I’ve been told that my answer to the final “proof” of God is Imaginary (here) is a non-answer because it involves personal experience. But, the WWGHA forums (the owners of the site God is Imaginary) have touted this post as proof positive that God is imaginary.

The problem? The post involves someone’s personal experience. How can that post be considered evidence for anything? If my answer is a nonanswer, then this post means nothing.

On the other hand, why should the man’s experience have led him to atheism? Why does he decry God for waiting to answer his prayer? The story makes it clear: God answered his prayer in an unexpected way, it just wasn’t soon enough.

This is par for the course for anyone who believes the crap on WWGHA and GII. God is only allowed to answer prayers in a specific box-like, automaton fashion and they must be answered immediately. And, moreover, God is not allowed to use intermediaries–the answer must miraculously drop out of the sky to be considered a bona fide answer to prayer.

The real reason this man is an atheist? He’s mad at God for waiting. I pray he gets over it.

For those of you that don’t follow WordPress news, the blogging company has partnered with SocialVibe to use our blogs to help raise money for charity. You will notice on the left that I have a SocialVibe widget that donates money to Stand Up 2 Cancer, a cause with which I (as a cancer survivor) have much sympathy for. JCM is sponsored by Sprint, which means that for every click that my SocialVibe widget receives, Sprint will donate money to Stand Up 2 Cancer! It won’t cost you anything, so please click away and help stand up to cancer!

My laugh for today is this comment, from a reader who identifies himself as Steve:

How in God’s name are you going to publish a book? You work in fast food and don’t have the credentials or credibility to even think about a book. It’s almost insulting to the people who have spent much time and money in their education and relevent [sic] work experience. You can’t just say “I’m going to write a book” There are prerequisites.

I have to wonder if this guy would have said the same thing to a fashion editor publishing on the history of religion (Christopher Hitchens), an evolutionary biologist publishing on philosophy (Richard Dawkins), or someone with a high school education becoming a fellow of an academic think-tank (Tom Verenna, aka Rook Hawkins).

Atheists, when they publish, are granted free license to write about any topic they so choose. As long as it serves the name of atheism or anti-theism, they are granted credibility by their audience of admirers whether they have it or not.

The site that I’m answering in my proposed book, God is Imaginary, is allegedly written by Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks.com. According to Wikipedia, Brain has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a master’s in computer science. This qualifies a person to maintain websites debunking religion? Yet, that site is often referred to as a resource for debunking Christianity by many atheists online. The site has a credibility that it should not have.

As academic layman in the category of religion, Brain and I are equals. No one would take on these sites from the academic community because they aren’t argued from an academic perspective. Having an academic, such as William Lane Craig, I take on these sites would be overkill. Therefore, I’m the perfect candidate to write a rebuttal, since I am an academic layman also.

What happens if the credibility factor does become a problem, and agents and publishers reject the proposal based on that? No problem, I have other writing projects that I am working on at the moment where credibility isn’t a problem. I can always try again with this proposal in a few years, when I will have the academic credibility.

That said, I would like to welcome long-time reader John C back! I hope that you find this blog more to your liking. I promise not to focus so much on Rey’s replies, as I should be taking on the best arguments from the other side, not the worst arguments from our own.

My laugh of the day happened as I was scanning what searches generated traffic for me:

Of course I can see how my blog would pop up for most of those, but two made me laugh out loud. The first was “‘air force 1 plane’ remote control.” Where have I ever mentioned Air Force One? Maybe I referenced the movie once?

The second laugh was “calvinism’s evil heresy, 2009.” I can see how my blog would come up with a search on calvinism, but as part of an evil heresy? Mabye I should re-think Calvinism again?

Okay, I give up. There isn’t a market for this book, at least not with me as author. I will shelf this project temporaily, most likely permanently. Perhaps I will return to it when I have obtained my Th.M.

Though it has long been my position that homosexuality is nature, there is new scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. There may, in fact, be more environmental factors than genetic factors in the homosexual lifestyle.

More to the point, it appears that there is simply a lack of evidence to prove that there is a so-called “gay gene,” and that same sex attraction (SSA) is an environmentally induced decision. At least that is what Joseph Nicolosi, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic says.

His message to gays: You can change. He has had success in reparative therapies for homosexual persons, and believes that we, as Christians, should witness to our gay brothers and sisters and let them know that they don’t have to be homosexual. That homosexuality is nature rather than nurture is actually a political statement by the American Psychological Association (APA), and has no basis in scientific fact.

Read the entire article here.

Rey wonders out loud: “Where in the Bible does God declare that he is omniscient?” He then answers his own question: Nowhere. God never declares himself to be omniscient, or all-knowing. So we have to ask ourselves, must God declare something about himself for it to be true about himself? And, must something directly appear in the Bible for it to be true about God, or is it acceptable to deduce it from related Scriptures and/or natural theology?

