Feedback archive Feedback 2015

Answering agnostic arguments

Published: 2 May 2015 (GMT+10)

Occasionally, people who are new to our site will write in with arguments against creation. K.S.’s first email made him sound like a questioning agnostic, but a second message received soon afterwards showed that his disbelief in Christianity was much more strident, but also based upon misunderstandings about Christianity.

NASA Supernovas. A mega-explosion in space

K.S., India, wrote:

I’m an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in god as there is very little to go upon.

Your logic is great and this supreme creator logic indeed fits the bill on how universe was created. However, you are failing to see one point.

You say that because evolutionists cannot give a proper theory on how universe was created, it means that god created universe (which is indeed possible). However, the extent to which evolutionists can speculate about the creation of universe is limited by our intelligence as a race. Just like a Neanderthal could only imagine (if he could) more sophisticated beings to be more formidable hunters and better tool maker, while being unable to conceive arts, diplomacy, metaphysics, etc, the way we see them. My point is-the concept of creation of universe could be something that is way beyond our level. So it doesn’t mean that god created the universe because that’s the only explanation we have currently.

answers:

As an agnostic, you’re admitting you don’t know the answers to some very important questions. But Christians claim to know about God, creation, and what happens after death because God has revealed it to us in Scripture.

You also seem to admit evolutionists are currently failing to explain the origin of the universe and human beings. But it isn’t a matter of not being advanced enough to understand the true naturalistic origin of the universe as you propose (by the way, Neanderthals are fully human—everyone with non-African ancestry has a little of their DNA! And they had some impressive skills; you can search creation.com for lots of articles detailing them). Rather, the more scientifically advanced we become, the more problems we discover with evolution.

Also, there are really only two options for explaining the universe: either it is eternal (which doesn’t work due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics), or it had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, either it made itself (which is self-contradictory), or it was created by some eternal, non-material, very powerful entity outside the universe, which is of course consistent with biblical creation. This is a logical argument and it is unlikely to change with more knowledge.

Biblical creation has the advantage of being an actual explanation for the complexity we see in the universe. That is, we have much positive evidence that confirms the biblical account, so we are not making our case merely on the bankruptcy of evolution. But saying that we aren’t advanced enough to understand the explanation isn’t really an explanation at all. It is a blind-faith-based position built entirely on speculation.

I would invite you to read creation.com more and explore what we have to say on the topic.

K.S., India,

I find it highly amusing that people still believe in worshipping as it is futile and is nothing more than an ancient primitive custom practiced by weak minded and superstitious people. It has no place in the 21st century. Do you all really think that we should spend our entire lives studying an old book, looking up to the sky and worshipping an invisible ruler in another realm ? People believe this ‘original sin’ story which is designed to impose a large amount of guilt onto the whole of humanity. The believers are then so grateful that they have been saved by the son of God nearly 2000 years before they were born that they abandon all reason, logic to obey and worship this god . Anyone who believes this story is indeed lost because to believe that a god would send his only son to help us, only to see his son get tortured and murdered, and then instead of unleashing all his wrath, simply absolve us from all crimes past and present, is pure madness to say the least. 

Lita Cosner replies:

It is interesting that in your last message, you sounded like a more open-minded agnostic, but in this one you sound like you’ve made up your mind that Christianity is false. Were ancient people ‘weak-minded and superstitious’? Well, not any more than people today are (horoscopes are proof of that!), and studies have shown that people who think of themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’ are more likely than Christians to be superstitious.

Christianity in particular makes very rational claims (whether or not you believe them to be true): God created the world as a perfect place, and mankind rebelled against Him, causing death and suffering. Mankind’s rebellion against God demands punishment—which means that all of us deserve punishment (and because we will continue rebelling against Him forever without His intervention, that punishment must be similarly eternal). But God loves mankind, so He sent His Son to be our substitute. Because Jesus was perfectly righteous, He had no sin of His own to pay for, so He could pay for ours. Because He is God, He could pay for the sins of the whole world. And because He was God and sinless, He rose from the dead.

