FAITH, GOD, BIBLE, AND SCIENCE

Faith, God, Bible, and Science

by David A. Noebel

          It's been said that whoever frames the debate wins the argument.  It is also true that whoever defines the terms wins the argument.  Whoever wins the argument wins the right to be heard. 

But some arguments are trivial and not worth the trouble to decide, while the outcome of other arguments can end in loosing lives. For example,   redefining unborn babies as "products of conception" hastens a trip to the abortionist.  And rephrasing "global warming" to the mores generic  "climate change" brings the argument to a screeching halt since "climate change" can refer to both global warming and global cooling.

            In this article, I will look at two arguments used by liberals and secularists that have gained widespread popularity and are causing much confusion for the Christian community in general and Christian young people in particular.

The first is that liberals and secularists are generous and have great compassion for their fellow human beings, while conservatives, and particularly Christians, are selfish and do not really care for the poor or downtrodden.  The second is that secularists claim to know what is true in all areas of life based on the scientific method while Christians are uneducated, anti-science, and ignorant. 

            The answer to the argument that liberals are generous while conservatives are selfish does not stand under close scrutiny.  Indeed, one need only consult Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide-Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters.  Brooks, a former liberal, accepted the conventional wisdom that liberals by definition are charitable and conservatives are selfish.  "The data," says Brooks, "tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong." 

            In category after category, conservatives turned out to be more generous and compassionate than liberals.  Conservatives give more of their money, time, talent, and themselves to charity than do liberals.  "Take blood donations, for example," says Brooks.  "In 2002 conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals.  If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent."

            Brooks, a Syracuse University professor, also finds that "religious people are far more charitable with their time and money than secularists.  Religious people are more generous in informal ways as well, such as giving blood, giving money to family members, and behaving honestly."

We must remember that an atheist wrote The Selfish Gene, not a Christian conservative. Richard Dawkins, its author, states, "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species . . . are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense."  Natural selection is in the business of weeding out the unfit in its eternal war against the weak. (See also the last few pages of Darwin's Origin of Species.) 

            Brooks says "that one of the greatest political hypocrisies of our time is the pious sloganeering about liberals in America being more compassionate than conservatives.  This stereotype is false, and it is a disservice to our country."

            When it comes to charitable giving habits grouped by individual states, the northeastern states in the United States are the least generous.  All are predominately liberal strongholds!  In contrast, the most generous state in the United States is also the poorest-Mississippi.  In fact, the five most generous states are all located in the Bible belt.  There seems to be a connection between faith in God and the Bible and charity.  Could it be that people in these states follow Christ's admonition to be kind to the poor, the hopeless, and the down-and-out? 

            Moving to the second popular myth, we find that secular atheists' claim that science is the sole source of truth and enlightenment also does not stand up to the facts.

            The stark truth is that science, defined as observation, hypothesis formulation, prediction, and testing of predictions of the physical universe, is not able to answer the most important questions of humanity.  Why a universe? Why life? Why me?  Max Planck, father of quantum physics, admits, "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature."  Schrodinger, another quantum physicist, likewise admits, "The scientific picture of the real world around me is . . . ghastly silent about all that . . . really matters to us . . .. It knows nothing of the beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity . . .. Whence came I and whither go I?  That is the great unfathomable question . . . for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."

            Yet, for the most part, those who control public education and the major media outlets have decided to follow Harvard's Richard Lewontin who declares, "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door." This is because their belief in a naturalistic philosophy will not allow them to entertain the possibility of a Creator.  Therefore, they must deny evidence for design in the universe or life.

Not even well known evolutionist and author Paul Amos Moody can get the atheists' attention when it comes to obvious design in nature.   Moody says that the more he studies science, the more he is impressed with the belief that the world and universe "have a definite design-and a design suggests a designer."  He also says that evidences of design are everywhere, "from the starry heavens to the electrons swirling in orbit around the atomic nuclei.  What happens when we seek the natural laws that perfect such design?  There we find the Creator."

But with over 90 percent of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defending atheism, their particular brand of science will never find God.  In fact, these men and women frame the argument in order to exclude God.  They want only "naturalistic" answers and therefore define science as the pursuit of only naturalist phenomena. 

