Why The Christian God Cannot Be Proven Without The Bible

A thought experiment: Image you’ve never read or heard of the Bible and don’t know anything about religion(s). Now think about yourself and the world around you. Also think about the breadth of the entire universe while you’re at it. Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity? 

No.

The greatest problem facing the validity of the creator-god myth is something that doesn’t get brought up enough, if at all. 100% of the time, knowledge of a such a god precedes the alleged evidence found in nature for such a deity’s existence. No one ever in their right mind* with no knowledge of religion has ever looked around themselves and at nature and said, “This is all so incredible, a single entity of some sort must’ve created everything.” No one would say this having any knowledge of how complex things are created and built. While some complex objects can be built by a single designer and engineer, we know that this is no small feat and requires lots of time; typically more than six 24-hour days. There is also every indication that the more complex something is to design and build, the more people are required to complete that task. The Empire State Building in New York City had four architects and required hundreds of people to build it. No one, not even a person who knows next to nothing about erecting buildings would say of the Empire State Building that it looks like something a single person designed and built.

[*By ‘in their right mind,’ we should say ‘in possession of analytic skills’ as primitive men obviously possessed little in the way of reason. Modern man still doesn’t.]

Every single time, knowledge about a religion exists prior to viewing one’s self, the Earth, and the universe through that lens to conclude what one sees aligns with and affirms their beliefs. Here, we should ask why, then, are scriptures the only thing that establishes the existence of a creator-god? Why isn’t the existence of any such deity (and their plans) obvious from our existence and the world around us. A person left to their own devices, growing up alone and never coming into contact with another person would not come to the conclusion of the biblical god, for example. There is absolutely nothing about our bodies, our minds, the world outside of us, or the universe beyond Earth that specifically states that we should obey the 10 Commandments or accept Jesus as our Savior, for instance. No one is born with that specific knowledge. While Christians are fond of saying everyone is born a sinner (thanks to Original Sin), at the same time atheists are fond of saying everyone is born an atheist, the only difference being is that the atheist can’t be disputed and that’s no small thing.

It might be objected that, well, a book is just the way a monotheistic god goes about teaching people about his existence and the need to be saved. I can’t help but think, though, that imprinting his existence and desires directly into our minds without the need for other people’s input would be a much better idea, especially considering you risk eternal damnation for not believing in him. Considering that, God does not seem too wise to me when I can think of a better way of doing things, and particularly in the creation of humans. In creating a person, I would also re-design the knee, which is a poorly ‘designed’ joint. I would dispense with much of the universe as well, seeing how humans will never traverse most of that space. So why would I worship a deity I can outsmart on matters of design? Why would I worship a deity whose own book is the only way to ‘truly’ know them be so obtuse as to lead to numerous sects of Christianity that all profess to be the One True Religion? If this deity did exist, I wouldn’t have much respect for their intellect.

So the challenge to apologists stands: Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity?

I already know (because I’m omniscient) that at least one Apologist will chime in with DNA as their proof. Only, the complex structure of DNA does not speak to a single creator as I’ve already pointed out, nor does the complexity of DNA tell us anything about the plans or desires of any deity beyond the proclivity to reproduce.

I’ll be waiting a long time for a good answer because all apologists are already tainted by and biased towards their belief, unable to be objective. Meanwhile, I am willing to be objective because I am rational, open to the possibility a creator-god exists given the appropriate proofs, those proofs being arguments or evidence of that single creator as described in the monotheistic traditions that do not fail, that cannot be objected to.

Come, Watson, come. The Game is afoot.

The Crucifixion of Jesus (A Sacrifice?)

I’ve heard it complained that Jesus getting crucified to atone for mankind’s sins wasn’t all that much of a sacrifice if he knew he was going to be resurrected and live forever. I can’t say I haven’t thought this myself because, well, it’s a good point. If Jesus was God, he was omniscient (or is, if he were actually God) and knew everything that was going to happen regarding his alleged sacrifice. While I’m not going to say getting nailed to a cross is the least traumatic thing you could put yourself through, do the pros outweigh the cons in this situation?

 

On one hand, Jesus is going to be humiliated by the Romans, beaten, flailed, and made to bear a large wooden cross prior to the crucifixion. Of course, after that he’s crucified and it takes him approximately six hours to ‘die’ (according to the Bible, from the third hour to the ninth hour). So, pretty gruesome. On the other side of that, given his resurrection, Jesus is going to live harmoniously forever after either serving as God or at God’s right hand (depending upon your theological interpretation). A few days of hell on earth vs. an eternity of heaven that also atones for mankind’s sins. Is that REALLY a sacrifice?

