Is faith in God reasonable? -- Jason Gastrich vs. Doug Krueger

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Jason Gastrich and Doug Krueger. Jason Gastrich is the author of "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" and Doug Krueger is the author of "What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction." They will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: "There is enough evidence to consider faith in God reasonable"

Jason Gastrich will argue for the affirmative position and Doug Krueger will oppose. The debate will have five rounds and Jason Gastrich will go first according to the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2250697&postcount=28).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2248768#post2248768) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Jason Gastrich]

Round 1

First, I’d like to thank IIDB for hosting this debate. I’d also like to thank Doug Krueger for accepting my challenge to debate, again. Thanks.

The resolution of this debate has been carefully chosen. It reads, “There is enough evidence to consider faith in God reasonable.� Throughout this debate, I’ll be presenting arguments for the existence of God. You’ll need to examine and weigh them. In the end, you’ll need to make a conclusion and decide whether or not faith in God is reasonable or not. I’m fully convinced that there is so much evidence that faith in God is very reasonable and I’m also convinced that you will see and believe the same.

I’ve created a shortcut to this debate. If you’d like to use it for yourself or to give to others, you may. It is: http://iidebate5.jcsm.org

Lastly, I’d like to thank all of the people reading this debate. I’ll do my very best to keep my arguments succinct and clear. I’ll also format my messages, so they’re easy to read and friendly on the eyes. I know that long debates are not for everyone. However, I hope that even those who are only slightly interested in debates will find my arguments interesting, coherent, powerful, and true.

–

My argument for God’s existence will consist of five main parts. These include:

1. The Inerrant Bible
2. My Long-term Relationship with God
3. Miracles and the Effects of Prayer
4. Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies
5. Intelligent Design

–

The Inerrant Bible

How would one prove that the Bible is inerrant? What is biblical inerrancy? Does it matter?

The Bible claims to be inerrant. We find this in places like 1 Timothy 3:16-17. These verses read, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.�

Obviously, the scriptures wouldn’t be “profitable� if there were errors in them.

The best way to prove the Bible is without error is to find answers to every alleged error in the Bible. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is an exhaustive commentary on the Bible. It makes comments on the Bible’s validity and tries to show how it contradicts, how God is allegedly immoral, etc. Most atheists and skeptics have found this online resource called the “SAB.�

As you may know, I’ve written a full and complete rebuttal to this collection of assertions. My resource is called “The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained.� I won’t provide a link because I don’t want to be accused of advertising, but you can find it if you search http://google.com .

I’ve found reasonable and accurate answers to every alleged error in the Bible. It’s safe to say that the secular SAB is an exhaustive collection and it has been fully rebutted. In fact, if you have an alleged error, please email it to them. They will gladly add it and I will gladly investigate it and reply in future editions of my resource.

Now, naysayers will ask how certain, unverifiable things in the Bible happened. These things include miracles like the sun standing still, the Red Sea being parted, etc. These are good questions and questions we should ask. However, the lack of answers doesn’t prove they didn’t happen.

After finding answers to all of the alleged Bible errors, I’ve concluded that every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. Therefore, we can conclude that the unverifiable claims are true as well. This is a reasonable measure of faith.

Please don’t think biblical inerrancy is something to be taken for granted. The Bible was written by 40 different people in three different continents, over thousands of years. It was penned by kings, shepherds, murderers, priests, and prophets. For it to be inerrant is a truly miraculous feat.

Please see the following page for more on this: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BibleisUnique.htm

Incidentally, if you have an alleged error that you’d like me to address, I will happily do so. You can contact me at http://jcsm.org/contact.php

I don’t think I need to give a specific challenge to Doug regarding biblical inerrancy. Since he devoted more than half of his introductory book on atheism to the Bible (which defies logic, in itself), I’d expect for him to raise some issues. I’ve addressed some of his accusations of injustices, yet I don’t think he has ever made an attempt to debunk biblical inerrancy.

It is reasonable to have faith in God if you can answer the skeptics. It’s reasonable to have faith in Him if you have found answers to every alleged Bible error.