They claim there is no intelligent designer who designed the cell or the chemical communications of ants.  Only chance mutations and natural (read naturalistic) selection are allowed to play any role in generating the vast and intricate systems found in every living cell.  Only someone of a very closed mind could believe that the cell, for example, could arrive and prosper by chance and tiny incremental steps (see Behe's Darwin's Black Box), but this is the only theory allowed in America's public schools, thanks to the dictates of the watchdogs of the NAS.

On the other hand, some of the social sciences are finding it easier than are the hard sciences to accept the reality of faith, God and religion. In an important publication of The Heritage Foundation, "Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability," Patrick F. Fagan writes, "Over the past decade, considerable research has emerged that demonstrates the benefits of religious practice within society.  Religious practice promotes the well-being of individuals, families, and the community." Thus, scientific data show that God, the Bible, and faith play a larger part in society than any atheist would be willing to admit. 

Hear the conclusion of The Heritage Foundation report as researched and gathered from the leading professional journals of the social sciences (American Sociological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Journal of Marriage and Family, Behavior and Medicine, American Journal of Sociology):  "A steadily growing body of evidence from the social sciences demonstrates that regular religious practice benefits individuals, families, and communities, and thus the nation as a whole.  The practice of religion improves health, academic achievement, and economic well-being and fosters self-control, self-esteem, empathy and compassion."

George Washington was right when he said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political [societal] prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports."

In every aspect of society (e.g., marriage, divorce, marital satisfaction, cohabitation, children, domestic violence, adultery, out of wed-lock births, drugs, alcohol, mental health, happiness and well-being, stress, self-esteem, depression, suicide, physical health, educational attainment, compassion, charity, juvenile delinquency, etc.)-Religion and faith in God have a positive impact. 

Marriages, for example, are better and marital satisfaction highest with those who put into practice their faith in God.  "In general," says Fagan, "religious participation appears to foster an authoritative, warm, active, and expressive style of parenting.  In addition, parents who attend religious services are more likely to enjoy a better relationship with their children."  Fagan says in closing, "Research has linked the practice of religion to reductions in the incidence of divorce, crime, delinquency, drug and alcohol addiction, out of wed-lock births, health problems, anxiety, and prejudice."

A proven uplifting relationship exists between, faith, God, the Bible, and science.  However, these findings are seldom, if ever, acknowledged in most areas of American higher education.  Shame on educators who march to the atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionistic beat and who deny students such truth, knowledge, and wisdom.  And shame on us who fear exposing it!

By David Noebel Email: Noebel@Summit.org Click here for bio and archived articles