 

Let’s suppose there’s a donut between me and someone I don’t know. We both want the donut terribly bad – we’re hungry! – and the other person has done something terrible and doesn’t even deserve the donut. Then someone outside of our situation makes me an offer: I can have the donut and that’s that, or, give the other person the donut and starve to death. What’s more, if I give up the donut, after I die after weeks of starving, I will live forever and can have all the donuts I could ever want on a moments notice. Assuming the reward was guaranteed, I’m giving up the donut unless or until I consider the downside of living forever. And I’m guessing most people would give up the donut if some wonderful eternal life were a sure thing. After all, it seems most people give up the donut of rational thinking betting on an eternal afterlife and so accept Pascal’s Wager. But I digress…

 

Clearly, the long-term reward is greater than the short-term reward of enjoying the donut and living out my short life. The same is true of Jesus’ ‘sacrifice.’ Again, I’m not saying getting tortured and crucified isn’t going to be a traumatic experience, however, Jesus goes into it knowing full well the outcome. Jesus didn’t give up his life not knowing if it would do any good. By comparison, any man who signed up to fight in WWII not knowing if the Allies would be victorious against fascism and not actually knowing they would go to heaven if they died in combat are much more heroic and make a much larger sacrifice.

 

So, I can’t say I’m impressed with Jesus’ capitulating to himself (again, if he’s God which he says many times) to atone for mankind’s sins. Honestly, if I cared enough about people, I would do the same thing to save the world even without the promise of an eternal afterlife. That’s what heroes in stories do. Difference is, Jesus knew the outcome so I have a hard time saying what he did was even heroic. More likely, it was the ultimate result of the vanity of a man claiming to be a god. Make no mistake; Jesus even told his disciples they would end up joyous after his death, comparing his ‘sacrifice’ to child-birthing [man’spaining?] because he would return thereafter, so it was obvious to Jesus his agony would pale in comparison to the outcome. So, yet again, not a real sacrifice. A real sacrifice requires one gets nothing in return. Jesus got a lot in return. The pros far outweighed the cons.

 

…

 

I’ve searched in vain for a satisfactory response to this critique. Moreover, some have written, rather cheekily, that it makes no sense for God to sacrifice Himself to Himself to satiate a rule he made, that is, (eternal) death due to sin.

 

One defense typically comes in the form that Jesus and God are not strictly the same, though Jesus doesn’t make this distinction when referring to himself as God, nor is the ‘trinity’ doctrine appear in the Bible anywhere. Jesus, as a man, suffers mightily and that makes what he did extraordinary. That may be so, but I’m sure many, many people have suffered worse fates (which speaks to the horribleness of mankind.)

 

Another defense is that it’s not a rule God can change since the rule exist by virtue of God’s nature, but this defense only serves to defeat God’s alleged omnipotence and makes moral rules arbitrary: God’s rules are what they are because of his existence…which means we have no objective standard by which to judge God’s goodness. Whatever God says is good is good and we can’t question it.  Nor can we question the divine plan of God sacrificing (at least) a part of Himself to atone for mankind’s sins, a plan an omniscient and eternal God must’ve known literally forever. Did Jesus not understand the full weight of what he had to do until he was flesh on earth? That’s not an omniscient deity.

 

Defending Jesus’ crucifixion ultimately makes the whole story look less and less plausible so Apologists are better off just not saying anything about it. “But he died for your sins,” they will say. Sure, but really for a few days. Again, again, again, not a true sacrifice. He practically won the jackpot for his troubles.

 

Prelude to a Crucifixion (a short play)

 

God: (Calling down from Heaven) Jesus. Jesus my son, can you hear me?

Jesus: (Exasperated) God, stop calling me your son. I AM you. Or you in the flesh on Earth. Or part of a trinity. Or the Son of Man. Did we ever settle on any of this? I feel like this is going to confuse some people. Don’t you ever worry about all the different kinds of Christianity there’s going to be if we’re not very clear on what’s going to be written about us?

God: Wow, you need to settle down, boy. There are more important things to worry about right now, like taking away the sins of the world, giving the world Atonement. It’s part of the divine plan.

Jesus: So you’re saying flooding the world and killing all the sinners but Noah and his family didn’t get that sorted out? Oh, yeah, I already know this because I’m you.

God: What can I say? People can’t help but be sinners. I know since I created the circumstances that basically makes it impossible for them not to sin. That being the case, you know what I’m going to tell you to do, because it’s the only way.

Jesus: Is it really the only way? I mean, you know a crucifixion is going to hurt, right? Like, really, really bad. You’re telling me there’s no other way for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity to save His creations from their miserable lives on earth? I feel like we could come up with something easier, or at least classier.

