Apologetics Made Simple

Equipping the Next Generation of Believers

A God Problem-A Response to Peter Atterton

by 1 Comment

Introduction

Peter Atterton is a professor of philosophy at San Diego State University. On March 25th, 2019, he wrote an article that attacks the coherence of God as described in the Bible (or so he thinks). The things of God cannot be understood by the natural man, yet they do sometimes try. I have found that every time a philosopher, professional or not, tries to critique the God of the Bible, they show that they do not know much about the God of the Bible at all. This can be due to a lack of intellectual aptitude, but I believe that many times, this is a spiritual issue that comes from not having their minds renewed to the things of God. Indeed, no matter how learned a man is by worldly standards, he cannot grasp the things of God. An education on secular philosophy from a secular institution is inadequate to comprehend the things of God, and Atterton’s article stands as a testimony to this notion. 

Responding to Atterton

 

Atterton:

If you look up “God” in a dictionary, the first entry you will find will be something along the lines of “a being believed to be the infinitely perfect, wise and powerful creator and ruler of the universe.” Certainly, if applied to non-Western contexts, the definition would be puzzling, but in a Western context this is how philosophers have traditionally understood “God.” In fact, this conception of God is sometimes known as the “God of the Philosophers.”

Response:

Do we have to be bound by what western philosophers think? What does ‘perfection’ mean in this context? The concept of God given in this definition is not sufficient unless the terms that are attributed to God in his definition are defined. This is not necessarily Atterton’s fault because many theistic philosophers fail to define these terms as well. 

So, we will begin by defining ‘God.’ ‘God’ is the deity described in the Bible in the 66 books of what is typically called the Protestant Canon. There are many attributes that describe God as a result of this definition, but the relevant ones are as follows: God’s will always prevails (Proverbs 19:21), God’s ways are complete and wise (Deuteronomy 32:4), and he is powerful (Psalm 147:4-5). For more information on God’s omnipotence, you may read this article.

Atterton:

Let’s first consider the attribute of omnipotence.

You’ve probably heard the paradox of the stone before: Can God create a stone that cannot be lifted? If God can create such a stone, then He is not all powerful, since He Himself cannot lift it. On the other hand, if He cannot create a stone that cannot be lifted, then He is not all powerful, since He cannot create the unliftable stone. Either way, God is not all powerful.

Response:

I have answered the omnipotence paradox here. In my article, ‘omnipotence’ is defined as the ability to carry out one’s will perfectly. Thus, this paradox is inapplicable to the God of the Bible because omnipotence is tied to God’s will (which cannot be frustrated (Job 42:2)). Thus, what is considered logical has nothing to do with the Biblical definition of omnipotence. Since God’s will always comes to pass, God is omnipotent. Our answer to the paradox would not be predicated upon his ability to lift the rock (and of course, he can lift any stone, period), rather, it would be predicated on whether or not God wills to lift the rock. 

Atterton:

…there are other problems to contend with. For example, can God create a world in which evil does not exist? This does appear to be logically possible. Presumably God could have created such a world without contradiction. It evidently would be a world very different from the one we currently inhabit, but a possible world all the same. Indeed, if God is morally perfect, it is difficult to see why he wouldn’t have created such a world. So why didn’t He?

Response:

This problem has been answered in this article. First, I reject the notion that evil and suffering is incompatible with the Bible. The presence of evil and suffering is a very important part of the Bible’s message. Why then, is there evil? It is because God has good intentions for evil in this world. In the Bible, the will is predicated upon intent, not causality, and this is how God’s Will is distinguished from man’s will (Genesis 50:20, Proverbs 19:21, Proverbs 16:9). Though a creation’s intentions are not always good, God is powerful enough to where God can use evil deeds to accomplish great things, for, as previously discussed, his will cannot be frustrated. Thus, God remains all good and there is no contradiction between God’s goodness and the presence of evil. Furthermore, in order to demonstrate that God does not have good intentions for evil, Atterton would have to be omniscient, for how else could consideration of every possible reason for evil be exhausted?

Atterton:

What about God’s infinite knowledge — His omniscience? ….Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum…There are some things that we know that, if they were also known to God, would automatically make Him a sinner, which of course is in contradiction with the concept of God. As the late American philosopher Michael Martin has already pointed out, if God knows all that is knowable, then God must know things that we do, like lust and envy. But one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case God cannot be morally perfect.