As a Christian (moreover, one who has dedicated my life to studying the ‘old book’ whose merits you question), I don’t consider myself a superstitious person. Also, the Ph.D. scientists who work for CMI, and the many other creation scientists who have careers doing real science, demand scientific explanations for things that should have scientific explanations. But they realize that when we start asking historical questions about things that happened in the past, we have to look to history for an answer. And the Bible gives us that history.

The Bible gives a framework for understanding the world unlike any other book. It explains why the universe seems so intentionally designed and beautiful in some ways, but full of suffering and death at the same time. It helps us understand why we hate death so much (if we evolved and death is natural or even good, why should we hate it and see it as unnatural?), and gives us hope that one day there will be no more death. It helps us understand why we have an inbuilt conscience that condemns our sin (Christianity doesn’t create guilt, it explains our guilt and gives us a way to be free from it), and points us to the Saviour, Jesus Christ.

K., I’ve spent more time on your emails than I am able to for most people who write in, because I think it is so important for Christians to explain our faith. I hope that you come to believe in the Lord Jesus, because only He can give you hope in this world and the next. Please read our Good News article to learn more.

Helpful Resources

World Winding Down
by Carl Wieland
US $8.00
Soft cover
Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati
From
US $17.00

Readers’ comments

Bob S.
No, evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Why--did you think that it should? Anthropology and thermodynamics also can't explain the origin of the universe, but no one expects that they can.
I agree that Christians can claim that they have a supernatural explanation for whatever. Doesn't mean much without the evidence, though. "We don't know" is how science works. That you seem to think that's embarrassing or a failing suggests that you need to go back and learn how science works.
Lita Cosner
Bob, I was under the impression that 'We don't know' was merely the first step in the scientific process. The lack of knowledge is supposed to launch the scientist, ever sceptical and searching for truth, to test and re-test hypotheses, propose new theories, and generally engage in an untiring pursuit of knowledge. At one time we didn't know how blood circulated through the body, why bacteria became resistant to penicillin and other drugs, or what most of the genome did (hence why it was mistakenly called 'junk DNA'). But science figured that stuff out (or is in the process of figuring it out, with regard to the latter).