God: Don’t be a snowflake, boy. If it were easy, no one would think it was a sacrifice and be convinced to shower us with tithings. But look on the bright side; a few days of suffering and then you die only to rise from the dead – no small feat – and live happily forever after, literally. I think it’s more than a reasonable trade off.  

Jesus: Okay, just so we’re clear, a few days of excruciating pain for immeasurable happiness forever after; I guess it’s a little bit like a woman giving birth to a child. And, this takes away the sins of the world, although people are going to keep sinning after this and will need to accept me as their personal savior to avoid the fiery pit you…I…created out of love. (Goddamn pronouns…)

God: Yes, it’s so simple its genius. Sure, I could have never created Hell or evil or sin but what fun would that be? Oh, the kick I get out of seeing them struggle against temptation and face the worst life has to offer. All so that they’ll acknowledge me as their king.

Jesus: Careful, we don’t want to admit any vanity. We need to humble ourselves by allowing our own creations to torture me, sort of like what AI is going to do to social media users in the future. But still, when I’m resurrected, I’ll be a king! Ah, but again, just because we’re a king doesn’t mean we’re vain. No, sir, we’re humble. And if people don’t accept me as their savior – after I make this HUGE sacrifice – they will go to Hell for their disobedience to be tortured forever by someone else who disobeyed us. By the way, have you checked on Satan lately to make sure he’s doing his job? It seems counterintuitive that he’d torture people for doing the same thing he did.

God: Don’t get sidetracked, boy, and stick to the plan.

Jesus: Ugh, okay. As long as you’re…I’m…we’re…FUCK – as long it’s going to work and we’re not just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

God: I’m sorry, did you say something? I think the popcorn is done. Well, get on with it. I don’t have all day. Ha, ha, ha, actually I do. I’ve got forever.

Jesus: Okay then, don’t worry about me. I’ll just go collect some painkilling herbs. Don’t forget me when I’m on the cross!

God: (Picking up the phone) Mel Gibson! Hey, playa, it’s God! Listen, do you have a camera handy?

Jesus: First the dinosaurs, now me…(walks away) 

5 Irrefutable Proofs that God Does NOT Exist

As Christian (and other theistic) apologists enjoy giving ‘irrefutable’ proofs for God’s existence, I thought I offer up Proof of a Negative – in this case, that God (or any god) does not exist. Of course, I needn’t do this as anyone asserting a positive statement, such that X does exists, has the burden of proof upon them. Moreover, it is quite possible to prove a negative, contrary to popular belief. (Lookup the Law of Non-Contradiction for starters.) So let’s just get right to it:

 

1)     1-There is no universally accepted definition of ‘God’ – What are God’s attributes; how do we know God is God? Ask 100 theists for their definition of God and you’re likely to get about 100 different answers once you get past the Big Three. There will be some similarity in answers, such that God is anthropomorphic, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, those last three attribute that when taken collectively cannot possibly be true due to contradictions. (For instance, if God knows the future, the future is preordained, which means God has no free will, which means God is not all powerful.) To know God is God there must be a definition that is testable. We can’t simply resort to “God is these things by definition” if such a definition cannot be observed. Even in the world of mathematics, one is one is not true by definition; we have to observe that is the case to know it is true.

2)    2- God is not testable – Not only is the definition of God not testable, in NO WAY can we sense God on a practical level. We cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear God forthwith. Seeing or hearing God – when other people cannot – is tantamount to a hallucination. Likewise are mental states or emotional ‘feelings’ that God is present or exists. We know by studying brain scans these states or feeling are dependent on biological changes within the brain and body and do not correlate to any information we retrieve through our five senses. ‘Knowledge’ not derived from our five senses is not actual knowledge. Direct experience is the only way to actually know anything about the world, assuming our senses are not faulty.

3)    3- God cannot be told apart from a sufficiently powerful or knowledgeable alien – Let’s suppose some being came to Earth tomorrow and are from the planet Flobblebot, though they neglected to tell us where they are from. They know everything there is to know about the universe to the point of predicting exactly what will happen next and can perform any seemingly magical trick we ask of them, like teleporting us to the surface of the Sun and back without harm. Furthermore, this creature says they are the god of the Bible. Should we then conclude that this being is in fact God? That may seem reasonable but they really aren’t God since they’re from within the universe and not from outside of it as apologists often postulate. So we can’t know any ‘God’ isn’t lying to us, that they aren’t an alien. Any God could in fact be an alien who happens to have advanced power and knowledge.