My Long-Term Relationship with God

When I was seven years old, I trusted Jesus Christ and I repented from my sins. I became born again. I was saved.

Since that time, I’ve cultivated a relationship with God. Its had its ups and downs. There have been times when I obeyed Him and succeeded and times when I disobeyed Him and failed and hurt myself and others. However, through it all, it showed me that He does exist and that He is true to His promises.

Naysayers will call this kind of evidence “anecdotal.� However, it’s far from it. This is my personal testimony. Even in a courtroom, expert witnesses are called upon to testify. Their testimonies are taken seriously. It’s common for some atheists to require more proof than a U.S. Supreme Court, but I hope you’re not one of them. If you can put aside your prejudices and biases, you can plainly see how faith in God can be deemed reasonable.

Speaking of testimonies, another reason why faith in God is reasonable is due to the testimonies of others. Have you ever heard or read about a miracle? Most unbelievers claim they don’t exist. However, you’d be hard pressed to find even one who hasn’t heard about a miracle they couldn’t explain.

As you may imagine, being around Christians for decades, I’ve heard about miracles. My pastor’s name is Miles McPhearson. He healed a girl’s deafness. With her consent, Miles put his fingers in her ears and prayed for her. When he was finished, she could hear.

Pastor Kent Hildebrand was the college pastor of New Venture Christian Fellowship. He was in a deliverance ministry before this pastoral position. He told us amazing stories about casting demons out of people, how these people acted, the screams they made, the amazing strength they had, the way he was bruised and beaten by one of them, how they feared and hated the name of Jesus, etc. Some of his stories ended with the possessed person being healed in Jesus’ name, the demon immediately leaving, and their salvation.

Yes, we live in a generation of television and drama. For an unbeliever, it may be easy to dismiss stories like these out of hand. However, these are powerful stories of supernatural phenomena. They are proof of God, too. If you could sit with Kent, as I did, probe him with questions, and hear what he said, you’d be able to discern the fact that he was telling the truth.


Miracles and the Effects of Prayer

In addition to testimonies like these, I have my own testimonies. Let’s examine the issue of miracles in my life.

I’m 30 years old. When I was 26, I started getting eye strain headaches. I saw an eye doctor and she said I needed glasses to correct the problem.

After wearing these glasses for a couple of days, I decided to pray that these headaches would go away for good. And they did. I stopped wearing the glasses and within a couple of days, the headaches left. Today, I don’t even know where that old pair of glasses is located because I do not need them and I do not wear them. I saw an eye doctor recently and he said I had 20/20 vision.

How did this happen? Is there a medical explanation? Was it a miracle?

It’s easy for unbelievers to do all they can to find natural reasons for supernatural phenomena. This is perfectly fine and good, though. God’s miracles often mimic natural causes. To affirm a miracle from God isn’t to reject the natural; it’s simply to see BOTH the natural and the spiritual.

Here is another miracle that God used me to do. In 1999, I went to a gym in Escondido, California. I got to be friends with the maintenance man named Michael. We would talk each day and I even made him a tape of some songs.

One day, Michael told me that he had seizures. He said he had them every so often and they were pretty bad. I asked him if I could lay hands on him and pray for him and he said okay, so I did. He never had another seizure.

In addition to stories of miracles, I also have similar proofs of God’s existence. These things include my gift of tongues, my long list of dreams and visions from God, and my very long list (26 ½ pages) of amazing things God has done in my life.

The latest amazing thing I added to my list was my shoulder’s quick healing. I had tendinitis in it. The doctor at UCSD prescribed 4 months of Ibuprofen. I was to take 800mg tablets three times a day. She also prescribed physical therapy at Palomar Hospital.

Meanwhile, I prayed and asked God to heal my shoulder. I had some friends and family pray for me, too. My physical therapist canceled my program at the midpoint and said I was all better. I also stopped talking the Ibuprofen after 30 days.

This miracle may seem trivial to you. However, it wasn’t trivial to me! My pain was removed, I didn’t have to attend any more physical therapy sessions, and I was able to get off the medication. If you can deem faith in God reasonable, then God can bless you with quick and miraculous physical healing as well.