But with regard to the origin of the universe, we're still stuck with "We don't know", which is kind of awkward for all the scientists who have spent their whole careers and millions of dollars worth of grants trying to figure it out. And as long as science has to say "We don't know", it surely isn't that unreasonable for the Christian to say, "We do know!"
Manuel T.
Lisa, in a response to a comment you wrote, "...at one time or another all of us were unbelievers. ", does not scripture disagree with you? Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." And, especially Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," In order to deny the truth, one must be in contact with the truth. There are no "agnostics" as per scripture, rather there are those that deceive themselves into thinking that they "do not know" the God of the Bible. ALL men ALREADY KNOW God, but they deny this truth in unrighteousness.
Lita Cosner
Paul uses the term 'unbeliever' to describe those who do not trust in Christ; so do I.
Gary H.
K.S. is amazingly self-confident given that they have no evidence for anything they claim. "...practiced by weak minded and superstitious people." Apply that trash "logic" to Newton, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, von Braun, Wilder Smith- 3 earned PhDs in science...ALL theists! Yup all weak-minded & superstitious people. Its clear who is the true weak-minded one there. The rest is all based on typical "new atheist" appalling ignorance & lies. Look at this nonsense thinking : "It has no place in the 21st century". So the date somehow changes the facts huh? No. Like "21" is some magic age that suddenly, all the facts- that force any rational unbiased mind to infer the a Creator- become wrong. An astoundingly crazy concept to say the least. "...an old book," There it is again! The same fallacy -the age of something magically changes its validity. Apply that infantile "logic" to the writings of any past person that wrote factually on ANY subject & we have no more history or science left in the world. "...the sky and worshiping an invisible ruler" Apply that to all the invisible things scientists claim exist without a grain of empirical evidence. More salient fallacious thinking. "...impose a ... guilt onto the whole of humanity" That's like saying that laws & their sanctions, are designed to impose guilt on society because we've all broken them! "2000 years before..." Again the irrational "age" fallacy! This person does not reason well at all. "..murdered, and then instead of..." There is an underlying appeal to an objective moral law against torture & murder in that. Sorry. Atheism can't have objective moral law. Bad logic is everywhere in that letter. Its tragically terrible thinking from a to z
Gennaro C.
“Anyone who believes this story … is pure madness to say the least.”
Posing the matter as K.S. does, without considering the whole story, looks like to believe in Santa Claus, and he is right. But is totally overturns when the whole scenario is considered – and it looks our friend K.S. didn’t do it.
On the other hand the he makes of a possible different source for our universe, might please the stepping up of our race’s intelligence. Flattered by the proposal one would say: ‘Why not!’
‘Unluckily’ we do have only one document available: the Bible! An Old book says our friend K.S., and this shows me that he didn’t really analysed it as its projection into eternity demands. Above its doctrinal content on Morality and Poetry, the Bible is a book of History with a perspective on FUTURE things (spanning from our past to our future); we may call it Prophecy. It looks to me that no other fathomable super-intelligent race in the universe ‘far beyond our level’ could reveal even a little bit of future events. So, this indisputable FACT of the Prophecy phenomenon speaks loudly about the importance and validity of this ‘old book’ and its supernatural source. Furthermore, the whole scenario of the salvation plan of a race (human race) the way it has been organised and delivered, spells of a LOVE which is ‘far beyond our level’ of comprehension; and probably this is the reason is not understood as it should be!
In my opinion our friend K.S. lacks of patience and mind openness to analyze the whole Bible’s scenario to perceive in full its message which is timing not only with the past but with the present and the future (our future) towards the solution of this humanity’s doom that, created perfect - in the misuse of its granted freedom - lost its connection with its Creator.
Gennaro C.
Thank you Lita for your answer. “Anyone who believes this story is indeed lost because to believe that a god would send his only son to help us, only to see his son get tortured and murdered, and then instead of unleashing all his wrath, simply absolve us from all crimes past and present, is pure madness to say the least.” Posing the matter as K.S. does, without considering the whole story, looks like to believe in Santa Claus, and he is right. But it totally overturns when the whole scenario is considered – and it looks to me that our friend K.S. didn’t do it. On the other hand the proposal K.S. makes of a possible different source for our universe, might please the stepping up of our race’s intelligence. Flattered by the proposal one would say: ‘Why not!’ ‘Unluckily’ we do have only one document available: the Bible! An Old book, as per our friend K.S., and this shows me that he didn’t really analysed it as its projection into eternity demands. Above its doctrinal content on Morality and Poetry, the Bible is a book of History with a perspective on FUTURE things (spanning from our past to our future); we may call it Prophecy. It looks to me that no other fathomable super-intelligent race in the universe ‘far beyond our level’ could reveal even a little bit of future events. So, this indisputable FACT of the Prophecy phenomenon speaks loudly about the importance and validity of this ‘old book’ and its supernatural source. Furthermore, the whole scenario of the salvation plan of a race (human race) the way it has been organised and delivered, spells of a LOVE which is ‘far beyond our level’ of comprehension; and probably this is the reason is not understood as it should be!