4)    4- The existence of evil – Surely a definition of evil would be helpful here, unless we can agree ahead of time that something like the murder of a newborn child is evil. Let’s assume we do agree on that. If God is all-knowing, God knew it was going to happen and in not preventing it, is ultimately responsible for the evil since God is the creator of all things. If God could have chosen to stop this event and did not, God is not all-good. If God had a good reason not to stop the event – perhaps the child faced an unpleasant life if allowed to live – we should conclude God is not powerful enough to have stopped the pregnancy in the first place. We also can’t assume God’s actual reasons for doing anything as God’s mind is unknowable as I’ve so often heard from theists. (And, if it were indeed the case that God had a good reason for allowing the murder, this gives us a reason for allowing abortion.) If an all-powerful God wanted to stop a life of suffering, an all-powerful God could do so at any time but curiously never does – because God does not exist. If an existent God has a good reason for allowing suffering – maybe it creates mental and emotional resiliency – this should be stated in scriptures and continue in the afterlife. Never stop growing, right? (If the whole point of heaven is to live eternally without suffering, then it is reasonable to assume suffering is bad. Doesn’t seem like there is in fact a good reason for it.)

5)     5-Theists are often frightened by the prospect of death – If heaven exists why are theists ever afraid? If they are not sure if they are going to get into heaven, that indicates they are not compelled by the particulars of their faith to follow all the tenants of their faith and secure their heavenly reward: eternal life. A ‘true believer’ wouldn’t be scared by the prospect of the unknown – since they know about heaven – or leaving their family and friends behind knowing they are all going to meet again in the afterlife. A theist cannot be scared by dying as obtaining heaven is the entire point of believing in God. But theists are scared all the time. They have fears about death, they doubt, because subliminally at least they know they have accepted a falsehood. If heaven exists, a theist should not be scared by death or any earthly punishments. But they are scared. Ergo, God does not exist.

 

I hope you’ve enjoyed these ‘irrefutable’ proofs, some of which is a little bit tongue-in-cheek on purpose. Surely you’ve spotted an error or two on the level of “The Bible says God exists so God exists.” Have fun picking apart and kindly share your thoughts. Even after doing that it is still the case that no gods exist. Can you prove otherwise?

Oh, Twitter Christians, You Amuse Me

In trying to convince me that the God of the Bible does in fact exist and therefore validates Christianity compared to, say, Zoroastrianism, a Twitter user wrote this to me: “Does Zoroastrianism contain a virgin birth, a Trinity, a created angel/being that became evil, angel human hybrids, God becoming human and dying for our sins, new heavens and new earth?”

 

For some reason, Christians are painfully unaware that virgin births are fairly common in religious mythology. It’s not even a particularly special phenomenon in the animal kingdom, though rare, it can and does happen. Moreover, what is so special about female virgins anyway? The haven’t been tainted by a penis? By that logic any man who has sex with a woman therefore taints her – how rude! Now no god will want to impregnate her! If a religion really wants to impress me, give me a male virgin who impregnates a woman without having sperm taken from him.

 

A trinity? What’s special about a trinity? Lots of things come in threes and stupid tweets are one of them. Why doesn’t God stick to a duality? Or maybe there are four spiritual facets to godhood. What difference does a trinity make? Three is not a special number any more than any other number.

 

A created angel that became evil? Jesus Christ, that’s not even in the Bible. And, as I’ve said many times, any such creation of God had to be known by God to become evil – since the Christian god is omniscient – and this makes God look like a dick; he knew it was going to happen and let it happen anyway! Angelic beings becoming evil also not special in mythology.

 

Angel-human hybrids? Someone has not read ANY mythology other than their own.

 

New heavens and new earth? As I’ve written before, I’m not impressed with believers’ visions of heaven which often sounds a lot like life on earth without having to pay taxes. I get it, though, your life on earth sucks and you need to believe it’ll get better after you die. Yet for some reason, most y’all are scared to die just like anyone else.

 

Comparing one religion to another and pointing out where one is supposedly special whereas the other is not does not validate one’s religion. It just makes you look ignorant. That’s fine for Christians I suppose for in being ignorant and meek they shall allegedly inherit the earth. Mmm, yeah, judging by their work so far, that’s been working out great.

Losing the War

As more and more people fall victim to mass gun violence, the debate between whether there should be more or less gun laws heats up. For a large majority of people, they fall on either side of this debate. The problem is, to be on either side of this debate suggests an unwillingness to think about the problem’s origins. Whether the public has a right to bear arms has nothing to do with what is allowing for the U.S.’s staggering gun violence problem – Collectively speaking, the U.S. has a deep, severe mental problem that is based upon its very foundation.*

[* That is to say, The U.S. as a country was born out of violence and established a two-century old patriarchal, racist society not much better than the U.S.’s country of origin.]

But this deep, severe mental problem is merely indicative of a larger problem; what it means to be human. In the last year there has been an alarming rise of practically fascist, regressive leftism in America paralleled by the number of people who think Donald Trump should be the President of the U.S. On both these sides there is a very particular way in which these people’s brains operate, which is to say however good their intentions may be, they are not capable of critically thinking not because they lack the tools – self-reflection requires no tools – but because they are determined to believe what they want to believe.