china credit card Posted On: 01/04/08 10:03:35 PM Age 35, VT People get credit cards for a reason. Yes, credit cards might entice you to buy more but most of the time you would have bought those things anyway. Credit card allow you to spend less but to save more if you make the right choice. An important thing is to compare credit card deals. Fortunately, it?s not that hard when you use the sites such as <a href= http://deliquentcreadt.cn/unsecured-orchard-master-00000.html >orchard bank unsecured 15 000.00 master gold card</a> Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/11/07 11:46:56 PM Age 45, AR Exactly. If your worldview is correct, I am delusional. If my worldview is correct, you are delusional. Our worldviews are antithetical, and the law of the excluded middle applies. One of us is wrong, one of us is right. And, the test of a worldview is a presuppositional test. A worldview must provide the necessary foundation for intelligence, science, reality, knowledge, ethics, love, beauty, etc..., or else it is not true. (1) I am not conflating reality and science. I am merely saying science is real. Science never thought the world was flat. Science is a label which man gives to his description of the material world and how it operates. But that world must be real and truth about it must not be dependent on man. Science is not self-correcting, science is man correcting. Science must tie into a reality which authoritatively obligates man and can communicate with man. As a Christian, my worldview accounts for all of this, your worldview does not. (2) I agree that induction is a useful tool, I am not anti-induction. But, induction has its limitations. One of which is that it is insufficient as a foundation for a worldview. This is not exclusively a Christian observation, Hume agrees with me. Abstractions are thought, they are not perceived. Perceptions pertain to the five senses and induction is limited to the abilities of the five senses. Thoughts are immaterial and they are not perceived by the five senses. Induction provides no foundation for thought. Your musings on purpose have a certain poetic appeal, but they are naive. If purpose never rises above self-interest, what occurs when my purpose becomes one of defeating your purpose? You have defined purpose along hedonistic lines. That is, purpose is unrestrained individual pursuit of whatever makes one happy. This undermines ethics because what makes me happy may be depriving you of your life or property. This undermines altruism, there is no room for concepts like love, beauty, excellance, dignity, sacrifice, and service in hedonism. For the hedonist, the pursuit of individual happiness justifies all conduct. This destroys any concept of community and therefore undermines political and cultural philosophies. Your worldview does not work. Worse, it is dangerous. (3) Might I suggest that you are so taken with your twin argument (which, seriously, is a lame argument) that you have totally missed a very important point I am making. To get your twin argument started, you have to presuppose a universe in which possibility is ultimate. Think about those ramifications. Seriously. If possibility is ultimate, anything can happen. You cannot set up this total possibility world for making a God has a twin argument and then just walk away from that world. If anything is possible, then everything you think and believe is possibly wrong. You possibly do not even exist. If your universe of total possibility is real, you have much bigger problems that Christianity. (4) I have not heard your particular debate but I have heard Barker debate before. I strongly suspected that you once were a Christian. In fact, I find very few atheists who argue with tenacity who have not apostated from Christianity. They have an axe to grind and guilt to assuage. Real atheists simply do not care and they do not argue. They eat and drink it up for tomorrow they die. But, I will put the same question to you. When you were a Christian, you would have agreed with my arguments and disagreed with your arguments. Given your world of total possibility, you must concede that your apostacy was possibly wrong. Given the stakes, what are you going to do about it? You have already mentioned your children. Are you really going to stake your children on your crazy idea that people do not count? Are your children cosmic accidents? Has your anger towards God really driven you to this point? Do you love your children? Is it a hedonistic love? That is, you only love them for what you get out of it. Your love is a means to the end of your personal benefit? This is not the Christian definition of love. Love should be self-denying, serving and sacrificial. Do your children love you or are they just using you for their personal jollies? Do you believe in real love? A love which is transcendent. If you do, you better return to the one worldview which makes sense of such love because your worldview is hostile to such a concept. Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/11/07 08:38:39 PM Age 37, NY Your points are well taken. If my worldview is correct your worldview would also be a delusion inside of that self-delusion. I would not label it self-delusion though. I would call it something like self-awareness of limited perception. Your concept of God can be considered a denial of that self-awareness--and within that context, a delusion. 1) I think we agree about science. But you are labeling “reality” as science. We, as well as science thought the world was flat but in reality it was not. Science is self-correcting as our perception of reality changes. We may one day discover other life in the universe that totally turn science and religion on their head. This would have always been true regardless of what our science or religions may or may not have taught us to be true. 2) Induction is a useful tool like a hammer. A hammer and nail don’t physically bind to pieces of wood together but it works for its purpose. Abstractions like causation, memory and relationships are perceived. How is the memory of my childhood not my perception? One finds dogs to be good in their my mind. They love dogs. They become a veterinarian and have a rich fulfilling life saving dogs and making them happy. That is what I mean by purpose. One creates for themselves who they are going to be. It has no ultimate cosmic purpose but purpose within the context of their perception of the world. Not everyone is free to create their own existence in this way. This leads me personally in fighting against injustices and war etc. 3) Sorry didn’t mean to say “law” of possibility. You had said, “God is not subject to possibility”. I should have just replied, but you are, so you must admit that God’s twin is possible. If God can A-Z, then God can’t M is not logical. 