.: posted 3/07/2008 ::: by webmdave :::   

by Kyle Williams (c) 2005
Scripture taken from the NIV. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

In their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004) Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek claim to prove that Christianity is true beyond a reasonable doubt (pages 25, 30-32, 134, 200, 203, 213, 231, 247, 273, 275, 293, 301, 354, 373, 383, 387, 388). Their foreword, written by David Limbaugh, claims that “powerful and convincing proof exists that Christianity is the one true religion...” (page 7). These are bold claims. Are they true? Let's find out.

Contents:

CHAPTER 1: GEISLER AND TUREK ARE AGNOSTICS, TOO
CHAPTER 2: FAITH VERSUS REASON
CHAPTER 3: WAS THERE A BEGINNING?
CHAPTER 4: WAS THE UNIVERSE DESIGNED?
CHAPTER 5: WHERE DID LIFE COME FROM?
CHAPTER 6: WHAT ABOUT EVOLUTION?
CHAPTER 7: THE MORAL LAW ARGUMENT
CHAPTER 8: MIRACLES
CHAPTER 9: EARLY DOCUMENTS MENTIONING JESUS
CHAPTER 10: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?
CHAPTER 11: TEN REASONS
CHAPTER 12: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
CHAPTER 13: DID JESUS FULFILL PROPHECY?
CHAPTER 14: IS THE BIBLE TRUSTWORTHY?
CHAPTER 15: LEGEND AND REALITY
EPILOGUE

CHAPTER 1: GEISLER AND TUREK ARE AGNOSTICS, TOO

Knock, Knock.

I answered the door. There was a talking book on my front porch. The book said, “Hi! I was written by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. My title is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. I was published in 2004 by Crossway Books of Wheaton, Illinois.”

“That’s a mouthful,” I said. “May I call you Atheist for short?”

“Um. Why don’t you call me G&T?”

“That’s short for Geisler and Turek?”

“Right,” said the book. “I’m from the church down the street.”

“I’m Kyle.”

“Kyle, do you mind if I ask you a spiritual question?”

“Go ahead.”

“Kyle, if you were to die tonight and stand before God, and God were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ what would you say?”

“I would ask him, ‘Who are you?’ and ‘What makes you think I want to get into your heaven?’ To tell you the truth: I don’t believe in God. I’m an atheist.”

“You’re an atheist?”

“That’s right.”

“Well, are you absolutely sure there is no God?” the book asked.

I paused and said, “Well, no, I’m not absolutely sure. I guess it’s possible there might be a god.”

“So you’re not really an atheist, then – you’re an agnostic,” the book said, “because an atheist says, ‘I know there is no God,’ and an agnostic says ‘I don’t know whether there is a God.’”

“My turn,” I said. “Are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?”

“Yes.”

“Well, are you absolutely sure there is a God?” I asked.

The book paused and said, “Well, I’m not absolutely sure. I guess it’s possible there might not be a God. My authors wrote on page 25, ‘Whatever we’ve concluded about the existence of God, it’s always possible that the opposite conclusion is true.’”

“So you’re not really a Christian, then – you’re an agnostic,” I informed the book, “because a Christian says, ‘I know there is a God,’ and an agnostic says ‘I don’t know whether there is a God.’”

“Yeah ... alright; so I guess I’m an agnostic then,” the book admitted.

Noticing the book’s bewilderment, I decided it was time to let it off the hook. I said, “By your definition, an agnostic is one who has the integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that he is not absolutely sure about the existence of God. Being agnostic, then, is a good thing. Anyone can be agnostic, no matter what conclusions he has drawn. You have drawn the conclusion that God exists, and because you also believe in Jesus, you correctly call yourself a Christian. I have drawn the opposite conclusion, and I correctly call myself an atheist. Yet we are both agnostic, too; we both admit the possibility, no matter how remote we think it is, that our conclusions are wrong. So you are an agnostic Christian and I am an agnostic atheist.”

“I would rather call myself Christian than agnostic,” murmured the book between its lines.

“And I would rather be called an atheist. So why don’t we drop the ‘agnostic’ moniker?”

"Good idea," the book sighed with relief. Then it continued, "So how did you reach the conclusion that God does not exist?"

“The same way I reached the conclusion that fairies don’t exist. Nobody has shown me any convincing evidence.”

The book launched its million-dollar question: “Would you be willing to look at my evidence?”

“For God or fairies?” I winked.

“God,” laughed the book.

I liked the book’s sense of humor, so I invited the book into my home. I poured a glass of ice water for myself. Because books don’t like water, I put some ink and whiteout on the coffee table. I was curious to see how G&T would use the liquids by the end of our discussion.

CHAPTER 2: FAITH VERSUS REASON

G&T (51): Have you ever asked yourself why people believe what they believe?

Kyle: That question perplexes me all the time. I think most people adopt the beliefs of their parents, friends, or their culture. They don’t even think about it. That would explain why you have entire countries that are predominantly Islamic, Buddhist or Catholic, for example.

G&T (51-52): I would categorize these as sociological reasons for belief. Do you think sociological reasons alone can lead you to the truth?

Kyle: No. It was only by chance that I was born into a Mormon family. I had no choice. If I had been loyal to the sociological default, I would still be Mormon. And the child who is born by chance into an Islamic society would still be Islamic. That has nothing to do with truthfulness.

G&T (51): Good. Why else do people believe what they believe?

Kyle: Some people accept certain beliefs that make them feel secure. They seek comfort, peace of mind, meaning, purpose, hope, or a sense of identity.

G&T (51-52): I categorize these as psychological reasons for belief. Are these good enough reasons to believe something?

Kyle: No, not if you’re looking for the truth. Reality is sometimes frightening and troubling. You can escape into a comforting fantasy from time to time, but if you don’t come out of it, you can become delusional. And that's a dangerous way to live.

G&T (51): I agree. Why else do people believe what they believe?

Kyle: Some people believe in holy scriptures, or churches, or pastors, priests, gurus, rabbis, or imams.

G&T (51-53): Let’s call these religious reasons for belief. Should you believe something just because some religious source or holy book says so?

Kyle: No. All these religions, with their books and leaders, contradict one another.

G&T (53): Right. So we have to judge which religion, if any, is true. But we can’t use sociological, psychological or religious reasons for judging religions. There must be something else.

Kyle: I prefer logic, reason, science and evidence.

G&T (51, 53): Let’s call these philosophical reasons for belief. Is something worth believing if it’s rational, if it’s supported by evidence, and if it best explains all the data?

Kyle: Yes, of course.

G&T (53): I agree. By exposing inadequate justifications for beliefs, the way is cleared for the seeker of truth to find adequate justifications. I will attempt to show you good reason and evidence to support belief in God and Christianity.