If the number of people on the planet is any indication, this lack of self-analysis and moreover, reasoning ability, has preserved and perpetuated the species. This same ability is what puts people at odds, though, and has long made the world an unfriendly place to live. It appears as though we may have to settle for this state of affairs in order to preserve and perpetuate the species, which really is the point of life after all. Our genes don’t care how we treat each other; they just want to get themselves into the next generation. If this is the case, it is more likely that people are going to be less rational than rational despite how many generations come and go. In other words, it will always be the case that people will make dumb decisions, do dumb things and believe in dumb ideas. Despite absolutely zero evidence, particle physicists cling to string theory. Despite the overwhelming evidence that smoking is harmful to the body, people still smoke. Despite the health problems that come with being obese, people still overeat. Despite being as far from science as one can get, people still heed warnings from their horoscope. Despite the fact that wealthy socialites contribute nothing to society, people still worship them. For a human, being dumb is inescapable.

It is tempting, seeing how humans are capable of as much hope as they are capable of stupidity, to assume people can be rational especially when lives are at stake. For example, cooler heads prevailed in October, 1962 during the Cold War when Russia attempted to base missiles in Cuba aimed at the U.S. Ultimately, Russia withdrew their weapons from the U.S.’s backyard and a nuclear war was averted. This is because everyone involved came to see that for either side, the whole debacle was a lose-lose situation. At the same time, Russia acted irrationally and thought, “What the heck, the U.S. won’t mind if we put some missiles in their backyard. After all, they have missiles in Italy aimed at us.” Sadly, hope is often a result of humans acting or doing something stupid. We ‘hope’ as a hedge against a cruel world in which we would otherwise feel completely defeated. In this example, we hoped to avoid nuclear war and we did, but first, someone did something which required hope as a hedge against their action. That is to say, if we build a nuclear weapon, we have to hope that we never have to use it which indicates building the nuclear bomb in the first place is irrational. (Using nuclear fission to produce energy, yes. Using it to kill people, um…)

Acting or thinking rationally is a foreign practice for most people. There are many reasons for this, the foremost being that thinking requires the brain to use a lot of energy and it goes against people’s general desire to be placated as soon as possible (despite evidence that prolonging the reception of an award or desire appears to allow for more enjoyment of the award or desire). One cannot even rationalize with a teenager who will post damning pictures of themselves on social media despite how far their posts may travel around the world to say nothing of their local police force because a teenager, like people in general, needs to placate their ego immediately. As I alluded to earlier, it is not a part of human nature to be rational and this is why it is so rare. With human population closing in on 7.3 billion people as of 2015, it appears there is no particular reason for the human race to be any more rational than it is if being irrational perpetuates the species. Notice if you will that the people with the most offspring are usually the least educated and often the most ideologically radicalized.

There is no rationalizing with an irrational person when there is nothing in it for the irrational person. An irrational person will choose to believe in a heavenly afterlife over being atheistic because even if they see an atheistic lifestyle as potentially making their earthbound life more important, they know that one day their earthbound life will end. In other words, the atheistic principle as it may apply doesn’t offer the ultimate in hope. If there is no potentially bigger reward for changing sides in a debate, it is very unlikely that people on opposite sides of a debate will come around to a new way of thinking. Once a person is indoctrinated into thinking a particular way, it is very difficult to change their mind. It is often not worth the energy one spends trying to do that unless one’s survival is literally at stake. That is to say, it is irrational to continually engage irrational people when there is only a small chance of changing their minds ‘for the better.’ It does happen, on occasion, that people do think deeply about their ideas and beliefs, but it will always be the case that such people will be vastly outnumbered and ultimately always be at the mercy of the irrational.

This is in part why, here at the end of 2015, I am coming home from the war. Fighting stupidity, however noble, will forever be a losing battle. Over the course of years of debate and attempted discussions, I’ve had very few rational, much less civil, interactions with people on a myriad of issues. It’s not worth trying to get people become uncomfortable with their ideas or beliefs; I only become a villain so I suppose it is better to let sleeping dogs lie unless I am confronted myself. I will allow people their beliefs if there is no cost to me, but of course one should not expect to get off easy when trying to engage me with their irrational ideas or beliefs. I otherwise don’t have the time to waste and I don’t want to end up like Socrates (as if I were important enough to be so lucky).

I have plans for 2016 that include contributing to answering the question of time, exploring Genetic Philosophy (developed by yours truly) and solving problems within the Philosophy of Language (as far as any philosophy is concerned), committing more time to my tourism blog and spending more time writing fiction (something people seem to lap up as they apparently identify strongly with lives that are not real) and reading for enjoyment. I have enjoyed writing and posting my thoughts here as any good philosopher must mentally masturbate, but I suppose I have reached the point in my life when I want to do other things.