We all serve some “god� or “God.� Consider the “perks� from your god and consider the “perks� from the Creator, the biblical God.

Did you know that time spent in prayer improves your physical and mental health? Studies have been done and this has been discovered. This study found that time in prayer was associated with higher self-esteem and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. See http://www.heall.com/healingnews/aug/prayer_and_mental_health.html

If there is no God, then why is prayer to Him making a large, positive impact in people’s lives?

It has also been shown that religion aids in coping with illness. See
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/HL816.cfm

I’ve received emails from people who have prayed and seen their cancer healed, a crippled man walk, Lyme’s disease healed, etc. Here is one letter I’ve received.

“In November of 1998, I became very ill and went to the doctor. I was diagnosed with Lyme's Disease and for about a month I was out of work and had to stay at home. I couldn't drive anywhere because I was too tired and sick. I would have friends from church visit and during their visit we could be talking one minute and I would be asleep the next. I couldn't even make it to church. Different ladies from church would bring me food and things. When my strength began to come back, my Sunday School teacher and his wife came and picked me up for church. Although throughout my whole sickness, church members were praying for me, I didn't receive my healing until I went to the alter and got prayed for. I have felt better ever since. The doctor says he doesn't see where there will be any long term affects like there normally is with Lyme's Disease. I told him that I was healed and to this day when people ask me how I am doing, my response is ‘The Lord healed me one night at church and I am still claiming my healing. I am doing great.’�


Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies

The Bible is an integrated message system with supernatural engineering. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that it foretells history in advance. In fact, there are thousands of biblical prophecies and fulfillments. If there were only a handful, it would be phenomenal. However, we have an extraordinary record that has convinced even skeptics of its authenticity for centuries.

Let’s examine Isaiah 53 for a minute. In a previous debate, I discussed the issue of biblical prophecy and had the chance to analyze Isaiah 53 in detail. It’s a fantastic prophecy that depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; hundreds of years before it happened and hundreds of years before it was even a method of execution!

Isaiah 53 gives specific details about the crucifixion of Christ. How could the author have known without God telling him? In my research, I address important issues like the thoughts of Rabbis and Christian theologians, the context and expectations of Israel, the meaning of the scriptures, etc. See here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Isaiah53.htm

Now, let’s examine Messianic prophecies for a moment. Do you know what makes Jesus Christ so special? Yes, He lived a sinless life. Yes, He died on a cross and was resurrected; but there’s more. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament, messianic prophecies. What does this mean and why is this important? In order to explain, we’ll need to look far back into history.

When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they covered themselves with fig leaves. However, this was inadequate to God, so He gave them animal skins to “cover� themselves. This was the first animal sacrifice for sins.

Later, we see Cain and Abel sacrificing to God. One was giving the appropriate sacrifice and one wasn’t. Do you know which one was the right one? Abel’s sacrifice of a spotless sheep was approved and Cain’s sacrifice of vegetables was not. This is why Cain killed Abel.

All throughout the Old Testament, we see God’s people sacrificing an unblemished animal and this would grant them temporary forgiveness of their sins. This is called the Old Covenant. However, all along they were promised a final sacrifice for their sins in the person of the Messiah. He would come, be blameless, give His life, then rise from the dead.

Unfortunately, there were many false Messiahs. God wanted His people to know EXACTLY who this Messiah of His would be. This is why He gave them Messianic prophecies. If a person were to claim to be the Messiah, but not be able to fulfill all of the prophecies, then he wasn’t the Messiah. Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the Messianic prophecies.

On my web site, I have a list of 60 Messianic prophecies and their fulfillments. You can see them here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/FMP.htm . Now, some will say, “Why isn’t Jesus mentioned by name? Why don’t these verses say what color his eyes will be?� and other absurdities. These same unbelievers are the ones saying they demand that God write their name in the clouds before they believe. The simple fact is this: God gave us all of the prophecies we needed to realize Jesus Christ was and is the Messiah.