Kyle: I’m skeptical that you will succeed, but I applaud the attempt.

G&T (54): Thank you. You know, there are many false beliefs in the world – beliefs that are based on subjective preference rather than logic and evidence.

Kyle: Of course.

G&T (53-54): Well, I’m here to tell you that any teaching, religious or otherwise, is worth trusting only if it points to the truth. Are you ready to give up subjective preferences in favor of objective facts – facts discovered through logic, evidence and science?

Kyle: Yes. I will follow the truth wherever it leads. Will you?

G&T (66-69): I should hope so! Truth is vitally important. Apathy about truth is dangerous.

Kyle: I couldn’t agree more.

G&T (56): So, are you familiar with the basics of logic? Do you know, for example, what the Law of Noncontradiction is?

Kyle: Yes. It means a claim can’t be both true and false at the same time, in the same sense.

G&T (62): Good. How about the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Kyle: That means something either is or is not. For example, either God exists, or he does not. There is no third alternative. Now, it is possible that God exists in the imagination, but not literally, but these are two different claims. Either God exists in the imagination, or he does not exist in the imagination. Either God exists literally, or he does not exist literally.

G&T (63-64): You’ve got it. You know how a syllogism works? Deduction? Induction?

Kyle: Yes, I think so. They just make common sense. If I have any question about them, I’ll ask when we come to them.

G&T: Good enough.

Kyle: You're not like other missionaries. Most of them want me to believe them without evidence.

G&T (53-54,159-160,213): Not I. I want you to discover the truth by reason, logic and evidence. I will prove that God exists without using the Bible.

Kyle: I like that. Let’s get started with some evidence.

CHAPTER 3: WAS THERE A BEGINNING?

G&T (74-75): One of the oldest and strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

G&T (94): Well, if you define ‘universe’ to include God, then no, the universe did not have a beginning, because God never had a beginning. If God had a beginning, we would have the impossible situation of something emerging from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.

Kyle: So, how do you define the word ‘universe’?

G&T (79-80, 92-93): By ‘universe,’ I mean space, time and matter. I sometimes call this the ‘space-time universe.’ Everything that exists outside of space, time and matter is not part of the universe.

Kyle: Okay. So the “universe” consists of four dimensions – length, breadth, height and time. I've heard about String Theory, which suggests there are eleven dimensions. Assuming String Theory is correct, the remaining seven dimensions are outside of the space-time universe.

G&T: Do you have evidence to support String Theory?

Kyle: No. All I'm saying is that you've placed God outside of our four dimensions. Therefore, if God exists at all, he must exist in other dimensions. Whether String Theory is correct or not, you must believe in other dimensions.

G&T: That sounds like a reasonable conclusion.

Kyle: So it would be more accurate to restate your Cosmological Argument this way:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. Space, time and matter had a beginning.
3. Therefore, space, time and matter had a cause.

Kyle: I do. I think the word ‘universe’ is misleading if it doesn’t include everything that exists.

G&T: So, do you believe that space, time and matter had a beginning?

Kyle: I can understand matter coming from immaterial stuff. But a universe without space? That’s inconceivable. A universe without time is also counterintuitive. How could anything exist outside of time? It sounds too bizarre for belief.

G&T (90): If you think it through, a beginning of time is rationally inescapable.

Kyle: Really?

G&T (91): Yes. Our timeline is undeniably finite.

Kyle: I’m from Missouri. Show me.

G&T (90): Kalam is Arabic for ‘eternal.’

Kyle: According to William Lane Craig, kalam means ‘speech.’ I have a critique of Craig’s book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. But go on.

G&T (90-91): The Kalam Argument goes like this:

1. An infinite number of days has no end.
2. Today is the end of history.
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today.

G&T: Right.

Kyle: There are two classes of infinite time: Time that has a beginning, but no end is a potentialactual infinite. The past is an actual infinite. infinite. The future is a potential infinite. Time that has an end but no beginning is an

G&T: Unless there was a beginning.

Kyle: Right. If there were a beginning, the past would be finite. But your argument fails to prove that there was a beginning.

G&T: How?

Kyle: Your first premise – “An infinite number of days has no end” – describes a potential infinite. It looks toward the future. It says nothing about the past as an actual infinite.

G&T: Oh!

Kyle: Neither of your premises mention the real issue – whether there was a beginning.

G&T: By golly, you’re right.

Kyle: Therefore, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Your argument proves nothing. Would you care for some whiteout?

G&T (94): Not yet. I have too much invested in my position.

Kyle: The offer remains open.

G&T (91): Thanks. But what about this: You can’t add anything to something that is infinite, but tomorrow we will add another day to our timeline.

Kyle: Who says you can’t add anything to an infinite set? Of course you can. Ask any math teacher. What you probably mean is that the total number of days doesn't change. Add one day to an infinite set of days, and you still have an infinite number of days. But the new set of days has one unique day in it that it didn't have before. A day has been added to an infinite timeline.

G&T (91): Okay.... Let’s consider this argument from a different angle. If there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would never have arrived.

Kyle: The opposite is true. In an infinite number of days, every day must arrive.

G&T (91): But you can't traverse an infinite number of days.

Kyle: If you begin on a particular day and progress one day at a time, you're right. You will never traverse an infinite number of days. A beginningless timeline, though, doesn't begin on a particular day. By definition it has no beginning at all. It has been progressing day by day forever. Every day arrives precisely on schedule, and it's added to the infinite timeline.

G&T: I hadn't thought about it that way.

Kyle: Of course, there was never a day when a finite number of days became an infinite number of days. The number of days has always been infinite.

G&T: Hmm....

Kyle: The Kalam Argument, which you called “rationally inescapable,” is false. Philosophically, there is no reason to limit the number of days before today.

G&T (chapter 3): Well, there is still a lot of scientific evidence. Do you believe there was a Big Bang?

Kyle: I’m not sure. Scientists seem to disagree among themselves. I could do exhaustive research and come to an informed conclusion, but that would take more time and effort than I’m willing to put into it.

G&T (42-43): So you’re agnostic when it comes to the Big Bang, right?

Kyle: I suppose.

G&T (76-84): To back up the Big Bang theory, we have what I call SURGE science:

S – The Second Law of Thermodynamics
U – The Universe is Expanding
R – Radiation from the Big Bang
G – Great Galaxy Seeds
E – Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

G&T (62): According to the Law of the Excluded Middle, the science, as I present it, is either right, or it is wrong.

Kyle: If it’s wrong, your Cosmological Argument is weak. If it’s right, your second premise is proved: Space and time had a beginning.

G&T: So do you accept the science I presented as correct?

Kyle: I don’t have the training to refute it. Therefore, for the sake of our discussion, I accept it as correct. Space, time and matter had a beginning. It’s counter-intuitive; it’s difficult to grasp such a bizarre concept, but for the sake of our discussion, I accept it as correct.

