally, “Lords Gods,” but often translated “LORD God”). It’s done partly out of respect, partly out of tradition, and partly because we have no confidence that Yahowah is the correct pronunciation. It’s just assumed that readers know; but obviously, not everybody does.

Watch out for organizations of movements that stress knowing God’s “name” such as Yah, Yahweh, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, or Jehovah. They take advantage of people who lack biblical education. It’s good to learn the meanings that words and names convey. However, God understands all human languages, even when we mispronounce His name. Biblical faith is not a religion of sorcery and incantations wherein the words themselves have power. Our goal is to know and experience God, not magical words.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Free for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due rather than committing plagiarism.

Omniscience Is No Paradox for God

Answering a question on Quora

Sometimes, the answers on Quora are so bad, you have to add your own answer, even if the question is so elementary that any diction should give an adequate answer, because people who post questions tend to be most influenced by the first answers they read.

What does it mean to be "omniscient"?

Omniscient combines the prefix omni-, “all,” with the Latin root word scientia, “knowledge.” To be omniscient is to know all knowable information. For a more complete definition, watch the opening of the video below, titled, “Omniscience Paradox Debunked.”

Contrary to some objections, a Being with omniscience does not take away free will. Suppose you see someone whose face has lost its color, their eyes have become glassy and unfocused, and their body has started wobbling; and he says, “I’m going to faint.” You now have good reason to believe (“know”) that he’s going to faint. Has your knowledge taken away his choice to either continue standing or to lie down before he loses consciousness? Of course not. Similarly, an omniscient Being’s knowledge of what we decide to do or believe does not limit the freedom of our wills.

It could be argued that, if you knew the consequences of every option you do or do not choose, there would be no meaning to anything. This argument assumes that meaning comes from ignorance of future success or failure. Human motivation peaks when the ratio of success to failure calculates at around 2/3 — significantly higher for some, significantly lower for others. Motivation fades if one either succeeds too often or fails too often. But it is presumptuous to project a human tendency onto a Being who has attributes of perfection such as omniscience. Such a Being could derive meaning from other factors such as demonstrating justice, love, and an unimaginably intricated level of planning.

Some see a paradox in knowing even one’s future choices. If you already knew in the past what you were going to choose now, then you aren’t making a choice now. But this merely shows the falsehood of the assumption that you will make choices in the future. Any choices would already have been made through the same mechanism that endowed omniscience. Imagine the gears of a mechanical watch. The gears firmly enmesh so that all move together. Similarly, choices and knowledge could enmesh so that, if one exists, so does the other.

Further reading (or listening):

• What does it mean that God is omniscient?
• What Determines the Future?
• Doctrine of God (Part 13): Systematic Study of God’s Omniscience | Reasonable Faith
• God's Omniscience and Man's Free-will (William Lane Craig)
• Omniscience Paradox Debunked
• You might want to read answers to questions already on Quora, “What is omniscience?” and “Does an omniscient being know it's omniscient?”

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, and please give credit where credit is due.

Moral Monsters: Deviants from Objective Morality

From a question on Quora:

If God the Father of life is All-Holy and objectively moral, then wouldn’t the definition of a true monster be anything that is subjectively moral and anti-life or anti-God?

I would start with a dictionary definition of monster. Most definitions are subjective. I like the definition from biology given on Dictionary.com because it implies a standard:

an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure, as from marked malformation or the absence of certain parts or organs; a grossly anomalous fetus or infant, especially one that is not viable.

We can apply this definition to morality. Monster: a personal being having a set of principles, thoughts, or behaviors, from lacking or deviating from objectively moral principles.

I wanted to say that a hypothetical person’s subjective morality could coincide with the objective morality that is based on God’s character. Such a person would not be a monster. However, basing morality on the wrong foundation, personal opinion, would make one a monster because ignoring objective morality requires rejecting God’s sovereignty; and rejecting God’s sovereignty is immoral. So it would be impossible to be subjectively moral without deviating from objective morality.

Is every person that is not objectively moral subjectively moral? One could say that because, if morals are not based on an objective standard, then they are based on a subjective one. Ah, but there are monsters who have no morals at all. They may have a personal code based on what is convenient, profitable, or pleasurable. That is emotional or pragmatic, not principled, so it would be incorrect to call it “morality.”

The grammar describes a true monster as subjectively moral and anti-life or as subjectively moral and anti-God. In this context, and requires that both be true. The construction implies that people who are pro-life but subjectively moral and people who are pro-God but subjectively moral are not monsters.