This blog will be maintained in 2016 by occasional ruminations and relevant re-posts, but other than that, there will be no commentaries on religion, atheism, politics or any other current events. I know, I know, what will you do with yourselves? You can always follow Kim Kardashian on Twitter. 

I Read It So You Don't Have To: God's Crime Scene

Christian apologetics is hardly anything new in American literature, but the genre’s latest work by author J. Warner Wallace has taken a novel new approach in making a case for the existence of God. Wallace, a former L.A. County detective and former atheist, claims to apply his years of experience in examining evidence to conclude that the universe must have had a divine creator. “God’s Crime Scene” joins a growing number of books that attempts to use an atheist’s favorite tools – evidence and reason – against them. Unfortunately for Wallace, this tactic hasn’t worked for creation scientists and it doesn’t work now.

In making his case, Wallace attempts to use a number of analogies, which – judging from a number of reviews – seem to be quite engaging and convincing. This is as one would suspect from other theists who are not adapt at questioning whether an analogy is correct, much less question the conclusion the author draws. For example, Wallace begins the book by describing a possible suicide inside a house and looking for clues that might give him reason to think that what took place was actually murder. To do this, Wallace is going to look for things that may not be native to the scene such as mud on the floor or another person’s fingerprints or DNA. In other words, can Wallace account for things in the room as only being from inside the room? And right here, at the very beginning, Wallace’s analogies go awry.

If one is in the habit of questioning, one would be inclined to ask if a house is like the universe. The answer would be “no” because we have knowledge of things that can be outside of a house and brought in, but we have no knowledge of things outside of the universe that can be brought into the universe, seeing how we’ve never seen something inside the universe outside of the universe. To begin a book with such a flawed analogy does not help Wallace establish any credibility. Any credibility or benefit of the doubt one might have given Wallace for being a detective evaporates so quickly, one suspects Wallace took part in the now infamous O.J. Simpson case. (Defending or accepting Wallace’s arguments on the account of his credentials is The Argument from Authority logical fallacy anyway.)

Soon thereafter, Wallace glides into his first chapter which attempts to determine if the universe had a beginning. This appears to be an important point to apologists since given an infinitely old universe, an infinite number of possibilities might take place, such as the emergence of life. So then, the thinking goes, if the universe had a beginning, something must have set it in motion. (And, if the evidence indicates the universe was designed, it must have had a single designer. Nevermind that you never see complex structures built by a single person, but, whatever.) In order to argue against an infinitely old universe, Wallace likens a cause and effect universe to an infinite number of handguns in his police armory. If Wallace removes every fourth gun, he says, he is removing an infinite number from an infinite number, which is clearly nonsensical. The author then concludes that you cannot do the same thing with causes and effect either, so clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old. Problem is, infinite and abstract causes and effects are nothing like an infinite number of material objects. Nor is it hard to imagine how an infinite number of causes and effects are possible if one considers God’s (supposedly) infinite nature. Another bad analogy from which Wallace derives one of just many rushed conclusion.

Because it is an important point to apologists, Wallace perhaps feels (rightly so) that this argument isn’t enough to convince a skeptic and continues to argue for a universe with a beginning. So, using science to lend his argument validity, asserts that cosmologists and physicists largely agree that the universe began with the Big Bang. This is true, though Wallace doesn’t mention here that the Big Bang theory is running into a number of competing theories about the universe’s origin lately. (The least of which include a holographic universe theory and corrections to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.) A bit more on target, Wallace argues that we could never arrive the finish line that is ‘today’ without there being a beginning from which to start from. Nice try, Wallace, but what is ‘today’? Is it right…now? But now has already come and gone, which makes one wonder just how long is now? Like the universe’s origin, Wallace doesn’t give any thought here to the slippery concept of time which most physicists agree is in a lot more trouble than theories of the origin of the universe. Wallace even gives too much credit to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it is not entirely sure that the universe is a closed system. (Of course, anyone who knows anything about science knows that nothing is 100% certain, which makes it curious that any apologist would lean on science to argue for the existence of God. Or maybe it’s not so curious as theists are finding out that appealing to blind faith is not enough to withstand criticism.)

Throughout the book, Wallace continues to make bad analogy after bad analogy from which he continually derives conclusions long since discredited by atheists. (Honestly, I don’t know why apologists are still using the ‘fine tuning’ argument.) At best, Wallace’s arguments would result in there being multiple entities involved in the construction of the universe, or to use Wallace’s own analogy, suspects in this ‘murder.’