In my opinion our friend K.S. lacks of patience and mind openness to analyze the whole Bible’s
Mitch C.
Biblical Creationism is based, not merely on the demonstrated failure of Naturalism to explain the origin and structure of the universe, but on the success of the Bible to provide a logically consistent explanation. The Bible succeeds where Naturalism fails. It is important to understand that the issue is between two competing worldviews, and that the Christian worldview entails far more than simply saying "God did it". Genesis 1-11 explains the origin of light, of day and night, of the oceans, seas, atmosphere, outer space, sun, moon and stars, as well as of plant, animal and human life. Moreover, it records the origin of male and female, and that living things were created to procreate "after their kind" (which agrees with observed data and explains why there are no undisputed transitional fossils). It also explains the origin of sin, suffering and death, and promises redemption and an ultimate end of all suffering and injustice. Its record of the global flood explains the abundance of well-defined fossils worldwide and parallel rock layers, unbroken by erosional features. If the Bible was authored merely by ignorant humans, it would not be able to give a consistent, coherent, satisfactory explanation for the world as we find it. But the Bible claims to be the written Word of God, and its amazing ability to provide a coherent explanation for the world, when all other explanations fail to do so, amply attests to its divine authorship. We believe in God, therefore, not merely because Atheism fails to give a credible account of origins, but because the Bible lives up to its claim to being God's unique Word--by giving a fully coherent and satisfactory account of the origin and nature of the world as we find it, as well as confident hope and fulfillment in Christ.
Ken S.
I think the problem with people who mock the Christian faith, as this person did, is due in part to the lack of understanding in what is meant by Christ dying for our sins. 1 Cor 1:10 says clearly that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and in 2:14 clearly states the Holy Spirit has not reveled the truth to them. So unless the Spirit intervenes in their hearts they will remain dead to the truth and their only choice is a belief in naturalism. Even when the evidence clearly supports a Christian God and worldview. But sadly, the god of this world has blinded not only their eyes but their minds as well.
If one seeks the truth with an open mind they will find it. but most don't want there to be a God because it make them accountable. Ro 1:21.
Adrian C.
4) Re: origin questions, even if we can't know the specifics that doesn't mean that the general principles are "beyond our level" waiting for some future explanation. The laws of logic do not change; they impose hard limits on what the origin could/couldn't have been. An infinite past time is not only excluded by the laws of physics (entropy which was mentioned in the article or cosmology) but also by logic. A unidirectional process cannot be unbound in 2 dir.s. If, premise 1, past time is infinite and P2: past time, in order to have passed must have been future at some point then, contradictory conclusion: there is more past time than it could have passed. There is no point for which all this past time, assumed infinite, was future (whatever point you take there is previous one that's not included in the "future" relative to the point you took). There is more past time than there could have been future (but it must have been future in order to pass from future to past). So, past time cannot be infinite. See Kant's thesis of time antinomy. His antitheis states time cannot have a beginning - why would time begin so that now is 2015 instead of being 1000 instead? What kept time from starting earlier or as fast as it possibly could? Obviously, outside time we cannot have any material potentiality. So, time cannot have a material,physical beginning. There is nothing that one might discover one day that could negate the fact these facts. In conclusion, if "something" started time and this "something" could have not been material then it is God by definition (1st is "creator of the universe"). Not necessarily the Christian God (other arguments prove he actually is) but God nonetheless. The origin question can be settled w/out clinging on to agnosticism/future knowledge.
Adrian C.
1) I've run myself in similar situations where atheists are dishonest: they start out pretending that they are honest undecided seekers with questions or agnostics (as its the case here) and as discussion unfolds it is revealed that they are hard core atheists. Often they are people that felt judged by Christians or felt Christianity puts a heave moral burden on them who become like this. Not an issue of the mind.