G&T: Isn't it even more difficult to understand the past as being an actual infinite?

Kyle: No. The way I see it, a beginningless past makes much more sense than time beginning out of non-time.

G&T: Anyway, for the sake of the argument you accept both premises?

Kyle: Yes, assuming the science to be correct.

G&T: Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?

Kyle: Yes.

G&T: Then you admit that space, time and matter had a cause.

Kyle: Yes, assuming your science to be correct, there was a Big Bang when space, time and matter came into existence.

G&T: Good. Then who is it that caused space and time to come into existence?

Kyle: Who!? Don’t you mean ‘what’?

G&T (93): Well, let’s look at the nature of whatever it is that exists outside of space and time: First, he ...

Kyle: ... or it ...

G&T (93): ... or it ... must be self-existent, timeless, nonspatial and immaterial.

Kyle: I understand that it must be nonspatial, timeless and immaterial because it exists outside of space, time and matter. But self-existent? What do you mean by that?

G&T (93): There are only two possibilities for anything that exists: either 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else. If space, time and matter had a beginning, then something outside of space, time and matter has always existed, uncaused. It is self-existent.

Kyle: I can accept that. Something had to exist forever. But so far, you have not given any good reason that the uncaused something is a personal god.

G&T (93): I’m getting to that. The uncaused something must be unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.

Kyle: Wait a minute. Instead of ‘universe,’ I think you mean space, time and matter. Right?

G&T: Right.

Kyle: Now, what do you mean by ‘nothing’? Nothing comes from nothing.

G&T (79): ‘Nothing’ means no space, no time and no matter.

Kyle: So it would be more accurate to say it this way: Whatever made the Big Bang had to be sufficiently powerful to cause space, time and matter to emerge suddenly from other dimensions.

G&T (93): Okay. Also, the uncaused something had to be supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision. But we’ll talk more about this in the next chapter.

Kyle: So this is a wash at the moment.

G&T (93): Yes. Just be patient. Finally, the uncaused something had to be personal, in order to choose to convert other dimensions into the time-space-material universe. An impersonal force has no ability to make choices.

Kyle: Now you’re begging the question. What makes you think the emergence of space, time and matter was a personal choice? Couldn’t it have been a natural phenomenon?

G&T (85): But there could be no natural phenomenon. Nature cannot exist outside of space, time and matter.

Kyle: Our particular laws of physics might not work in other dimensions, but the other dimensions surely have some kind of order to them – some parallel to our natural laws. Otherwise, the other dimensions would be total chaos, and not even your God could exist. So if a god can exist in other dimensions, then other phenomena can occur in them, and those phenomena would occur according to the nature of those dimensions.

G&T: Do you have proof that the Big Bang was caused by natural phenomena?

Kyle: No, but the burden of proof is yours. Do you have proof that the Big Bang was caused by personal choice?

G&T: Touché.

Kyle: Indeed. So we can throw out your final point. If I understand you correctly, the only evidence you offer that a Person – a “who” rather than a “what” – was responsible for the Big Bang is that it would take intelligence to design space, time and matter.

G&T (93-94): Looks like it. And we’ll discuss that in the next chapter. For right now, I have a question for you: If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

Kyle: That sounds like a rhetorical question. I’ll tell you the answer if you can answer this: Why is there a God rather than no God?

G&T (94): That’s a good question. That’s a really good question.

Kyle: But it doesn’t have a good answer, does it?

G&T: No, I guess not.

Kyle: Is there any significant difference between your question and mine?

G&T: No, mine doesn’t have a good answer either.

Kyle: So where are we? I agree that something caused space, time and matter to come into existence, assuming your scientific evidence is correct. But neither the Cosmological Argument nor the scientific evidence says anything about what existed before the Big Bang. It might have been a god, or it might have been another set of dimensions as complex, precise, varied and marvelous as space and time. We simply don’t know. Neither science nor philosophy tells us what may have caused the Big Bang. If you don’t mind my pointing out the obvious, you have failed, so far, to prove the existence of God.

G&T: I have other chapters. Let’s go on to the Teleological Argument.

CHAPTER 4: WAS THE UNIVERSE DESIGNED?

G&T (95, 105): Perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God is the Teleological Argument:

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.

G&T (95-96, 106-107): A designer is an intelligent being who intentionally plans and manufactures something.

Kyle: What do you mean by ‘design’?

G&T (95-96, 102, 104-105, 107): Design is precision ...

Kyle: ... and complexity?

G&T (95, 106, 111): Yes, and complexity.

Kyle: What else?

G&T (96, 104-107): Anything that has interdependent parts that appear to be fine-tuned or delicately balanced must be designed by an intelligent being.

Kyle: Because it’s complex and precise.

G&T: Yes.

Kyle: So we can plug your definitions into your syllogism, and clarify the Teleological Argument:

1. Complexity and precision require deliberate planning and manufacture by an intelligent being.
2. The universe is complex and precise.
3. Therefore, the universe was deliberately planned and manufactured by an intelligent being.

Kyle: The second premise is undeniably true. The universe is precise and complex. It has interdependent parts that appear to be fine-tuned and delicately balanced.

G&T: Good. Do you accept the first premise?

Kyle: No. Neither do you.

G&T: Don’t tell me what I accept and don’t accept.

Kyle: Sorry. Let me see if I can bring you around to admitting it yourself.

G&T: Good luck!

Kyle: What would you say if I told you God was a simple being? In fact, God is so simple that the raw forces of nature – wind, rain, erosion, or some combination of natural forces – could easily form a new God.

G&T: Perish the thought.

Kyle: Would you say God is too complex and precise to be formed by the raw forces of nature?

G&T: Of course!

Kyle: Who designed God?

G&T (92): Nobody. God exists eternally.

Kyle: So here you have an example of something that is complex and precise, but was not designed, right?

G&T: Right.

Kyle: So your first premise is false. Not everything that is complex and precise requires planning and manufacture by an intelligent being. In other words, not every design requires a designer.

G&T: Well, we’re not talking about God; we’re talking about the heavens and the earth.

Kyle: If you can have a complex and precise god who exists eternally without being designed, why can’t I have an entire universe that exists eternally without being designed?

G&T (92-93): But you’ve forgotten about the Big Bang. The universe can’t be eternal.

Kyle: No, we’ve already discussed this. Remember, it’s only space, time and matter that were formed by the Big Bang, assuming your science is correct. The other dimensions can exist eternally, can’t they?

G&T: Of course. Otherwise, God could not exist.

Kyle: You seem to think that God is the only thing that existed in the other dimensions. I think the other dimensions were as varied, complex and precise as space, time and matter.

G&T: You have no proof of that.

Kyle: We’re in the same boat, then. You have no proof of God.