In fact, He is the only one who can ever be authenticated and confirmed as the Messiah. In 70 A.D., the Romans destroyed much of Jerusalem, the Jews were scattered, and the lineage records have not been kept since that time. If someone were to claim to be the Messiah today, there would be no way to know for sure. However, we are able to trace Jesus’ lineage to and through the right lines.

Another astonishing prophecy is in Daniel 9. Daniel was a prophet of God and he predicted the exact day that Jesus Christ would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and let people worship Him as Messiah the Prince (or King); which is Meshiach Negid in the Hebrew.

Even skeptical author and ex-pastor Farrell Till thinks this prophecy only failed in its fulfillment by 3 days! Of course, if you investigate this subject, you’ll see that it was fulfilled to the exact day, but an ardent atheist admitting how extremely close he thinks it was should be telling. What if his math is off by only 3 days?

My compelling research can be found here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Daniel925.htm

Although there are numerous biblical prophecies and fulfillments, I’ll mention just one more, now.

Many people skip those “boring� genealogies in the Bible. Could they possibly be there for a reason? What if the Bible gave us its core message in the first one?

Look at Genesis chapter 5. We see a list of names that include Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. If we look at the Hebrew meanings for their names, we find the following statement. “Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching (that) his death shall bring (the) despairing rest.�

Isn’t this the gospel message? See here for more on this: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Hidden.htm


Intelligent Design

If you haven’t researched the field of intelligent design, you should. My overview of some of its findings will be a good introduction, but there is far, far more than I could ever write here. You can find recent, peer reviewed, scientific information at Answers in Genesis and Answers (http://answersingenesis.org) and Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org).

Now, I don’t agree with everything that these two organizations say. I suspect you feel the same way. However, what is important is this: some of the scientific information that these organizations offer shows that there is likely a Creator. If you care to continue reading and if you care to visit their sites, keep in mind you don’t have to become a Bible-wielding, church attending Christian right now. Agreeing with some of their research won’t necessarily make you a fundamentalist. Read what I offer and visit their sites in order to see if their arguments for intelligent design are sound and reasonable.

In order for the life we have on Earth to exist, over 150 factors must be just so. These things are so complicated and numerous that they point to a designer. Here are some of them.

The galaxy cluster type cannot be too rich or too sparse. If it’s too rich, then collisions and mergers would disrupt the solar orbit. If it’s too sparse, there would be an insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time.

The galaxy size cannot be too small or too large. If it’s too large, then the infusion of gas and stars would disturb the sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions. If it’s too small, then there would be an insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time.

The galaxy type cannot be too elliptical or too irregular. The galaxy’s mass cannot be distributed too much in the central bulge or too much in the spiral arms. And on and on and on.

See the following site for these things (above) and about 150 more of them. All of this research is documented on the same page. Link: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml

As you can see, there was clearly a designer. The creation is simply to precise (and necessarily so) in order to have the life we have on Earth today without very specific engineering.

Evolutionists still have not given a sound answer for irreducible complexity. In short, IC reveals certain functions and features in lifeforms that could not have evolved because they must be created in working order before they can fulfill their purpose; and sometimes, they must be whole in order to keep the organism alive!

For example, if the lungs evolved, how good do you think 10% of our lungs would have worked? If the eye evolved, how good would 10% of the eye have worked? And so forth.

For more data and scientific evidence on irreducible complexity, please see the following to pages:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp

The evolutionists postulate the Big Bang. However, they cannot tell us where this “stuff� came from. The Bible answers this question for us. God created all things.

The theory of evolution requires constant evolution and would require billions of intermediary fossils. Where are all of these fossils, though? Even Darwin said that his theory would fall apart if all of these fossils weren’t found; and they weren’t. This is, of course, why very few evolutionists are strict Darwinists, today. They have infused the theory of punctuated equilibrium to try and explain what Darwin’s theory could not.

Is punctuated equilibrium really a good theory, though? Is it observable? Or is it just another pie in the sky conjecture?