4) About the Barker. I was referring to his debate with Paul Manata based on our discussion in general not about “laws of possibilities”. Like Barker, I too was a Christian. Irrespectively, we make a similar argument—though he is much more articulate. I was pleasantly surprised when I stumbled upon this debate. I think you should listen to the new and improved Dan Barker AND Paul Manta. I imagine you will find it interesting no matter who you side with. I was merely passing it along, as we both share an interest in the subject. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/10/07 11:20:44 AM Age 45, AR Actually, what I am attempting to do is to encourage you to think about these issues at a level deeper than that of children on a playground. I am not trying to shut you up, I am trying to help you find a foundation for the opinions you wish to express. I probably agree with some of your opinions on world events, etc..., and I certainly do not agree with everything written in the blogs on this site. I argue with Christians over points of disagreement as vigorously, if not more so than I do with you. My hang-up with you is that you claim a world of no meaning, no purpose, nothing which transcends man, nothing which counts and then you want to create purpose and meaning which counts. If your worldview is correct, this is self-delusion. Thus, your foundation is a self-created pathological disorder. On the other hand, I offer you a true foundation on which your opinions do count. If God exists, and he has objectively revealed perfect truth to us, then when we align our opinions with his truth, our opinions count. And, you are free to counter on any point you desire. But on your foundation, you may opine, but your opinions do not count and they are delusional. So, the only pathway from opinion to counting is Christian theism. Ergo, if you count(er), then God. (1) The issue of science is whether science depends on perception or whether perception depends on science. Let me be blunt, you are wrong and I am right on this issue. You propose that science is dependent on perception. Thus, when the world was perceived as being flat, it really was flat. When the world was perceived as being round, it became round. Do you now see the absurdity of your position? Science, if it is real, must be a transcendental. That is, it is not dependent on the mind of man. The mind of man is obligated to conform to the reality of science, not vice versa. So, we now need a foundation for science which is not dependent on man. Christianity can provide this, atheism cannot. Thus, if science, then Christianity. (2) If purpose is dependent on perception, then you have an insurmountable epistemological problem. For one, you will never overcome Hume's skepticism about induction. We can only perceive that which is material. But, knowledge rests on the truth and the reality of the immaterial like causation, memory, relationships, contiguity, etc.... These necessary elements are never perceived, they are abstracted. Your very conclusion that perception gives birth to purpose is an abstraction which cannot be perceived. Thus, your conclusion is without purpose because it cannot be perceived. Knowledge requires a foundation for perception and abstraction. Christianity provides this, atheism does not. (3) As a rational person I have to accept the laws of possibility? I am not familiar with the "law of possibility". If all is law, total unity. If all is possible, total disunity. How do you get law and possibility together? If all is possible, nothing is rational. Rationality presupposes law. Where anything is possible, all is lawless. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. As a Christian, I presuppose a personal ultimate reality, not an impersonal total law, or total possibility universe. How do you get an impersonal total law or total possibility universe to work? How do you get law and possibility together in any meaningful way? I am not familiar with your debate, although I am familiar with Barker. He is an apostate Christian, right? Isn't that like a mass murderer lecturing on morality? No credibility. He wants to tell us how we shouldn't be like He was. Well, when he was a Christian, he told us not to be like what he became. Which Barker should I listen to? Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/09/07 02:47:44 PM Age 37, NY My countering makes the Bible true because you say it does? Are we children at the playground now or what? If you’re just tired of the back and forth, I can understand. But come on...1) Your right and we cannot know reality or truth. We can only know our perception. Science is just part of that perception. Your concept of God doesn’t resolve this issue—it only creates a perception. 2) I haven’t changed my mind. I’ve said all along that in a purely materialistic or cosmic sense, we don’t have a purpose. The sun will explode one day and it won't matter. However, we create our own purpose based on our perceptions while we are alive here on earth—with the understanding that future generations will do the same. My arguing or with you or expressing moral positions is totally consistent with that. 3) I suppose that your God would not be subject to the laws of possibility as you say or the laws of what is merciful and just for that matter. You as a rational person have to accept the laws of possibility however. In order to have a rational belief you must acknowledge that God’s twin is possible. I just listened to a debate with Paul Manata and Dan Barker. Paul's position is very much your position and Dan shares my view. It is an actual debate with opening statements, rebuttals, conclusions and questions. They do not ramble on and on like us. So check it out