G&T: Can you tell me how your universe was transformed from other dimensions to time and space?

Kyle: Can you explain the mechanics of how God created the heavens and earth out of nothing?

G&T: No, that’s a mystery.

Kyle: Then we’re in the same boat. My scenario makes as much sense as yours. Maybe more. According to the Principle of Uniformity, the pre-Big Bang universe should look something like our space-time universe.

G&T (117): Hey, you've read ahead. I don’t mention the Principle of Uniformity until the next chapter.

Kyle: Maybe you should use it more uniformly.

G&T (95-96): Okay, so maybe my Teleological Argument is not as persuasive as I thought it was. What about the diamond-studded Rolex watch? Isn’t that a convincing analogy?

Kyle: The story of the Rolex watch is a trick. You offer two alternatives for explaining the existence of the watch: either it was formed by non-living forces of nature, or it was planned and manufactured by an intelligent watchmaker. The answer is obvious. Watches are made by intelligent beings. If the story had ended there, it would have been fine. What follows, however, is a false analogy. You put the universe in the place of the Rolex watch. Then you offer the same two alternatives: Was it formed by non-living forces of nature, or was it planned and manufactured by the biblical Watchmaker?

G&T: What’s wrong with that?

Kyle: It’s a false dichotomy. There are other alternatives.

G&T: What other alternatives are there?

Kyle: I can think of six alternatives for explaining the existence of anything. First, it was formed by the raw forces of nature. Mountains and ravines are examples.

G&T (95-96): I offer that alternative in the Rolex story.

Kyle: Right. A second alternative is that some things are man-made. Intelligent beings, who are not gods, make watches, cars, buildings and computers, for example.

G&T (95-96): I also offer that alternative in the Rolex story.

Kyle: True. A third alternative is that God made the thing. You believe that God created Adam’s body by special creation. You believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

G&T: Of course.

Kyle: A fourth alternative is natural reproduction. After Adam and Eve, all people are produced by natural reproduction. They are not created individually by God.

G&T: Okay.

Kyle: A fifth alternative is that non-intelligent beings made some things. A spider’s web, a beaver’s dam, or a beehive are examples.

G&T: Good.

Kyle: A sixth alternative is that the thing is eternal. You believe God is eternal. I believe the universe itself is eternal – or at least the non-temporal, nonspatial dimensions.

G&T (95-96): So my Rolex story is not convincing?

Kyle: Right. Comparing a Rolex to the universe is a false analogy, and offering only two alternatives for the existence of the universe is a false dichotomy.

G&T (106): What about the mathematics? I show that the probability of all the anthropic principles combining in one planet by random chance is practically zero.

Kyle: Again, we’re dealing with a false dichotomy. You say that the earth’s characteristics either combined by random chance, or they were designed by God. I admit the earth is very precise and complex. It’s an amazing place. But I don’t see the necessity for divine design. I believe complexity and precision are eternal characteristics of the universe. If there was a Big Bang, the precision and complexity carried over from the other dimensions.

G&T: So is there anything in my fourth chapter that persuades you?

Kyle: No. The Teleological Argument is wrong because the first premise is false. Not everything that's precise and complex requires an intelligent person to plan and manufacture it. Not even a Christian can believe the Teleological argument unless he accepts that someone designed God. You use false dichotomies and false analogies. You have no evidence that God designed the universe, and I don't have enough faith to accept it without evidence. Shall we see if your next chapter has anything better to offer?

G&T: Good idea.

CHAPTER 5: WHERE DID LIFE COME FROM?

G&T (chapter 5): Let’s talk about life on our planet. We know life exists here on Earth. How did it get here? What are its origins? My fifth chapter boils down to this syllogism:

1. Either life generated spontaneously, or an intelligent being manufactured life on Earth.
2. Life does not generate spontaneously.
3. Therefore, an intelligent being manufactured life on earth.

Kyle: Yes, the ‘either-or’ logic is valid. However, the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of both premises.

G&T: Do you believe the premises are true?

Kyle: I’m inclined to believe the second premise. Unless evidence to the contrary surfaces, I don’t believe life can generate itself spontaneously.

G&T: Well, you’re ahead of the Darwinists.

Kyle: Thanks.

G&T: How about the first premise? Is it true?

Kyle: I’m having some trouble accepting the first premise. You offer two alternatives: spontaneous generation and intelligent manufacture. Are those the only alternatives?

G&T (121): Well, there’s the theory of panspermia, but that’s so crazy that I don’t give it serious consideration.

Kyle: What is panspermia?

G&T (121): The suggestion that aliens deposited the first life here.

Kyle: Isn’t that what you believe?

G&T: Come again?

Kyle: Did God deposit the first life here on Earth?

G&T: Well, yes.

Kyle: Is God a native of planet Earth?

G&T: No.

Kyle: Then isn’t God an alien?

G&T: Um. Well, no. He created the earth, so how could he be an alien to it?

Kyle: I see. So other than the minor point of how you define the word ‘alien,’ the panspermia theory is pretty close to your own.

G&T: But in panspermia, the aliens are not gods.

Kyle: You know what the Principle of Uniformity is, don’t you?

G&T (117): Of course. It’s the central principle in forensic science. By the Principle of Uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today, especially when it comes to causes.

Kyle: So, wouldn’t the Principle of Uniformity favor non-gods over gods?

G&T: Can you explain how non-gods would travel to Earth?

Kyle: Can you explain how a god would travel to Earth?

G&T: With God, all things are possible. He’s not hindered by a physical body. He’s immaterial – not made of matter.

Kyle: Well, maybe the non-gods are immaterial. Maybe they’re more intelligent and powerful than we are.

G&T: How could non-gods breach the gap between the immaterial and the material?

Kyle: How could God do it?

G&T: I see. Every objection I raise about your theory applies equally to mine.

Kyle: Right. We're both in the same boat. Origins are a mystery for everyone.

G&T (121): Okay, so maybe panspermia is not as far-out as I thought it was. The problem is, though, that panspermia doesn’t solve the problem of the origin of life.

Kyle: I thought this chapter was about the origin of life on Earth. Now you’re talking about life in the universe.

G&T: Well, my fifth chapter is a little vague on that distinction.

Kyle: I noticed.

G&T (121): But the point is, panspermia doesn’t explain how life began in the universe. It simply puts it off another step: who made the intelligent aliens?

Kyle: I can say the same thing about theistic creation. It doesn’t explain the origin of life. It only puts it off another step: who made God?

G&T (92): Nobody. God is eternal.

Kyle: Maybe the aliens are eternal.

G&T: You mean immortal?

Kyle: Not necessarily. They could be mortals, but their race could stretch back through an infinite number of generations.

G&T: What evidence do you have for that theory?