2) When stating: "Anyone who believes this story ... that a god would send his only son to help us, ... is pure madness to say the least." K.S. should take into account his own question: "My point is-the concept of creation of universe could be something that is way beyond our level." God's love may be well beyond his level for God's sacrificial love to make sense for him.

3) One should either start with a religious premise (such as the Bible) and see what comes out of this, what follows (CMI does an excellent job at this) or start with secular questions (such as the ones on origin) which wouldn't lead to a specific divinity. If one cannot do the 1st should do the 2nd. But K.S. starts with secular questions while attacking the specific Christian deity (see last comments under #1). That's disingenuous. Even if Christianity was false, that wouldn't answer his origin questions. That doesn't' exclude other non-Christian specific Gods. Again, dishonesty. It seems he's not after finding out answers to origin questions but after attacking Christianity.
Terry H.
Lita, you have given an excellent response to this person, and in the process provided the rest of us with an excellent apologetic tool! I will definitely be using some of these ideas as I share the gospel!

God bless you for all you do!

Terry
J. C.
Dear K.S.,
I had spent many years as an agnostic, asking many of the same questions myself before accepting God the creator, and eventually discovering a plethora of evidence to support Christianity. This website is an outstanding source of information on the topic. I would also encourage you to get a copy of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book titled, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" (the Mp3 audio book format is easy to listen to by the way), and I know it will offer excellent explanations to your questions and help to clear up any misconceptions. An open minded approach would be to read it yourself and then decide for yourself what to make of it.
God Bless
james O.
I find it amusing a person who has no hope, no reason,no rhyme for life,liberty,thought, love,amusement, etc could worship themselves as the alpha and omega of all knowledge such that they can exclude the only sound, and logical and easily provable to a person of any reasonable intelligence, reason for our existence; to enjoy our Creator and fellowship with Him. The ipse dixit statement that it has no place in the first century is ridiculous as I live in the 21 first century as do millions of others who are of sound, and strong mind and relish in the liberty which is Christ. This fool who says in his heart there is no God is merely counting down time in his existential life to return to dust and feed the worms so shouldnt waste such time on us moronic worshippers of God Almighty. What is mind sir, the only place information originates from, and the Cosmos is an ocean of information which can be transmitted in many a varied manner. Thus God The Word has clearly presented us with the code to dechiper this information to no longer leave us groping in the dark but has become The Light of The World and we children of the light laugh at the child of darkness telling us what he cant see is not real. Believe me sir the human heart is guilty long before it can read the words of a book and is clearly evident in the varying sacrificial systems of the plethora of religions which try to expiate their sin. Christ being the final sacrifice which satisfies the human heart and quenches the flames of a guilty conscience. Logic sir,logic what is logic in your worldview, what is justice,love, right, wrong, rape,murder, If this be madness then come I say and dwell with us in the asylum free from the guilt and punishment of sin with the Despot of the House Jesus The Christ
Tom M.
K.S. in India points out that God extending forgiveness instead of wrath doesn't make sense, and he's right, from a human perspective. That is another indication that humans didn't create this story.
Aaron H.
One thing that I find interesting is how this person claims that it is silly to read "an old book" and then accuses people who do so of abandoning logic. But Aristotle's works on Logic are older than the New Testament, so should we not also abandon them? This person's position is what is often called chronological snobbery. There's a popular "meme" (to steal a term from Richard Dawkins) going around online that God couldn't have inspired the Bible, since he didn't tell the 1st Century people all about science and how to get rid of germs, diseases, etc. It's a bit amusing. They assume that the things they find of paramount importance should also be considered so by God. God's purpose is not showing rebellious people how to be happier and healthier while still rebellious.
Jay Zeke M.
An excellent and well written article, and I have to say I am pleased to see how patient you are in dealing with what I think was just pure arrogance. One thing I do disagree with, however, is the claim that hating death does not make sense in Evolution. Evolution is pretty much an all-inclusive religion. Any trait that is either beneficial, or not likely to affect survival, could exist. Since hating death will make people more likely to try to avoid it, whereas not hating it might make one more reckless or even seek death, Evolution would favour an anti-death mindset. Instead, I think it is best to use K's own argument against him/her. See, K has claimed that we, like his/her (false) perception of neanderthalls, could well be a lesser form of intelligence. How does K know that K knows anything? If Evolution is true, K could merely have evolved to believe K has a mother and father. K doesn't know that K's mind has the ability to accurately percieve anything around him/her, or to believe the truth should it ever present itself to him/her. Only a worldview that pre-supposes our mind was designed with the power of discernment can give a rational basis for finding truth. And that god can't be Allah, for example, because the Qur'an says he loves to decieve (e.g. by putting a man that LOOKED like Jesus on the cross to decieve Christians). No, it has to be a consistent and honest designer. Only one possible origin for the mind gives us the ability to consistently believe we can find truth, and that origin is Biblical Creation. Jesus said we shall know the truth and the truth will set us free. I don't know about you, but he hasn't let me down so far ;) God bless you Lita :)
michael S.
This was a very good an measured response to sophistry, Lita, and I appreciate your patience in dealing with these common types of claims. It seems your correspondent opened with a strawman-fallacy, by arguing that we are arguing the god-of-the-gaps, fallacy. He didn't come out and say it, but he made it sound as though we are arguing from a gap in knowledge.