I remember the day that I found that the primrose plant has been observed “evolving� into another species of primrose plant. I actually read good scientific evidence for this and I trust it. This was observed and it happened. However, I came to realize that this was the BEST observable (e.g. scientific method) evidence that evolutionists have for the theory of evolution! If this doesn’t illustrate the extreme weakness and hypothetical nature of the ToE, then I don’t know what else can.

Essentially, the evolutionists who reject God say, “Give it enough time and anything can happen on its own.� Of course, they believe in evolutionary leaps and bounds that nobody has ever seen, but that (to them) is beside the point. If you’ve ever heard a creationist say that “time is the evolutionists’ god,� consider it. There is likely more truth to it than you realize.

How credible and objective are the scientists who reject biblical creation? Picture the following scenario for a moment.

Joe Atheist is taught in elementary school that we all evolved. He is versed in the evolutionary theory. He is taught the same thing in middle school and high school. Afterwards, he goes to college and is taught more of the same. Joe Atheist attends graduate school and even post-graduate school and keeps learning that the theory of evolution is a fact. Mind you, Joe attends school for over 25 years.

Now, Joe Atheist becomes a scientist and theorizes about life and evolution. How objective can he really be? Can you spell indoctrination?

Atheists are quick to point out creation organizations and how they often have their scientists sign or affirm a statement of faith. They claim that this precludes them from doing any “real science,� when in fact, most of them attended non-Christian universities where they earned their degrees! Can you honestly say that a creation scientist like this is more indoctrinated than Joe Atheist?

I’ve checked with Answers in Genesis and they have scientists who write in peer-reviewed journals! This is the benchmark for “real scientists.� They are based in Australia and they have scientists who have written in Australian journals.

Compare the creationists’ integrity to the pop-science offered by evolutionist web sites and even to the indoctrinated evolutionistary scientists and make an honest conclusion regarding who you should believe. Also, do some of your own research into intelligent design. You'll quickly find what the majority of scientists and non-scientists discover. Faith in God is reasonable.


Conclusion

Perhaps Doug could answer a couple more questions for me. Why do you think the majority of the world is over 90% Christian? Why do you think the highest concentration of atheists live in Communist China? Why do you think the strongest and must successful country in the world is a Christian country?

If you want to challenge the notion that the U.S. is a Christian country, then consider the fact that over 80% of its inhabitants claim to be Christian! If another country claimed to be even 70% Muslim, we’d label it a Muslim country (and we do).

The Bible answers the important questions about life. How did we get here? Why are we here? What are we supposed to do here? What happens after we die?

Atheism answers nothing. It simply denies everything and naysays. It’s an incredible position based on willful ignorance.

The evidence for God is far too compelling to consider it anything but reasonable.

God bless,
Jason Gastrich
Director, Jesus Christ Saves Ministries

[Doug Krueger]

Thanks to the IIDB for the opportunity to discuss theological issues with Gastrich once again. I have shown in audio debates that Gastrich’s arguments for the existence of God do not work. Now our topic is similar: “There is enough evidence to consider faith in God reasonable.� During the course of this debate I will consider the term “faith� to be equivalent to the word “believe� in this context. The reason for this is that if I were to debate the question of whether faith is reasonable the answer would clearly be “no.� What is faith, according to the New Testament (NT)? Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.� (NKJV) Hope is the expectation of that for which one does not have evidence. Then Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.� So the essence of things expected not on the basis of evidence, is faith. But in the matter of existence claims, it is unreasonable to hold important beliefs about existents, especially gods, without demanding extraordinarily strong evidence. Gastrich would agree, since he does not believe in the vast majority of the tens of thousands of gods that have existed in human history. So faith in god, as defined biblically, is not reasonable.

However, the use of “faith� in our topic suggests that this kind of faith is simply belief. Is there sufficient evidence for the existence of God to make such belief reasonable? Gastrich does not define what he means by “God,� so I will assume that he is referring to the concept of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, creator of the universe, and who is identical to the being described in the Christian Bible. That Gastrich holds to such identity is shown in his argument from the inerrant Bible and his appeal to prophecies.