Kyle: What evidence do you have for God? Your Cosmological Argument doesn’t work. Neither does your Teleological Argument. You have set out to prove the existence of God without reference to the Bible. Where is your evidence?

G&T: I still think theistic creation makes more sense than panspermia.

Kyle: I suspect that’s your bias speaking. You’re accustomed to the theory of theistic creation, so it doesn’t seem strange to you. But an objective person who didn’t grow up in Sunday School would probably think panspermia makes at least as much sense as theistic creation. Besides those aren’t the only alternatives.

G&T: We’ve mentioned three alternatives so far: spontaneous generation, theistic creation and panspermia. What else is there?

Kyle: It depends on whether you’re talking about life in the universe or life on earth. As far as life in the universe is concerned, you believe that God is the first life, and he existed forever, without beginning.

G&T (92): Right.

Kyle: I think a more credible theory is that all life forms come from an infinite line of ancestors. Life itself – with all its variety – is eternal.

G&T: Then how did this great variety of life arrive on earth?

Kyle: One possibility is that the Earth is eternal, and life has always been here.

G&T (chapter 3): But scientific evidence tends to discredit that option.

Kyle: Right. Or life generated spontaneously on Earth.

G&T (chapter 5): Highly unlikely.

Kyle: I agree. Or maybe Earth life is the naturally reproduced offspring of life elsewhere in the universe.

G&T (121): Panspermia.

Kyle: Or God created life on Earth.

G&T: That’s my favorite.

Kyle: Or non-gods created life on Earth.

G&T: Don’t you think we can eliminate spontaneous generation and an eternal Earth?

Kyle: Sure. That leaves us with panspermia, creation by God and creation by non-gods. In all three alternatives, life existed in some form before coming to Earth.

G&T: I believe pre-Earth life was in the form of one person alone – God.

Kyle: And I keep my mind open to the possibility that pre-Earth life was as varied and complex as Earth life. None of the three theories contradicts the Big Bang and related sciences. Neither of us can explain how the pre-Earth life traveled to planet Earth from elsewhere.

G&T: It’s a mystery, isn’t it?

Kyle: Yes. In two of the three theories, Earth life is engineered and manufactured by super-intelligent creators. In panspermia, Earth life is the natural reproduction of pre-Earth life. Of course, we see natural reproduction every day. We have never witnessed a robot or a mannequin come to life. We can reproduce life through our genitals, but we cannot engineer or manufacture life by intelligent design. We have not discovered any being with the super-intelligence required for manufacturing life. Therefore, panspermia should be considered the most reasonable alternative.

G&T: Unless you consider the witness of the Bible.

Kyle: And that’s covered in other chapters. To this point, you have failed to prove by extra-biblical evidence that there is a god.

G&T (117): So you don’t buy the choice between the first life (1) being created by some kind of intelligence or (2) arising by natural laws from nonliving materials?

Kyle: No, your fifth chapter is a false dichotomy. You fail to consider seriously other alternatives.

G&T: Shall we move on?

Kyle: Sure, after one comment. What did you say near the bottom of page 132?

G&T (132): “Intellect, free will, objective morality and human rights as well as reason, logic, design and truth can exist only if God exists.”

Kyle: So far, I’ve been pretty good about addressing only the main points of your chapters. I have ignored irrelevant material. But I can’t let that statement go unchallenged. In my opinion, it’s offensive, arrogant and completely untrue. And while I’m at it, I also object to the harsh statements you make against atheists on page 68 and elsewhere. I’m not saying this to be unkind. I just want you to know that I disagree.

G&T: I understand. We’ll address those issues in chapter seven. Shall we go on to chapter six now?

Kyle: Sure.

CHAPTER 6: WHAT ABOUT EVOLUTION?

G&T (chapter 6): We know micro-evolution occurs: a particular species of animal may develop and change over time, without turning into another species. But what do you think about macro-evolution? Do you believe one kind of animal can develop into another? Do you believe man evolved from apes?

Kyle: Not necessarily. I would have to see some scientific evidence before I believe that.

G&T (chapter 6): Well, the Darwinists don’t have any good evidence. In fact, there is evidence that macroevolution does not occur on Earth.

Kyle: I’ll take your word for it. For the sake of the argument, I deny that one species can evolve into another. I’ll keep my mind open, though, to further scientific evidence, should any come to my attention.

G&T (155): So, if there’s no natural explanation for the origin of new life forms, then there must be an intelligent explanation. It’s the only other option. There’s no halfway house between intelligence and non-intelligence.

Kyle: That sounds like the principle you mentioned earlier. What was it?

G&T (62): The Law of the Excluded Middle.

Kyle: Of course. I agree that new life forms were either created by an intelligent being, or they were not created by an intelligent being. Is that what you’re saying?

G&T: Exactly.

Kyle: But you speak as if macroevolution is the only alternative to creation by an intelligent being.

G&T: Isn’t it?

Kyle: No, of course not. Isn’t it possible that there are no new life forms? Maybe every life form has an infinite line of ancestors. If God can be eternal, why can’t every life form be eternal?

G&T: Can you explain how all these thousands of life forms arrived on planet Earth from the other dimensions?

Kyle: Can you explain how God arrived on planet Earth from the other dimensions?

G&T: Well, no.

Kyle: Neither can I. We’re in the same boat.

G&T: Which is more believable? On one hand you have a single person performing a marvelous feat by exercising incredible intelligence and unlimited power. On the other hand, you have thousands of unintelligent life forms that mysteriously pop into material existence. Which would you choose?

Kyle: You seem to regard intelligence as the most powerful force in the universe, and you seem to underestimate the forces of nature. I find this very curious. Humanity keeps discovering the awesome power of nature. We peek into natural phenomena, and we are overwhelmed with its intricate complexity. Science has barely scratched the surface of how the universe works. There are powerful forces within every atom that attract some particles and repel other particles. We have discovered that the entire blueprint of a person’s body is embedded in the nucleus of every cell. Maybe the blueprint of the entire universe is embedded in each and every atom.

G&T: But who created that blueprint? Surely a blueprint points to an intelligent source.

Kyle: The blueprint may be eternal. Nobody created it. It simply exists.

G&T: The same way I insist that God simply exists?

Kyle: Right. And maybe when natural conditions are right, the complexity of the other dimensions solidifies into space, time and matter. Compare it to water. When conditions are right, it transforms from a liquid to a solid. Other conditions cause it to transform from a liquid to a gas. It’s still water, but it changes form. That’s the power of nature. Intelligence is not required. Maybe the atmospheric and geological conditions of planet Earth were different during the Cambrian period than they are today, and the various life forms in other dimensions “solidified” into a material existence, purely by natural phenomena.

G&T: That sounds pretty far-out.

Kyle: No more far-out than your God theory. In fact, you mentioned a principle...