A large portion of our argument as creationists, is the clearly an factually demonstrable intelligent design that we observe in all of the organisms. This is largely an argument FROM knowledge, rather than a GAP in knowledge. When we look at mankind's designs, we see that what makes something designed is usually some or all of the following;

- Specified complexity
- Contingency planning
- Synthesis of artificial materials. (silk, both for spiders and fabrics in human fashion)
- Information
- Engineering solutions to innate complex problems. (differential, echolocation)
- Aesthetics. (Colour, beauty, symmetry)

As we start to see what makes human designs designed, and we then look at organisms, we then clearly see all of the same elements of design, which means we argue from factual knowledge, not a gap in it. And the most important point you make Lita, IMHO, is that as knowledge increases, evolution becomes weaker as a theory, look at the things that have been disproven, the disproven predictions such as vestigial morphology, the list decreased to a point where it was very clear that evolution was an illusion and delusion in the human mind, but had no baring in reality.
Mitch C.
Agnosticism is self-refuting. A person who merely says "I don't know" is not an Agnostic--he simply doesn't know, but keeps open the option that future evidence may resolve the question. A true Agnostic claims that a particular truth-claim (e.g. "God exists") is unknowable by anyone. But by saying this, he claims to know for a fact that such knowledge is impossible. This raises the question "How does he know that?" Normally, no one asks the question, because they mistakenly assume that the Agnostic is merely claiming ignorance. By claiming to know for sure that no one can know for sure that God exists, the Agnostic is denying the existence of an omnipotent God who is able to impart knowledge and certainty to individuals. Agnosticism is thus a type of veiled Atheism, as is evident from the response received back from the person who claimed to be an Agnostic.
James T.
Cmi,i do have a question about agnostics.Basically my neighbor was an agnostic and he didn't know what to believe in.He told my parents that if jesus does exist he wouldn't mind being a follower of him.He just wanted to be a good person and hoped that if God exists that he would accept him.I wouldn't say he was someone who deserve to go to hell.So,what about agnostics who say they conclude they dont know,but ones who would accept jesus in their hearts?
Lita Cosner
James, first we must understand that anyone who sins at all deserves to go to Hell. Adam sinned once, and that was enough to subject the creation to futility, and enslave him, his wife, and all their descendants to sin.

An agnostic that says he would believe in Jesus, if... clearly does not yet believe in Jesus, and often what follows the 'if' is an excuse, even if they don't recognize or mean it as such.

The answer is the clear proclamation of the Gospel.
Dean R.
The illiogical logic of bias.Humans worship humans all the time & K.S bows to unbelief & modernism with great faith. So much self assured contradiction sadly.

Its not like the 21st Century got here all by itself. Early man & women already had cultivation, engineering & design, government, art & music & as population expanded so did these things.