Before we dive into these questions, it must be stated that I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture: that the Bible we possess is inspired and inerrant, and sufficient for all of the activities listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The problem in this entry is that Rey, the target of the criticism that I will present, doesn’t believe in inerrancy, nor does he believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Rey cherry-picks verses as inspired and uninspired to fit with what he believes about God. This is idolatry of the highest order.

That means that this criticism will likely fall under heavy fire from Rey in the form of rejecting the verses that I use as inspired.

It is not, mind you, that Rey rejects inspiration. He rejects plenary inspiration. He doesn’t believe that all of what we possess of the Bible is inspired, but he has yet to explain his system for accepting or rejecting verses.

Before offering my caveat, I posed two questions. The first question is, must God declare something about himself for it to be true about himself? I think that the Trinity serves as an example for this, for nowhere in the Bible does God declare, “I am a Trinity!” More to the point, no writer ever declares that God is a Trinity, either. Yet no orthodox Christian would deny that God is a Trinity.

So why is the Trinity an orthodox doctrine? Answer: Because it is one of the best supported doctrines inferred from other Scriptures. The writers of the New Testament assume that God is a Trinity as they write. Indeed, the Father and the Son often speak of themselves interchangeably; and the Son often refers to the Helper or Comforter as if the Son will be that Helper. Yet they also refer to their individual ministries as though they are separate people. Therefore, it is concluded that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in ontology and three in personhood.

The second question is, must something be directly stated in Scripture for it to be true, or is it acceptable to deduce it from related Scriptures and/or natural theology? Again, we refer to the Trinity as our example. Not only is this doctrine readily distilled from Scripture, but nature speaks to it as well. In nature, we see great diversity in life, but we also see unity within each ecosystem. We see great diversity in individual ecosystems, but unity of ecosystems when the planet is considered as a whole. The same, therefore, must be true of the planet’s designer.

In considering the unity of the natural world, the designer must be a single entity. Numerous entities would create chaos. If there were no entities, the world would default to chaos.

In considering the diversity of the natural world, the single designer must himself be diverse, otherwise why bother to create any diversity at all? The designer of anything works with what he knows, and if the designer of the planet is not diverse within his singleness, then it follows that the world he creates would not display the diversity that we clearly perceive.

The only deity that fits the bill of a unified yet diverse entity is the Holy Trinity described by Christianity. As the apostle Paul put it, the natural world testifies to God alone, and men are without excuse for knowing of his existence. Men cannot claim that they were simply ignorant of the God of this world, for he has left enough breadcrumbs to lead any reasonable person to him. This we can deduce from natural theology with minimal reference to Scripture.

Finally, a third question may also be posed. What is omniscience? After establishing that God need not declare something about himself for it to be true and deciding that it is acceptable to deduce doctrine from related Scriptures and natural theology, we come to the very core of the issue: the nature of omniscience itself. A good definition to work from would be the one offered by dictionary.com:

having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Let’s latch on to that last phrase, perceiving all things. It seems to me that omniscience is nothing more than an extension and consequence of omnipresence.

Before we explore that concept further, let’s return to Rey. Rey’s epistemology for declaring weather something is true of God is that God himself must declare it. It is fortunate for us that God declares himself as omnipresent in Jeremiah 23:23-24:

Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.

God is everywhere at once. Rey cannot dispute this since I have used his own criterion to prove it: God has declared that he is everywhere in heaven and on earth. Rey has also forcefully argued in the past that God is capable of thought, of processing information, and of changing his mind based on the input that he receives. I press this point only because it is important to understand that Rey believes that God senses his environment. Since God is everywhere at once, it follows as a natural consequence that God knows everything that can be known, based on the sensory input he receives, about this planet. Therefore, God is all-knowing without having to declare himself as such.

We have established only that God has perfect knowledge of the present, however. What we need to establish is that God also has perfect knowledge of the past and of the future in order to truly prove that God is omniscient. It is easier to begin with the past, then delve into the future.

As for the past, we can see several passages that indicate that God never forgets anything (cf. Heb 6:10 and Is 49:15). The strongest passage, following Rey’s criterion of God must declare it for it to be so, is Amos 8:7–”The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: ‘Surely I will never forget any of their deeds.’” God, therefore, has a perfect memory of the past.

God repeatedly equates knowing the future with being a deity. Look at Isaiah 40-48 for the best examples. Those chapters present a challenge to anyone who claims that God doesn’t know the future exhaustively (see here). One of the more clear statements can be found at Isaiah 48:5-6:

I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, ‘My idol did them, my carved image and my metal image commanded them.’ You have heard; now see all this; and will you not declare it? From this time forth I announce to you new things, hidden things that you have not known.

Still not convinced? Turn to Deuteronomy 18:20-22. God is telling the people not to fear a prophet who speaks a word that does not come to pass. God has supreme confidence in his ability to foretell the future. This is the kind of confidence that comes from the exhaustive divine foreknowledge of what the future holds. We can therefore conclude that God knows the future perfectly.

We have now, whether by direct statement or by inference, proven that God has an exhaustive and complete knowledge of the past, present, and future. Despite Rey’s claims, God is indeed omniscient.