if you wish. http://ia310107.us.archive.org/2/items/atheism_theism_debate/manatabarkerdebate.mp3 Re: Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/08/07 09:58:00 PM Age 45, AR (1)Nope, blew it again. Science does not change. Man's mind changes. The world was round back when people thought it was flat, right? Thus, again, reality does not depend on mind, mind depends on reality. (2) Since you do not count, I really do not have to take anything else you say seriously, do I? And, I guess you changed your mind about wanting a world safe for your children and all that. Your children do not count. Therefore, it does not matter what I or anyone else does to them. Do I do this and do I do that? Doesn't matter, doesn't count. Why do I argue? Sometimes I don't, I am moody like that. When I do, it is because my Lord commands it. (3) The twin argument? Out of gas, move on. Your conclusion that my beliefs about God are inconsistent with all the possible attributes of God is true only if God is subject to possibility. My God is Lord over the possible, not subject to it. Therefore, does not apply. But, as an aside, your worldview assumes that possibility is ultimate and that presupposition destroys all continuity and order. This also takes down the very possibility of reality, knowledge and ethics. Finally, and I do apologize for this because I fear I am piling on, but you stated that you visit these sites because you like to be a political counter-point. You wrote this just a few sentences after you admitted you do not count. Stunning. Absolutely stunning. If you do not count, you can not counter. It took you only 6 sentences to forget that you do not count. Frankly, if you counter, the God of the Bible is real and it is time for you to take repentence and faith seriously. You might as well convert, you obviously do not take your atheism seriously, you think you still count(er). Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/08/07 07:13:06 PM Age 37, NY 1) Science does change. We use to think the world was flat. Later we thought the sun revolved around the earth. Science is always trying to maximize the vantage point from which we perceive the world. 2) I agree that we do not count. Ive said this many different ways in our exchanges. We invent for ourselves what counts for us. Why do we argue then? Ive said many times what my motivation is. Also if you look at my original comment to Mr. Noebels article and you will see as well. The articles published on this sight have a very specific political agenda with no counter point. I like to be a counter point where there is none. Plus I like to challenge my assumptions. Why do you argue? To show people that they must be accountable? Do you surf atheist blogs in order to present your case? Or do you remain in this echo chamber and attempt to reason with the dissenters like myself? 3) Gods twin is my hypothetical based on your beliefs not mine. When the brothers made this bet, they agreed not to meddle in each others universes. I hope they are not cheating. If one cheats, could it destroy the unity of our universe? That would be horrific. When I say, I believe what you believe about God, Im saying that I believe that that is what is written and I understand that that is what you believeI dont actually believe it my self. Your belief however does not allow for God to be a lair or to even change his mindeven if he was lying when he dictated the Bible to man that he was not a liarthis is what I meant by contingent. I mean to say that your beliefs about Gods abilities and attributes are inconsistent with all the possible abilities and attributes of God. So yes, Philip K Dick is right in this sense. Im impressed, next youll be quoting Douglas Adams. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/08/07 12:36:09 PM Age 45, AR (1) If consensus is as good as it gets, then there are no universals, no truth, no science. Consensus changes like the wind. To speak of that which is true today, but not tomorrow, is not to speak of truth. To speak of scientific conclusions which are true today, but not tomorrow, is not to speak of science. What is amazing to me is that you desire a world in which everything is loose and discrete and nothing ever coheres. The only possible benefit of such a world is that it allows you to think and do what you wish without any accountability. But, my friend, if we are not accountable, we really do not count. And that is the terminal point of your worldview. If arguments are never more than persuasion, then why argue? I am perfectly happy, content, and well adjusted as a Christian. If truth is not the object of your arguments, what is? Why do you molest me with your arguments? Why do you superimpose your values on me? What kind of power trip are you on, trying to change me when you know that nothing you say is true? Are you just being mean? No, you argue because you know that truth is real and truth does not depend on you. But, the context of your argument denies truth. So, you continuously assert and deny truth. This is an intellectual sickness which demands a cure. (2) If God had a twin, and they were at cross purposes on anything, unity is destroyed. Thus, are you here to defend dualism or atheism? If you have abandoned atheism for theistic dualism, I will deal with it. But, dualism does not work and I suspect you know that. Sorry, not interested in your bait. Since you concede that the God in whom I believe would not do any of the things you set out, there is no need for me to respond further to them. But, you then conclude that God is contingent upon my beliefs. Why? I love the quote from Phillip K. Dick (no friend of Christianity) "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Here is one from your camp who acknowledges that if reality is real, it is necessarily real. Thus, reality is not contingent. Beliefs are contingent. Our obligation is to conform our beliefs to reality, reality is not obligated to conform to our beliefs. So, in asseting the impossibility of a necessary God, you are also taking down at the same time the possibility of any necessary reality. We are right back to your conceptualist dilemma. All we can know is our own thoughts. You have destroyed the very possibility of knowledge. This really is too high of a price to pay for your atheism. Take it from a Christian, your hatred of God and Christianity is not worth it. Life is good on my side of the fence. Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/08/07 11:24:28 AM Age 37, NY 1) What you claim as universals or God is a consensus of thoughts from a collection of human minds. What I claim is also a consensus of thoughts from a collection of human minds. I guess if there is one universal, it would be that we can not know anything outside of our own mind and what we perceive things to be. Words like atheism and Christianity are opposing perceptions in a collective form. Does any of this matter in a purely materialist senseI guess not. But things do have consequences on our perceptions whether individual or collective. I perceive that that is what morality is founded on. Arguments are nothing more than an attempt at convincing one of anothers perceptions. But it is ridiculous to use the word perceive or perception in every sentence. So we call them truth claims or universals or whatever. Even science works this way. Scientist perceive things and convince other scientist to perceive them based on previous common perceptions and so on. My atheism is unimportant really. Do you go around claiming that you dont believe that Elvis is not dead? Do you argue with people who believe that he is alive? You might if you saw that those people were mucking up yours and others perception of the world. 2) I never said Gods twin brother was evil. Just that they are twins who created their own separate universesOurs and the other one. There is no reason to think that everything would fall apart if this were the case. How could that happen? The Bibles of each universe had to be written in such a way as not to revel the wager taking place (who can collect the most souls). Based on what God revels or does not revel in the Bible, it is totally in the realm of possibility. Thats only one story. Any number of things could happen once you are in heaven. Will you not still have free will? Maybe in heaven you will become more arrogant than even Lucifer was. God may create another world and let you rule it as Satan does here. You really have no way of knowing any of these things. You cannot claim to know the ultimate will of God. Your God has no obligation to be forthright with you. He may revel to you that his nature is not this way etc. But if he were a liar or just not letting you in on the whole truth, he could still revel the same the Bible that you believe. I agree that the God you believe in would not do any of these things that I say. But that would make God contingent on what you believe or just simply what you want God to be regardless of what he may or may not be. This defies the very belief that you claim have. So, if I were you, I would still argue the points you make to atheist but you should also warn them and your fellow believers that their eternal salvation might not be as sold as one might have thought. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science Posted On: 05/07/07 10:47:47 PM Age 45, AR (1)If you would make an argument, I would defend against it. But you have not argued. You have admitted that you claim no universals. Truth is a universal. Therefore, you admit that you have not said or suggested anything which is true. Arguments require assertion of truth claims. Since you assert no truths you make no arguments. You are just telling me what you conceptually like and dislike. Until you make a truth claim, all I have to do is deny your premise, and you are refuted. If you want to argue, I will first require of you a predicate upon which you can universalize truth in a manner which is consistent with atheism. This, I promise, you will never do. (2) Regarding God's twin brother, you are right, I did not try to defend against that claim. If you recall, I agreed with you. If God had an evil twin brother, everything would fall apart. Therefore, your point is taken, if God exists, he cannot have a twin brother. (3) Mormonism? Well, Mormons claim the Bible is the word of God, then contradict it. You think that is a foundation for knowledge? Mormonism believes that God was once man and evolved. You think a mutable god is a foundation for knowledge? (4) Why do I claim to have won the debate? It is not for personal pride. Instead, it is because (a) it is true, and (b) you are not interested in the truth, you want to perpetuate the argument eternally so that you can immunize your rebellion against God. You are not really interested in debate in the sense of the law of the excluded middle. That is, either God or not God. You really cannot risk that. Instead, you want to keep the debate going, forever, replacing old questions with new, old objections with new objections, and on and on. This is why I do not like arguing specific Bible verses with atheists. Atheists will make you go through every verse in the Bible and they still will not be satisfied, so, why even get started? Instead, I try to make people like you more self-aware. It is fairly easy to reduce an atheist to epistemological self-refutation, as I have done with you. You have admitted that truth never universalizes and all you can ever know is your own concepts. Well, my friend, you have just destroyed the very possibility of knowledge. Thus, you have lost the debate, voluntarily. I just took you where you were willing to go. You would rather have a world in which no one can speak truth than a world with God in it. It always reaches this point with atheists. I have demonstrated that your worldview destroys the very possibility of truth, and in so doing, you really destroy man. That is the truth about you and your atheism. What you do with that truth is up to you. Given your hostility to the one truth that can save you, I have not much reason for hope. (5) Your desire for a peaceful world, one safe for your children, one in which zealots are restrained? By choosing a worldview which emancipates each individual from any absolute authority over them so that they are liberated to do whatsoever seems right in their own minds, you have guaranteed that your desired world will never materialize. Christianity presents one to you who can make this materialize. Unfortunately, are at war with that person.