Furthermore, the anti-life and anti-God positions are subjective morals, so they are redundant. The phrase is like saying a motorcycle is not a car and tires or a car and bumpers when the tires and bumpers are part of the car.

Does it flow from If God the Father of life is All-Holy and objectively moral that subjective morality is monstrous? If objective morality is based on God’s character, specifically, His holiness, then the link that contrasts God’s holiness against subjective morality is indirect. That means that God’s holiness is background information rather than part of the premise.

It is necessary for objective morality to exist in order for subjective morality to be anomalous. There’s no such thing as an anomaly without such a thing as normal. It is also necessary that normality is desired or intended, which requires an agent who desires or assigns a goal or purpose. However, desire or intent, like God’s holiness, is not directly related to whether one meets the objective requirements.

So refining the original statement should include:

• Account for the worst monster, the amoral person.
• Restate anti-life or anti-God as examples of subjective morals (and perhaps be a bit more specific).
• Treat as background or trim information about God being holy (and imposing a requirement that His creatures be objectively moral.
• Use attitudes about God and the sacredness of life as examples rather than as requirements.

A better phrasing would be: God the Father of life requires of moral beings an objective morality based on His holy character. Since objective morality exists and is part of our original, intended design, a moral monster is any person who is amoral or subjectively moral. Examples of subjectively moral principles might include promoting atheism or non-medically-necessary abortion.

The elephant in the room includes a practical application of the definition.

Although some of us aspire to match our morality to God’s objective standard, we all retain subjective morals and fall short even of those. We are all moral monsters. None of us is born with the moral perfection intended in God's children. We are all spiritually deformed and spiritually non-viable. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. 

God took responsibility for allowing us to bring moral monstrosity into the world by providing for redemption at His own expense. If we recognize our monstrosity, agree that we have earned the consequences, and entrust ourselves solely to the One who redeems us from our moral debt, then God will begin the process of transforming us from monsters back into the works of art that He originally designed us to be. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but please remember to give credit where credit is due.

Another Silly Question about God's Origin

From answering a question on Quora:

Does God know where he came from?

The question assumes that God “came from” somewhere. According to Christian scriptures, theology, and philosophers, God created the universe. Without a universe, no “then,” “there,” “source,” or “cause” existed from which God could come. So the question is broken.

Perhaps the asker meant, “What was the source or origin of God?” Again, without time, sequences such as going from non-existence to cause, to creation, to existence are nonsensical. Nevertheless, many Atheists ask the same question differently, asking, “Who created God?”

If God had a creator, who created him? And who created the Creator’s creator? And who created the Creator’s creator’s creator? Once you insist that the Creator had to have a creator, you create an infinite regression. It doesn’t work. If you started at a time infinitely in the past, and then pass through time, you could never get to our “now” because that would take an infinite length of time. In an infinite length of time, no matter how much time passes, there’s still more time that needs to pass before you can get to our “now.” Similarly, if you start with an infinitely precedent creator, you could never get to the current Creator. The assumption that God had a creator creates a mathematical impossibility.

The above analysis brings us to another problem. If God created the universe, then He created all the attributes and artifacts of the universe, including time, which cosmology and physics tell us had a beginning in the Inflationary period that became the Big Bang. If God created time, then He has an existence outside of time. And if God exists outside of time, then saying that He must have had a beginning and a creator is like saying that the number seven must have a color and a temperature. “Beginning” is meaningless without time, so, again, the assumption that God had a beginning creates a practical impossibility.

The question is in the class of questions such as “Why did God do this?” and “Why didn’t God to that?” It requires knowing the mind of God. Such questions require either God revealing His knowledge or reasoning to us, speculating, or reading god’s mind. I’m not a god, and I don’t believe anybody else who uses Quora is a god, either, so reading the memories in God’s mind is out of the question. That leaves us with either revelation or speculation. According to revelation through the Christian scriptures, God is self-existent and created the universe. From that, we can say that God does not "know" the incorrect assumption that He had an origin. If you reject revelation, then giving an authoritative answer is impossible. And the impossibility of giving an answer can only prove, at best, human limitations.

There’s a common practice of posing rhetorical questions as a substitute for actual arguments. Rhetorical questions can be used to hide false assumptions and faulty logic. The person answering the question has to restate the question as a claim and then detect the assumptions and logic and their flaws. So, if the intent is to discourage belief in God, the question is more specious than logical. (I don’t assume that the asker had that intent. I’m just pointing it out because others do use such flawed rhetoric.)

To sum up, the question is a non sequitur, meaning that it assumes facts not in evidence. And the concise answer is, no, God would not “know” something that is impossible and meaningless.

For further background:

• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but please give credit where credit is due.