Why on earth would an individual who is a committed pro-lifer think that it is okay to slay another person in cold blood? Inherent in the pro-life position is respect for the sanctity of all human life, as we are all bearers of God’s image. That includes people who are living in unrepentant sin.

What is repugnant to me are Christians who are actually enjoying this fiasco, saying that Tiller got what he deserved. The most common expression of this sort I hear is “What goes around comes around.” VJack of Atheist Revolution linked to this article listing tweets about Dr. Tiller. At the time of writing, 12% of respondents to a WorldNetDaily poll said they cheer the fact that Dr. Tiller is dead. Even two bloggers that I respect and like have applauded the fact that Dr. Tiller is dead, see here and here.

The fact of the matter is that God made all human beings in his image, male and female (Gen 1:27), saint and sinner. God prohibits murder (Ex 20:13). The apostle Paul said not to repay evil for evil (Rom 12:17; 1 The 5:15; see also 1 Pet 3:9), to let God administer justice in his own way in his own time (Rom 12:19; see also Prv 20:22). Therefore, we must conclude that vigilante justice of this sort is wrong.

What about people like Dr. Tiller, who live in abject and unrepentant sin? Did God not order the Israelites to commit mass genocide on the Canaanites, the Midianites, and the Amaelkites, all of whom lived in that same abject and unrepentant sin? That was Old Testament times, when the Israelites held the power to enforce God’s law. We hold no such power under the New Covenant of grace. Like Romans 12:19 teaches, leave it to God’s justice.

What further amazes me is that people are also rejoycing that Dr. Tiller is in hell. This is an affront to me for two reasons. First, we don’t know the condition of his soul; that is between him and God. We can’t know the state of someone else’s election. Second, as I’ve stated before, we should never rejoice in a soul going to hell. Hell isn’t a place we should wish on people; instead, we ought to focus on making our own calling and election sure (2 Pet 1:10).

If a Christian is haughty about the fact that he is going to heaven, while a baby-killer like Tiller is rotting in hell, this “Christian” ought to wonder if he is actually going to heaven. True devotion to God brings humility, not pride. No one is going to heaven on his or her own merit, but by imputed righteousness through faith in Christ. Think about that for just one moment. The Christian isn’t in heaven because he followed the right path; he’s in heaven because God had mercy on him! This ought to be humbling, for as Paul repeatedly has stated, boasting is excluded.

How much more to God’s glory would it have been to see Dr. Tiller repent of his sins and stop performing abortions? Alas, he was in a church that appears to tolerate his sins enough to let him serve. All too often, the American church tolerates sin and doesn’t challenge people to repent. This creates a false assurance of salvation for many people. That false assurance creates the haughtiness that we just talked about.

A real assurance of salvation, as the apostle Peter wrote, produces faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love. Lacking these qualities, people forget that God cleansed them of their former sins (2 Pet 1:5-9).

So, Christians, look at your reaction to the Dr. Tiller killing. Are you pleased that a baby-killer’s life was ended, and he is now in hell for his unrepentant sin? If so, you might have to do some growing as a Christian. If you believe that this sort of thing undermines the pro-life position, and you mourn that Dr. Tiller may have yet had a chance to repent, then you’re probably on the right track.

For those of you who don’t follow me on Facebook or Twitter, I wanted to take the time to make a very special announcement.

My wife and I are expecting our second child! I don’t have a due date yet, but I will post later with more information. This is almost a surprise, as we weren’t going to start trying until this month. We are certainly not disappointed that God has chosen to do things this way. His way is always better than our way!

Since I haven’t written in a while, I was surprised to find that Rey had posted an entry in his blog, since his posts generally respond to my own. This time, it looks as if things will be the other way around.

Normally, I ignore Rey but this time he has posted something that is such an obvious error that I can’t pass it up. He says that Hebrews 11:6 is proof that Calvinists cannot be saved as long as they are Calvinists. That simply isn’t true, and if Rey did his homework on the Reformed position, he’d know that. Far from disproving Calvinism, this verse actually solidifies the Reformed position!

First of all, faith is a gift from God. Don’t believe me? Check Galatians 5:22-23, which lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Those who have the Holy Spirit produce the listed fruits, which are gifts from God. Notice that faith is on that list! Unless God grants you faith, you can’t have it in the first place.

The Reformed position grants that people can seek God, but not apart from his drawing us (Jn 6:44). Those that are seeking God apart from that drawing (the non-elect, in other words) are seeking God for selfish motives. They don’t want to know God, they want the benefits of knowing God. This is not really diligently seeking God.

Regeneration, which precedes salvation and always produces a saving faith, is monergistic (i.e. it is God’s work only, with no human involvement). However, once regenerated, the sanctification process is synergistic (i.e. requires human involvement). This means that the person has a saving faith, and now will diligently seek God (having his heart inclined to God).

So far from disproving the Reformed position, this verse is actually perfectly consistent with it.