Reviews for “God’s Crime Scene” have been glowing, which is understandable once you consider the book’s audience, most of whom do not possess the philosophical skills to call B.S. when they see it much less the bravery to say so when they do. I do think the author’s approach is intriguing – hence my initial interest in the book – and the book is written with a clear, easy to understand voice. The side bars that describe the methods by which detective work is conducted is interesting as well, but these skills obviously do not translate into believable conclusions about the supernatural. As the author indicates, he is a former detective and not a lawyer, with a lawyer being someone who would destroy Wallace’s conclusions in an actual trial on the matter.

I give the book two stars (out of five) for a gallant and unique effort in a field crowded with philosophical shenanigans. Wallace’s prose is clearly written for the layperson, but so much so that his arguments fall deaf upon trained ears. I wish Wallace better luck with his next book; “Cold Case Islam.”

[“Cold Case Islam” would be Wallace’s next logical book and a follow up to his first book, “Cold Case Christianity” in which the author’s investigative skills lead him to conclude that everything the Bible says about Jesus is true. Given that there is far more evidence for the life of the prophet Mohammed, I would be curious to see what conclusions Wallace would make about the Muslim prophet.]

And Dog Created Man

One of the most troubling questions brought before pastors, priests or any other apologist for God is this: Why did God create mankind? While I would argue some things just are the case, to say God did create man with no further explanation would be disturbing to any believer who wishes to assume there is a perfect being that at the same time has reasons for its actions. (It seems odd to me a perfect being would have reasons for its actions, that is to say, has desires.) Apologists hate this question primarily because the faithful hate being challenged on their beliefs and secondarily because they simply don’t know. But asking why God created mankind is important if we’re to be inclined to follow the dictates of any creator of ours. The answer to such a question would give human life direction, a direction we would be able to say we might be compelled to follow if we also hold the belief that we should listen to our parents for no other reason than they created us.

The fact that apologists don’t know the answer to this question is evidenced by pages and pages of Google searches that turn out the same few unsatisfactory explanations or dodge the question entirely, as if you had put the question to a nearly deaf lunatic. Here are some of the explanations:

Christianitytoday.com is of the opinion that mankind was created to play a rule in some ultimate plan God has for the universe. However, prior to this revelation, the author of the article, Dawson McAllister, acknowledges that God has no need of us per se, but decided to make us out of His love for us, a love which preceded our very existence. (How is McAllister sure our creation wasn’t done out of malice? This would seem more consistent with the world we actually live in.) BUT since God did make mankind, we might as well serve some purpose for Him. While we don’t know this purpose, we can help fulfil this purpose by worshipping God, first of all. Nevermind that McAllister states earlier that God did not make us out of some vain need to be worshipped. The explanation ends with the unfounded assertion that we need God, not the other way around. Please note that this decrepit reasoning doesn’t necessarily make McAllister a bad person, just a poor thinker.

Goodnewsaboutgod.com’s explanation, given by an M.D. (allegedly) is that our existence is necessary for the redemption of our spirits from sin by dying. Feel free to read that again. Apparently God cannot stop or redeem the sins of eternal beings – such as, say, a fallen angel – so God had to make mankind so that someone could be saved from sinning by choosing to follow God. "Thus humanity is made the vehicle through which the reconciling of the universe is to be effected, even though all efforts of humanity itself are in vain and come to nothing, and it is left to God to provide, in the person of His Son, the one effectual means by which this reconciliation is to be accomplished." So it seems God is not omnipotent after all. God isn’t much of an architect either, if He’s relying on mankind to redeem the entire universe. Should of just created the universe right the first time, God. Just sayin.’

 John D. Morris of the Institute of Creation Research is a bit more humble and is inclined to say, in part, that this is a sufficiently difficult question to fully answer. But Morris tries anyway, saying that God is love and (for some reason) showers love upon things that deserve punishment. (I know, I know.) Morris continues: “But in His love He desired reciprocal love, so He created man in His own image. Man was given the ability to respond to God's love or reject it. In the beginning man enjoyed full fellowship with God, but soon rejected Him, bringing the ruination of all creation. This wasn't God's intention, so He implemented His plan for creation to fulfill its intended purpose.” Morris begins his piece by saying we don’t know why we were created, then says he does know why. But if what Morris is saying is right, God is fallible. Moreover, Morris’ claims conflicts with other apologists who insist that God did not create us in order to be worshipped. But, in being consistent with other apologists, Morris claims our existence is part of some greater plan though whatever this plan is is never fleshed out. Morris claims to be a PhD, but his institution’s website will not say of what. No surprise there.