G&T (117): The Principle of Uniformity?

Kyle: Yes. The Principle of Uniformity favors natural phenomena, even if we don’t fully understand them, over a super-intelligence. Compared with the forces of nature, the intelligence of man is a trifling thing, and we have absolutely no scientific evidence for any intelligence greater than man’s. Intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon. Intelligence depends on nature – not the other way around.

G&T: Well, you would have a hard time proving your hypothesis, and disproving the existence of God.

Kyle: I agree. And to the same extent, you would have a hard time proving the existence of God and disproving my hypothesis. And remember, the burden of proof is yours.

G&T: I have one more argument to prove the existence of God.

Kyle: Let’s go for it.

G&T: Okay, but before we do, let’s review the scientific evidence.

Kyle: Fine.

Review of the Scientific Evidence

G&T (159-160): I have attempted to prove in chapters 3 to 6 that the Intelligent Design theory is not based on the Bible. It’s a conclusion based on empirically detectable evidence, not sacred texts.

Kyle: I’m glad you made the attempt. As an atheist, I require evidence outside the Bible. And what is the “empirically detectable evidence” you mention?

G&T (166): First, the universe exploded into being out of nothing.

Kyle: You mean, space, time and matter exploded into being out of other dimensions, assuming SURGE science and the Big Bang theory are correct, as you presented it.

G&T: Yes, of course.

Kyle: Which means that the other dimensions must be as marvelous and complex as space, time and matter.

G&T: Right. I believe that the other dimensions consist of one person: God.

Kyle: You haven't given me any reason to rule out the hypothesis that the other dimensions are as varied and marvelous as the physical life forms we have here on Earth. You haven’t proved the necessity for a god. So your first line of evidence fails. What else did you have?

G&T (166): Second, this tiny, remote planet called Earth has over 100 fine-tuned, life-enabling constants.

Kyle: How do you interpret this fact?

G&T (96, 165): A super-intelligent being must have tweaked the laws of physics.

Kyle: I disagree. I believe the laws of nature have been marvelously complex forever. No tweaking was ever required.

G&T: You have no proof.

Kyle: Do you?

G&T: No.

Kyle: Okay. What’s next?

G&T (166): Life has been observed to arise only from existing life.

Kyle: This fact actually favors panspermia over creation. Life has never been observed to be created.

G&T (166): Life consists of thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable specified complexity.

Kyle: That is a marvelous thing, but it does nothing to prove the existence of gods. Life has always been marvelously complex through all eternity.

G&T (167): Life changes cyclically, and only within a limited range.

Kyle: In the present conditions of our planet Earth, yes. This doesn’t prove the existence of gods. It only describes certain facts of nature.

G&T (167): Life cannot be built or modified gradually.

Kyle: The irreducible complexity of life is eternal – not created.

G&T (167): Life is molecularly isolated between basic types.

Kyle: Which could easily have been the case eternally.

G&T (167): Life leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.

Kyle: That’s consistent with varied life forms in other dimensions, and natural phenomena which cause these life forms to manifest themselves in space, time and matter. Gods are not required.

G&T: Hmm....

Kyle: In these four chapters you have utterly failed to prove the existence of God. Your scientific evidence falls short of its mark. It proves that the universe is marvelous, complex and mysterious. It does not explain why. Thrusting God into the equation raises more problems than it solves. It seems more reasonable to live with the mystery, while exploring theories that are more consistent with the Principle of Uniformity.

CHAPTER 7: THE MORAL LAW ARGUMENT

G&T (171): The Moral Law Argument goes like this:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

G&T: Do I sound like I’m joking?

Kyle: Just look at your first premise. What do you mean by “Every law has a law giver”?

G&T (171): Of course every law has a lawgiver. There can be no legislation unless there’s a legislature. Moreover, if there are moral obligations, there must be someone to be obligated to.

Kyle: I think we need to define our terms. Your seventh chapter doesn’t seem to deal with the laws of the land. Legislators write the United States Code, and judges write opinions in court cases. We’re not talking about such legislation or legal precedent, are we?

G&T (171): No, we’re more concerned about moral laws. When we say the moral law exists, we mean that all people are impressed with a fundamental sense of right and wrong.

Kyle: Exactly. And this fundamental sense of right and wrong is not a code written by legislators.

G&T (170, 177, 189, 192-193): I say it is. God is the legislator who writes his moral law on our hearts.

Kyle: I take that metaphorically....

G&T: Of course.

Kyle: Do you acknowledge that there’s a fundamental difference between laws written and enforced by human governments, and the moral sense within us?

G&T: Yes.

Kyle: Would you object if instead of moral “laws” we called them moral principles? That way we can more easily distinguish moral principles from the laws of the land.

G&T (80): By all means, let’s avoid equivocation.

Kyle: So your first premise would be less equivocal if it said, “Every principle has a source.”

G&T: I see you replaced ‘law giver’ with ‘source.’ I guess that makes sense. ‘Principle giver’ doesn’t sound right.

Kyle: So the new syllogism would look like this:

1. Every principle has a source.
2. Moral principles exist.
3. Therefore, there is a source for moral principles.

Kyle: If you want to rely on equivocation and jump to unwarranted conclusions, you can keep your original argument. But if you are honest and forthright, this is what your original argument boils down to. Am I right?

G&T: Sure.

Kyle: Now, I agree with the second premise. Moral principles exist.

G&T (172-181): How do you like my eight reasons that we know the moral “law” exists?

Kyle: Generally, I agree with them and I applaud them.

G&T (182-186): And what do you think about my six distinctions that clear up confusion about moral principles?

Kyle: Again, I agree with your major points.

G&T: You don’t sound completely convinced.

Kyle: Well, you do jump to some unsupported conclusions. You assume that God is the only source for morality. This is especially evident in your seventh reason.

G&T (180-181): You mean when I say, “atheists ... have no objective moral grounds,” and, “in a nontheistic world there are no rights”?

Kyle: Yes, I find those statements offensive.

G&T: But are they true?

Kyle: No! Absolutely not!

G&T: Where else can moral principles come from?

Kyle: From human interaction. Every child develops his “fundamental sense of right and wrong” as part of growing up. Interaction with other human beings teaches children that it’s more comfortable to cooperate with other people than to oppose them. Hurting other people brings negative consequences. When an infant bites his mother’s nipple, he’s likely to get a gentle slap. That starts to teach the child that other people should be treated with respect. This moral sense is refined and developed as the child matures. Some people develop their moral sense more completely than others, but all sane people attain the basics of morality. Morality is a human phenomenon, and it develops from the interaction of people with other people.

G&T (170, 177, 189, 192-193): But God writes the moral law on our hearts.

Kyle: (Stunned silence)

G&T: Well?

Kyle: Do you know the difference between an assertion and an argument?

