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:

 

 

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.

 

 

Can the Problem of Gun Violence Be Solved?

by Leave a Comment

 

Introduction

Whenever a national tragedy like the school shooting in Parkland takes place, I bear witness to many discussions about gun violence that are unproductive. Unfortunately, our education that we received when we were growing up has not taught us how to ask the right questions. In order to get the best answer to a problem, you first have to know not only what question to ask, but also the implication of the question. Once the issue is framed properly, reasoning toward a solution becomes easier.

Can The Problem of Gun Violence Be Solved?

There have been a multitude of solutions that have been suggested for the problem of gun violence. Those on the left side of the issue argue that we need stricter laws on gun control, whereas people on the right say we need less restrictions so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. Others point to God as the solution.

Perhaps there is some room for all of these solutions; however, we must ask, “What would it look like if we solved the problem?” There wouldn’t be any gun violence. The blood of children would no longer pour over their own school’s floors. Innocent women who walk down the street will no longer be forcefully coerced or killed as the result of gun violence. The families of fathers and mothers who dawn a uniform and keep order in our cities would never have to fear that their loved one will not return from the line of duty due to being shot.

In short, solving gun violence means that there is no more gun violence. Now we must ask ourselves, can any of the solutions that have been suggested actually solve this problem? The answer is a resounding “no.” We can bring God back into our schools, but until Messiah Yeshua returns and establishes his kingdom on earth, people will always rebel. We can enact stricter gun control laws, but there are many ways to obtain a gun regardless of any laws that are brought to fruition. We can make it easier for law-abiding citizens to access guns, but that doesn’t guarantee that they will carry them. These “solutions” do not solve the problem at all. The conversation is being framed incorrectly, and even if we implement these solutions, another shooting will inevitably happen. When it does happen, the government’s politicians will once again cry out, “We must do more!” If we take these solutions to the extreme we will wind up with a theocracy, anarchy, or some leftist form of dictatorship.

Mitigating Gun Violence

Would any of these proposed solutions mitigate gun violence? Possibly. Clearly, the FBI was tipped about the shooter prior to the shooting’s occurrence, and this isn’t the first time that we have heard such a story. Maybe we should ask, “What is holding the FBI back from fulfilling its duty to protect the public?” Once those are identified, we should ask, “Are there any solutions that we can apply that will not infringe on the liberty of law-abiding civilians?” Such solutions would likely be more applicable to dealing with people who have caused disturbances or committed more serious crimes. Indeed, the shooter was kicked out of the school for an act of violence. Perhaps this is something that law enforcement needs to be aware of.

Would bringing God back into our schools (though I’d argue that bringing God back to the american household is more effective) mitigate gun violence? Possibly. The effectiveness of the solution is contingent on how willing potential recipients are to accept the truth that is being given to them. Certainly, a society is heavily influenced by the ethical norms that are imposed upon it and their willingness to abide by those norms.

Would making guns more accessible mitigate gun violence? Possibly. Typically, when there is a good guy with a gun in the area of a shooting, the shootings tend to not last as long. Fatalities will not be eliminated, and there may even be accidents; however, in most cases, the shootings stop when a law-abiding civilian or law enforcement officer shows up to deal with the threat.

Ultimately, there is a place for all of these solutions. Since this issue cannot be fully resolved until Yeshua’s kingdom is established on earth, we must approach this problem pragmatically. First, we want people who are in the vicinity of a shooting to have as many options as possible for dealing with the threat. Those who have not been convicted of crimes and who have shown themselves to be well behaved and stable should be able to carry a firearm with them in public more easily. School faculty should be trained on how to use a fire arm and have a firearm on their person on school grounds. More security is necessary as well. Law enforcement needs to be able to readily ask questions of those who could be a potential threat so that it is easier to ascertain probable cause. Last, but not least, our children should be brought up in faith by their parents and community leaders so that they can understand what Adonai expects of them.

Conclusion

There is no “solution” to gun violence, but there are steps that we can take both in government and as individuals that can help keep these horrible tragedies from happening. We all grieve as a community so we must all work towards a solution as a community. Instead of political grandstanding and acting with an agenda to advance your own viewpoint, we must all work together for the betterment of the community, in particular, we must act in the interest of our children, for they are one of our community’s greatest treasures. What would you do if your child was at that school? The image I have above is heart wrenching. A young girl with a “Happy Valentine’s Day” balloon has just bore witness to the result of violence that no child should ever see. It should not be this way.

The first steps we should take should be on an individual level. We must accept the truth of God’s Word and bring our children up in faith. We must make sure that we take measures to be able to protect ourselves and our children. If you have a conceal carry license, I highly suggest you take advantage of it. If you are comfortable with the idea of being able to carry a gun on your person in public, I suggest you apply for a conceal carry license. If you decide to carry a gun, be sure that you know how to use it.

Our government also has a fiduciary responsibility to address this issue. The first concern should be to respect the 2nd Amendment Rights of our law-abiding citizens. We must get to the bottom of why the FBI didn’t act when first tipped off about Nikolas Cruz, who was obviously in need of help. At the very least, the FBI should be able to question those who show signs of being a danger to the community. School faculty should be able to have fire arms at school and should be trained on how to properly use them. There needs to be technology in place so that guns can be detected regardless of which entrance someone uses to get into the building.

What happened in Parkland is a terrible tragedy, but I would like to assure my brothers and sisters in faith one thing. As horrible as this tragedy may be, Adonai has a purpose for it. We should take time to reflect on how such a concept puts Adonai’s power on full display. The fact that God will be able take this terrible situation and work it according to the counsel of his will is a great testament to his power and glory. Though we may never understand the exact reason why this had to occur, by faith we understand that God will work this tragedy for the greater good of those who love him.