If it is possible that God created the heavens & the earth as stated by K.S then He would still be around no matter the century & we should rightfully praise Him & look to Him in the arts & sciences, government etc while this earth winds down in a pattern of decay.
Francis R.
K. S. You made reference to Neanderthals in regard to their sophistication, or lack of it. Your knowledge on Neanderthals most probably came from the evolutionary-biased articles you have read on them. You seem to have no trouble believing what was written about them yet you decry the contents of the Bible as ludicrous. Evolutionists have had to change their narrative on Neanderthals quite a few times as more and more research unearths "new" evidence on them and it appears you seamlessly assimilate these changing stories without question. The Bible has not changed any of its stories since the first articles were written many millennia ago.
Have you ever considered why this is so? Truth never needs to change but lies are ever-changing.

Evolution requires blind faith to be believed but Christianity is a reasoned faith, based on logic and truth. Consider Lita's responses carefully.

There is no shame in believing there is a God who is the God of heaven and earth, at once both Creator and Saviour of this world.
Brian W.
Excellent response. I'm not sure I understand the point about neanderthals though. Why would only those with non-African ancestry have some of their dna?
Lita Cosner
Neanderthals lived in Europe and Asia, and hence, the only 'modern' humans who would have interbred with them were those who migrated to Europe and Asia.
R. S.
A lot of people keep referring the Bible as an ancient book; however it's very relevant today as it was yesterday. The main aim of this book was not to be a science textbook; however to explain the nature of man and God's plan to redeem us. If you look at the world today, the nature of man has not really change, instead what really happen is we have gotten more stuff, but the nature of man has remain the same, such as we are liars, full of greed, selfish, prideful, wrathful, etc. Now I am not saying this to judge anyone, but to highlight that man's nature has not change. The book of the Bible which to me explains it the most is Ecclesiastes, where it challenges to reader to consider what's more important in a man's life. The point I am trying to make is until the nature of man change, this ancient book is still relevant.
Michael I.
It almost seems as though two different people wrote those feedback emails. He seems to have a serious struggle going to at first appear as an agnostic then completely post against Christianity when confronted with a defense for our faith. My prayers go out to him and his. God bless.
David H.
In response to how could God send his son to be tortured and die on the cross. An evangelist Michael Ramsden has a very good explanation. He said that no matter where you go whether you look at different religions or any secular court system. Mercy is always extended at the expense of justice. So either you are granted mercy and escape the punishment, or you are not granted mercy and receive the punishment.
Only in Christianity is both justice and mercy combined at the cross of Jesus. Jesus extends His mercy to the lawbreaker through the cross because He satisfied the requirements of justice. He paid the price.
james p H.
why waste time "bandying words" with this clown?

any-one who *doesn't believe* in an Almighty, Creator God in the face of the gob-smacking evidence of Intelligent Design (particularly at the biochemical/molecular biological level) is, quite frankly, beneath contempt!

they are either out-and-out wilful fools or clinically/criminally insane :(

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Lita Cosner
James, at one time or another all of us were unbelievers. When I correspond with someone like this person, I have no idea whether they will become a brother or sister in Christ, perhaps even as a result of receiving an answer.

Also, the teaching value for Christians reading the response is another consideration.
Tim B.
I find it very strange that they became very hostile in the second email, for no particular reason. In dealing with true agnostics, I tend to use the ontological argument for the existence of God, that was re popularized by Alvin Plantinga
Chandrasekaran M.
The old book being old does not necessarily imply it is out of date, especially in the 21st century. The ideas that one plus zero is one or one plus one is two are old ideas. This does not imply that these ideas need to be mutated and selected to come up with new ideas. Every worldviews, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and even almost nothing to moral homosapien evolution worldview, claim what happened in the past and claim what would happen in the future. As David Attenborough said in one of the documentaries, not all the worldviews can be correct with their claims. BTW, David did not critically examine the almost nothing to everything evolution worldview in the same way. Only the Bible worldview is consistent with its axioms with respect to its claims on the past and the future.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.