G&T (191): Yes. An assertion merely states a conclusion; an argument, on the other hand, states the conclusion and then supports it with evidence.

Kyle: Where is your evidence for the assertion that God is the source of our moral sense?

G&T: Um ... the Bible?

Kyle: But in this chapter you’re attempting to prove God’s existence without reference to the Bible. Isn’t that right?

G&T (198): Yes, that was my intent.

Kyle: But you have no extra-biblical evidence that God is the source of our moral sense, do you? I could read and reread your seventh chapter until I’m blue in the face, and I will find many assertions, but no evidence.

G&T: You seem to have caught me empty handed. I have no evidence. Where is your evidence?

Kyle: For one thing, you are carrying the burden of proof – trying to prove the existence of God. All I need to do is expose your lack of evidence. For another thing, it seems to be self-evident that morality is taught and learned. If you want to question the obvious, go to the library. There are any number of scientific books on how children learn morality. For now, here's an excerpt from an article on "Child Development" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the 2005 version on CD:

Young children's growing awareness of their own emotional states, characteristics, and abilities leads to empathy—i.e., the ability to appreciate the feelings and perspectives of others. Empathy and other forms of social awareness are in turn important in the development of a moral sense. The basis of morality in children may be said to progress from a simple fear of punishment and pain to a concern for maintaining the approval of one's parents.

Kyle: So we both agree that every sane human being has a moral sense of right and wrong. We only disagree on the source of that moral sense. You say God writes it on every heart. I say we learn it – like language, social skills and customs.

G&T (177): Don’t you think morality is objective? Isn’t there an unchanging standard outside yourself?

Kyle: Yes. The consensus of society is the standard outside ourselves. Its most basic moral principles never change. If you were to rewrite your seventh chapter, replacing such words as ‘God’ and ‘theism’ with ‘society,’ I would find it instructive and acceptable. Let’s go through your summary and give it a try.

G&T (192): Alright. My first point is this: There is an absolute standard of right and wrong that is written on the hearts of every human being. People may deny it; they may suppress it; their actions may contradict it; but their reactions reveal that they know it.

Kyle: Well, there’s nothing particularly theistic about that point. I accept it as written. Go on.

G&T (192): Relativism is false. Human beings do not determine right and wrong; we discover right and wrong. If human beings determined right and wrong, then anyone would be “right” in asserting that rape, murder, the Holocaust, or any other evil is not really wrong. But we know those acts are wrong intuitively through our consciences, which are manifestations of the Moral Law.

Kyle: I would change ‘human beings’ to ‘individuals.’ Humanity in general does determine right and wrong. Individuals discover it. In addition, I would put ‘moral law’ in lower case letters. I notice throughout your seventh chapter you use capital letters to imply that God is the source of morality. Pretty sneaky of you.

G&T: I can’t slip anything past you, can I?

Kyle: Well, not that, anyway.

G&T (192): This Moral Law must have a source higher than ourselves because it is a prescription that is on the hearts of all people. Since prescriptions always have prescribers – they don’t arise from nothing – the Moral Law Prescriber (God) must exist.

Kyle: May I rephrase? These moral principles must have a source beyond individual opinions because it is a standard common to all sane people. Since common standards don’t just happen by coincidence, we all have a common source (society) for moral standards. What is your next point?

G&T (193): This Moral Law is God’s standard of rightness, and it helps us adjudicate between the different moral opinions people may have. Without God’s standard, we’re left with just that – human opinions. The Moral Law is the final standard by which everything is measured.

Kyle: Let’s see if I can rephrase that.... These moral principles are society’s standard of rightness, and they help us adjudicate between the different moral opinions individuals may have. Without society’s standard, we’re left with just that – individual opinions. The moral principles of society are the final standard by which everything is measured.

G&T: Where can I find these “moral principles of society”? Where are they written?

Kyle: Some of them are written, and some aren’t. Mankind has codified many moral principles as the laws of the land. Other principles are recorded in books of etiquette. Also, there are many writings on ethics and related philosophies. Some principles aren’t recorded at all, but we grow into them as part of our society’s culture.

G&T: That makes sense.

Kyle: So, what’s your next point?

G&T (193): Although it is widely believed that all morality is relative, core moral values are absolute, and they transcend cultures. Confusion over this is often based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of moral absolutes, not on a real rejection of them. That is, moral values are absolute, even if our understanding of them or of the circumstances in which they should be applied are not absolute.

Kyle: That’s good. I’ll accept it as written.

G&T (193): Atheists have no real basis for objective right and wrong. This does not mean that atheists are not moral or don’t understand right from wrong. On the contrary, atheists can and do understand right from wrong because the Moral Law is written on their hearts just as on every other heart. But while they may believe in an objective right and wrong, they have no way to justify such a belief (unless they admit a Moral Law Giver, at which point they cease being atheists.)

Kyle: Excuse me a minute while I try to keep my righteous indignation under control.

G&T: Why should my last statement make you angry?

Kyle: It’s so vitriolic, and so untrue. I am proud to be an atheist. I’m a consistent atheist, and contrary to what you assert in the last paragraph of page 193, I believe that murder, rape, genocide, torture and other heinous acts are wrong. I can justify my morality as well as any theist can. Probably better.

G&T: Well, I ...

Kyle: Excuse me, I’m not done. What you said is not only hateful and untrue, your rejection of ethical philosophy causes real harm. I have known people who had based their personal code of conduct entirely on obedience to God. When they discovered that God was a fantasy, they had not developed any reasonable foundation for ethics to fall back on. They went off the deep end and committed any number of immoral acts before they began to get grounded in a true philosophy of ethics.

G&T: So how would you rephrase my last point?

Kyle: I wouldn’t rephrase it at all. If I replaced ‘atheist’ with ‘anti-humanist’ or any other word, it would come off as hateful as the original. Let me just say that all people – no matter what they believe – have access to ethical philosophy. I would encourage people who believe in God to supplement their obedience with an understanding of why certain actions are right or wrong. Try to understand morality from a human standpoint. It could not harm your faith, and it would give you all the more reason and strength to live morally upright lives.

G&T: How can I argue with that?

CHAPTER 8: MIRACLES

G&T (197): Let’s review the evidence for the existence of God. First, we have the Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. Space, time and matter had a beginning.
3. Therefore, space, time a matter had a cause.

G&T (198): Then there’s the Teleological Argument:

1. Complexity and precision require deliberate planning and manufacture by an intelligent being.
2. The universe is complex and precise.
3. Therefore, the universe was deliberately planned and manufactured by an intelligent being.

G&T (198): Then there’s the Moral Argument:

1. Every principle has a source.
2. Moral principles exist.
3. Therefore, there is a source for moral principles.

G&T (200): So you don’t believe me when I say that I have proved the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt?