One of the more (?) baffling answers is given to us by gotquestions.org. Their short answer is that God desires worship even though God doesn’t need it because God is perfect. Question: As I hinted at earlier, wouldn’t a perfect being be free of desire, of the need to please itself? And, for no apparent reason speaking on God’s perfection, the anonymous author goes on to illogically conclude that in God’s perfection, He cannot make anything greater or even equal to himself because than God would not be the One true God. That’s the equivalent of saying I could not have a son who is better than me because then I would not be the one true Theory Parker. The answer provided eventually concludes that we were created to have the pleasure of knowing God, which surely does not speak to the vanity of God which so many other apologists avoid saying. 

Lastly, for now, Biblestudy.org claims “The culmination of God's creation was to create US, man, which is what Genesis clearly states (see Genesis 1, especially 1:26),” in effect saying that mankind is the equivalent of the star you put on top of the Christmas tree, that last little touch that really makes the tree come alive. Basically, mankind is a decoration. But God also made this pinnacle of God’s creation incomplete – only a physical being – and only worshipping God makes the physical creation complete by adding its spiritual dimension. Deeper into Bilblestudy’s explanation, things get stranger and further from any rational explanation by asserting we are basically copies of God who can become equal to God if we follow God’s dictates.

Now, it can’t be the case that all of these viewpoints are correct, so one or more of them are wrong. (Likely, all of them.) If any one of them were correct it should be obvious and that would be the default answer. The plethora of answers indicates apologists are simply guessing. But we must reiterate why this question is important: We should know why we are created if we are to fulfill any purpose our creator (or creators) may have laid out for us. But would that purpose even be necessary to follow?

Imagine if you will a deep sea robot sent to record data from the ocean depths. If the robot were able to reflect upon it’s own existence, it might ask why it is doing the job laid out before it, that is, collecting data. Should the robot say to itself, “Well, this is what my creator wants me to do, so I’m going to do it”? The robot is under no obligation – simply because it was created by someone – to do the job it was programmed to do, and if it doesn’t do its job or fails in its job, it creator doesn’t condemn it to hell. If anything, the creator of the robot will say, “That’s unfortunate. I should build a better robot next time.” The creator doesn’t hold the failure of the creation against the creation, he or she holds it against themselves. [While it can be granted that the robot needn’t know why it is collecting data for the creator, a self-aware robot may not choose to follow its programming for any number of reasons. It may not like the job laid out before it or may not like the creator’s ultimate reason for creating it. Or it may not do its job due to a glitch.]

To draw the analogy closer to home, imagine you have a child and the child grows into a rebellious teenager, or heaven forbid, a ‘moral’ vegan. Is the child you created obligated to follow your rules such as eating meat simply because you created them? What if your intended purpose in having a child was to create a pro football player? If they don’t make the cut, do you hold it against the child? Surely too many people hold the acts of the child against the child, at least over the short term, but this is simply the avoidance of responsibility by their creator. Or is it? When there is a conflict between the creator and the created, who is at fault?

The only possible answer is no one. There is no reason for a creation to follow the dictates of a creator simply for the act of being created. After all, the creation usually has no say in the matter of it being created. At the same time, the creator cannot account for every action the creation might take, not unless they were omniscient. Theologically, the problem in God’s creations not following the dictates of God are God’s fault because God should have known better if God is omniscient.

Back to how this relates to the purpose of mankind from the apologist’s perspective. People ask apologists why mankind was created, but for the most part, the answers are unsatisfactory or at best, partial guesses. If God at all requires or desires worship, God is vain. This is unacceptable to most fair-minded theists, or they will at least try to avoid saying this outright. If instead mankind is part of a plan, which plan is it? If the purpose of mankind is to follow God in hopes of redemption from original sin, this is both redundant and cannot be mankind’s original purpose since there was no sin until Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. If mankind is part of some greater plan we are not privy to, this is not very convincing in trying to get a skeptic to follow God since we can’t know that God’s ultimate plan isn’t evil. Moreover, mankind is under no obligation to follow God’s plan just because God decided to create mankind. To be obliged in such a respect, mankind would have to know the full details of the plan while at the same time universally conclude that the plan was good (insofar as we recognize goodness beyond the dictates of the creator or creators). The only other reason someone might feel obliged to praise and follow God is because their life is so good they want to thank someone. That’s all well and good, but this is not the same as being obliged in the true sense of the word.

If you’ll notice, a man or woman confident in themselves and able to give their own life direction doesn’t ask why mankind was created or what their purpose in life is. It is a person in a moment or moments of weakness (who is also the easily led on occasion) who will ask “Why am I here?” The answer is “Why do you want to be here?” Obviously, by the myriad of answers given by apologists, they have answered the question for themselves. They simply don’t realize that is exactly what they have done.

Why am I here? To tell you that you can tell yourself why you are here. If you believe God gave you free will for a reason, then use it.