Response:

Let’s define omniscience first. Omniscience is the possession of all truths. God, being eternal, has always been omniscient. This means that God knows the state of affairs of his creation in total. Because he knew these things prior to their happening within the context of temporality, God’s knowledge is a priori (possessed prior to experience). Since God already knows all things, he does not learn anything new. If he does not learn anything new, it follows that none of God’s knowledge is a posteriori (that is, from experience). Since God does not know anything by experience, God’s knowledge of such things as lust are not derived from experience, and therefore, God does not have to engage in those sins to know about lust and other sin. Atteron’s objection assumes a condition of God’s knowledge that is simply not Biblical, and the notion that any knowledge can come from experience (in an empirical sense) has not been demonstrated even since the beginning of the history of philosophy (That is, starting with Thales). If Atterton wishes to claim that knowledge can be derived via sensory experience, he will have to demonstrate his claim. Ironically, given Atteron’s logic, the only way to know if an omnipotent being knows things by experience is to for him to be omnipotent himself, for Atterton claims that things must be known by experience.

Conclusion

Atterton is certainly a learned individual so far as worldly knowledge is concerned, but worldly knowledge is of no profit because worldly knowledge is ignorance. All of his critiques of God rely heavily on Greek philosophy, and the Greeks were pagans; thus, their concept of God is very different from the Hebraic concept of God that is laid out in the Bible. I have been studying philosophy since 2011, and I know from those studies that most of what has transpired in philosophy is nonsense. Secular philosophy has nothing to offer that is of substance, but the knowledge of God has everything to offer.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

 

 

What is Omnipotence? It Isn’t What Most Think

by Leave a Comment

 

 

Introduction

Omnipotence is a confusing concept for both believers and unbelievers. The purpose of this article is to define omnipotence and make clarifications that will resolve common areas of confusion.
 
Omnipotence, Definitions and Philosophical Systems

There is no Hebrew equivalence to the word, ‘omnipotent’ in the Bible. Because of this, we have to be very careful when we are using foreign terminology to describe Biblical theology. If the definition or its implications are at odds with what scripture says concerning a subject matter, the definition for that term should no longer be used to construct a Biblical system of theology. Often, the Bible connects God’s power to his will (Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 1:19-21, Psalm 115:3-5). In this article, omnipotence is defined as the ability to carry out one’s will perfectly. This definition was chosen on the basis of what the Bible has to say concerning God’s power.

Mainstream Christian Philosophy’s Definition of Omnipotence

If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? In response to such questions, Christian philosophers have often said that omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. This means that God can do anything that is not self contradictory. Perhaps such a definition would answer the omnipotence paradox, but it is not a definition that can be derived from the Bible. If we look at the Bible, we never see it speak in such terms. Where does it say that God is limited to what is ‘logically possible?’ What is ‘logically possible?’ Isn’t part of God’s glory and splendor found in his defying of expectations? Isn’t God’s power unquantifiable? If so, how can we place a limit on an unquantifiable power? If God created the world, what aspect of it can he not control (Jeremiah 32:37)? How could God’s power be confined to only this world? Clearly, such a notion is not Biblical. While the definition typically given by Christian philosophers may succeed in side stepping the omnipotence paradox, it raises a host of questions that I am convinced cannot be satisfactorily answered by these theologians.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, philosophers, theologians, and laypeople have a tendency to over complicate issues that are really not complicated at all. In essence, God can do whatever he wills, and that is what makes him omnipotent. It is senseless to put God in a box when he cannot be confined to his own creation. It is equally senseless to conjure up unbiblical definitions for foreign terms that are not used in the Bible. Not only does the definition proposed in this article make God’s omnipotence easy to understand, it also solves the so-called omnipotence paradox.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–
If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
My Book on Apologetics:

 

Did God Say We Should Sell All of Our Possessions?

by Leave a Comment

 

Introduction

On more than one occasion, I have had unbelievers (particularly those of a Hindu or Islamic persuasion) ask me why I haven’t sold all of my possessions. I’ve also received this question from believers before. In this article, I will address the question, “Did Yeshua say we should sell all of our possessions?”

The Origin of the Claim

Matthew 19:21 reads, “Yeshua said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you own, and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” What is interesting about this passage is that the wealthy man claimed to have kept the commandments in verse 20. This prompted what Yeshua said in verse 21.

Addressing the Claim

What is interesting is that the man grieved when Yeshua told him to sell all he had and follow him. The first of the ten commandments is, “You shall have no other gods before Me. (Exodus 20:3).” And Yeshua said the most important commandment was, “And He said to him, “‘You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37-38).” What Yeshua said was what it meant to keep the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” If the man grieved because Yeshua told him to sell all of his possessions, it is clear he was not keeping the most important commandment. Though the reason why Yeshua told him to do this is not stated, it can be easily inferred that despite the man saying that he kept the commandments, he was not keeping the most important one.