Kyle: Why should I? A collection of false arguments does not make your assertion true. Not only do you fail to meet the “reasonable doubt” standard, but you have failed to provide one scintilla of evidence for the existence of God. If this is the best non-biblical evidence you have to offer...

G&T (394): It is.

Kyle: Then the complete lack of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. The theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not worthy of belief.

G&T: Ouch.

Kyle: Is there any reason to continue our conversation? You have established a pattern of deception. Why should I continue to entertain your fallacies?

G&T (213): Wait a minute. I’ve tried, but apparently failed, to convince you with non-biblical evidence that God exists. There’s still the Bible. If the Bible is true, God exists. I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is true.

Kyle: Miracles and all, huh?

G&T: Yes. If a god exists, he can surely do miracles.

Kyle: I accept that statement, with a healthy emphasis on the ‘if.’

G&T: Good.

Kyle: So, how can you prove the occurrence of a miracle?

G&T (208): The only way to know for sure if a miracle has occurred is to investigate the evidence for each miracle claim.

Kyle: On a case-by-case basis?

G&T (210-215, 217): Yes. Of course, we must distinguish miracles from other types of unusual events such as providence, Satanic signs, psychosomatic cures, magic and anomalies.

Kyle: Of course. Don’t forget hoaxes and fraudulent claims. Do you admit that there are more false miracles than real ones?

G&T: For example?

Kyle: Images of the Virgin Mary on underpass stains and grilled cheese sandwiches, Benny Hinn’s pseudo-healings, Bible Codes, etc.

G&T: Of course, we have to use common sense and all our logical tools in evaluating miracle claims.

Kyle: As a matter of fact, if there is an omniscient God who wants to impress us with a miracle, he should understand that most miracle claims are false. He should understand that we know this. He should understand that we are justified in being skeptical about any miracle claim.

G&T (29): Good. You’re right to be skeptical.

Kyle: And if this omniscient God can see into the future ...

G&T (215): He can. That’s one way we know a miracle is from God. He predicts it.

Kyle: Then he should provide evidence that’s convincing enough to overcome our natural skepticism.

G&T (213): He does. That’s how I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is true.

Kyle: Bring on the evidence, but be forewarned that I will subject it to rigorous testing.

G&T (321): Good. That’s what you should do. The evidence can withstand the most rigorous of testing. There is more than usual evidence for Biblical miracles.

Kyle: We’ll see.

CHAPTER 9: EARLY DOCUMENTS MENTIONING JESUS

G&T (222-223): First, let’s establish that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person – not just a fictitious character. There are ten non-Christian writers who mentioned Jesus within 150 years of his death. My favorite is Flavius Josephus.

Kyle: When did he live?

G&T (221-222): He was born in about A.D. 37, and he died about A.D. 100. In about A.D. 93, he finished his famous Antiquities of the Jews. In book 18, chapter 3, section 3 of that work, Josephus, who was not a Christian, wrote these words:

At this time [the time of Pilate] there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

G&T (424): That’s a good question. Most scholars believe that Christians changed the quotation.

Kyle: That's right. Even Christian scholars say that parts of the passage are questionable (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html). G&T, I’d like you to meet Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2005 Deluxe. Let’s call him EB for short.

G&T: That’s an encyclopedia on CD?

Kyle: Yes. I like to refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica because it has a good reputation, it’s cheap, and it’s readily available. I got these CD’s recently for less than forty dollars.

G&T: Cool.

Kyle: EB, what do you say about this passage in your article on “Jesus Christ: Sources for the life of Jesus”?

EB: Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus's original remarks cannot be discerned.

EB: The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the “so-called Christ.” The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ's divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist.

Kyle: Notice, though, that at least one of the passages referring to Jesus was tampered with, or so heavily revised that we cannot discern what Josephus really said.

G&T: If that’s true, I can’t very well rely on it for evidence.

Kyle: Let’s assume, though, for the sake of the argument, that Josephus really did write those passages. What would the passages prove?

G&T (223): They would affirm the general story of Christ and the early church.

Kyle: Not really. They would only affirm that the gospel story was in circulation in A.D. 93. They would not indicate that the story was true. Jesus died several years before Josephus was born. Therefore, Josephus was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. Whatever information he may have had about Jesus was acquired by hearsay.

G&T (221): But Josephus was the greatest Jewish historian of his time. Why would any historian include a story that he had not verified as true?

Kyle: Josephus may have been “the greatest Jewish historian of his time,” but by today’s standards, he would not be called a good historian at all. Josephus routinely included stories in his writings that were obviously fictitious. He made no distinction between historical fiction and historical fact. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that he exaggerated his facts and embellished the biblical narratives (“Josephus, Flavius: Josephus as historian” and “Josephus, Flavius: Assessment”). EB, what is your assessment of Josephus?

EB: His writings are not always accepted as totally reliable (“Antiquities of the Jews”).

G&T: Okay, so you have discredited my star witness. What about the other nine?

Kyle: Who were they?

G&T (424): I mention the ten non-Christian writers in my footnote 5. They were:

• Josephus
• Tacitus, the Roman historian
• Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician
• Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories
• Thallus, a first-century historian
• Seutonius, a Roman historian
• Lucian, a Greek satirist
• Celsus, a Roman philosopher
• Mara bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son
• the Jewish Talmud.

G&T: I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me?

Kyle: Okay. You’ve already admitted that Josephus was born in about A.D. 37, several years after Jesus’ death. He had no personal knowledge of Jesus. What about Tacitus? EB, when was he born?

EB: A.D. 56 (“Tacitus”).

Kyle: So he had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus. EB, When was Pliny the Younger born?

EB: A.D. 61 or 62 (“Pliny the Younger”).

Kyle: How about Phlegon?

EB: I don’t know anything about Phlegon.

G&T: Phlegon was a freed slave of the emperor Hadrian.

EB: Hadrian was born in A.D. 76 (“Hadrian”).

Kyle: So it’s unlikely that Phlegon ever had personal knowledge of Jesus. How about Thallus?

EB: I know nothing about Thallus.

Kyle: A quick search on the Internet brings me to a web page by Richard Carrier (www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html), who says:

Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.

EB: He was born A.D. 69 (“Suetonius”).

Kyle: What about Lucian?

EB: He was born A.D. 120 (“Lucian”).

Kyle: What about Celsus?

EB: He lived in the second century (“Hellenistic religion: Religion from Commodus to Theodosius I: AD 180–395”).

Kyle: What about Mara Bar-Serapion?

EB: I don’t know about him.

Kyle: From a web page on “Early Christian Writings” (www.earlychristianwritings.com), we find that Mara Bar-Serapion wrote his letter sometime between A.D. 73 and 165. He didn’t claim to know Jesus or live during his time. What about the Talmud?