And why is an explanation necessary? Is it not obvious that Yeshua tells all of his followers to sell their possessions? The answer is a resounding, “No,” if the Bible is any indication. Indeed, Abram was wealthy, yet he found favor with Adonai and became Abraham, the Father of Nations (Genesis 13:2; Genesis 17). Did Adonai tell him to sell all of his possessions? No. That is right. God began his covenant for Israel by making his covenant with a rich man. This is quite the far cry from the notion that God wants all of his believers to sell their possessions. Based on this one example of many, those who interpret Matthew 19:21 as a requirement for all believers to sell everything must be in error. King David was also very wealthy but yet he was still referred to as ‘a man after God’s own heart,’ after becoming the earthly king of Israel (Acts 13:22; 1 Samuel 13:14). Since King David was considered a man after God’s heart even after he became wealthy, it is clear that selling all of your earthly possessions is not a requirement for salvation nor favor with God. 

Some will still object by saying that Yeshua said it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:23-24). It is true that Yeshua said this; however, Yeshua also said,  “And looking, Yeshua said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:26).”

Conclusion

Based on God’s dealings with wealthy believers, it is easy to determine that those who say the Bible teaches that all believers must sell their possessions are in error. It should be noted, however, that there are instances where God calls people to sell all of their possessions. Those who are called to do so should do so immediately. It is likely because God is either trying to teach them something, their wealth has become a stumbling block to them, or both. God can use a poor, middle class, or rich person mightily in whatever way he chooses. We should take care to remember that God can use different types of people to further his divine plan.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–
If you found this article helpful, you can support on my Patreon page by contributing at least $1/month.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–

My book on investing and Personal Finance:

Wisdom vs. Information

by Leave a Comment

Introduction

There is a difference between being wise and being able to recall information. In this article, I will explain the difference.

Fountains of Wisdom

In this article, wisdom is the possession of a true proposition. Those who are wise know a lot of things that are true; they also know why those beliefs are true. These people have beliefs that are well grounded and are both true and defensible.  These people are consistent in their thinking and can reach the same conclusion on multiple occasions. This is because the underlying principles in their belief systems are sturdy and unchanging. It is like having a tour guide who has a map and can guide people to the same destination every time they are asked.

Fountains of Information

In this article, information is a proposition that can be possessed. People who are fountains of information have a lot of information, but they cannot discern which information is true or false. These people may be well educated because they went to school, they read a lot of books, or have viewed educational videos. They have a lot of ideas and data memorized, and they are familiar with different views on complicated issues. These people are intelligent, but they are still unable to discern what is true from what is false. They are intelligent people who are lost in the information they have learned. Some of the information they have might be true so perhaps they will still get some benefit from what they have learned, but they may not be able to reach the correct conclusions consistently. It is like a tour guide who doesn’t have a map. They may be able to get you to the right destination every once in a while, but they may not be able to do it every time.

Conclusion

As followers of Yeshua, we should strive to be fountains of wisdom so that we may guide people to the truth of the Bible. We should not look at those who are fountains of information as idiots. Clearly, if they are trying to learn new things, there is something they are looking for. It is our job to direct them to the truth so that they can too can become fountains of wisdom.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–
If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
My Book on Apologetics:

My Thoughts on the Supreme Court Colorado Bakery Ruling

by Leave a Comment

This is a major victory for religious freedom, and it is certainly a step in the right direction. Private companies may refuse service for any reason. Period. The ramifications, if any, of the corporation’s discrimination should be felt in the pocket book when people respond by not doing business with them. For instance, I would not be inclined to do business with a corporation that discriminates on the basis of race. In the case of this bakery, I would do business with this bakery because I understand why being involved in an event that they do not believe is moral would trouble the bakery.

The gay couple who went to this bakery bypassed many other bakeries and drove a significant distance to do business with this one. It cannot be more obvious that the gay couple came to this bakery to stir crap and to get publicity. In fact, the supreme court noted that the couple seemed to target this bakery and their intentions were malicious. Therefore, they ruled in favor of this bakery, but it is what those involved in the legal system call a “narrow ruling.” This ruling applies only to this particular case and does directly impact other cases of religious freedom.

It should be noted, however, that this ruling paints the Supreme Court into a corner. Have you ever seen the signs outside of stores and restaurants that say, “No shirts, no shoes, no service?” What about nudists? Some nudists choose their lack of attire for religious reasons. Many of these reasons relate to their view of the nature of mankind (anthropology). The legal grounds here get quite murky because there is not a set standard for determining when someone is maliciously targeting a belief when they cry ‘discrimination’ to the court system. Our legal proceedings are systematic, and therefore, must have tangible guidelines that are applicable in a wide scope of situations. Otherwise, the laws are not effective.

The only reasonable thing the Supreme Court can do is to rule that all private corporations have a right to refuse service for any reason, otherwise, they are contradicting the precedent that they set yesterday.