I will now examine Gastrich’s arguments for the reasonableness of belief in God and show why each of them is insufficient to show that such belief is reasonable.

The Inerrant Bible.
Perhaps the most surprising of Gastrich’s arguments for a belief in God is this argument from an inerrant Bible. The claim that the Bible is inerrant is not taken seriously in any reputable seminary or theological school in the 21st century. Examples of contradiction abound even in scholarly publications. Gastrich has not been able to rebut every example in the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and in some cases his “harmonization� raises more problems than they solve. (See www.gastrich.org (http://www.gastrich.org ) for examples of this.)

If Gastrich is confident that he can harmonize every alleged error in the Bible, here are a couple of examples which he can use to show was his skill.

I. The Divorce Contradiction

According to the Bible, can a person get divorced and remarry without committing adultery? Remarriage after divorce is prohibited because it is adultery. Jesus clearly says so.

Mark 10:2-5, 9-12
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept...What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

(Also see Luke 16:1-18.)

So the logical form of the prohibition on remarriage is:

(x)(Dx & Rx → Ax)

where D is for "divorced," R is for "remarried," and A is for "commits adultery." It is read, "For anything x, if x is divorced and x is remarried, then x commits adultery." This is universal and applies without exception to any x, according to the above quotations from Jesus. "Whosoever" means "anyone.� Jesus (in Mark) says this applies for any divorced man and any divorced woman.

Other parts of the Bible also state that if someone divorces, the person is not to remarry. See Matthew. 5:31-32 and 1Corinthians 7:10-11 (and Romans 7:2-3).

So no one who divorces can remarry without committing adultery. But, on the other hand, the Bible also says that not everyone who divorces a spouse and remarries is committing adultery:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. [Deuteronomy 24:1-2]

Jesus agrees that you can get divorced and remarry as long as you divorce because of fornication:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. [Matt. 19:9]

But if you can divorce and remarry without committing adultery (in case of fornication), then this implies:

~[(x)(Dx & Rx→Ax)]

If there is an exception, then the conditional cannot apply to any and all things x and it is NOT the case that whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery. This is a formal contradiction, since the Bible, then, and even just the NT, endorses both sides of the issue:

(x)(Dx & Rx → Ax) & ~[(x)(Dx & Rx → Ax)]

So the Bible contradicts itself on whether one can get a divorce and remarry without committing adultery. In fact, Jesus contradicts himself on this issue.

Reputable Bible scholars know that the reason for this flip-flop is that different authors wanted different rules on divorce, so they put different, inconsistent rules into the mouths of Biblical characters such as Jesus. But inerrantists are stuck with the contradiction.

II. Jesus Lied.

During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus says, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)). Here Jesus claims he shared all of his teachings with his public audiences; he never kept important parts of his teachings a secret.

My understanding of John 18:20 is further supported by the verse that immediately follows John 18:20:

"Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said."

Here Jesus tells his inquisitors that they may question those who have heard him teach. Those who heard his public lectures can say what his teachings are; there is no need to question Jesus to find out what he teaches.

So the story is that Jesus is called in for questioning. They want to know whether he has secret teachings. The High Priest is probably worried that Jesus may be telling the people to believe things contrary to the teachings of the High Priest. Jesus says, "Hey, I don't have any secret teachings. I've always spoken openly, where everyone can hear me. Anyone who's heard me speak can tell you what I believe." This strikes me as the most reasonable reading of the verses in question.

But other parts of the NT show that Jesus did teach in secret. Of course, reputable NT scholars know that different (anonymous) authors of the gospels had Jesus portrayed in different lights, hence the contradictory verses. But inerrantists are once again stuck with a contradiction.

Let's look at some specific examples of the secretive aspect. Jesus claimed, “In secret I have said nothing.� Of course, we must grant that this is not to be understood literally. Surely this is intended to mean that Jesus claimed that he did not have important teachings that were secret. But what does the Bible show? It shows that this claim is false.

Going to his lectures would not have let his general audiences know his important aspects of his true teachings.

Mark 4:
2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said:
3 "Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed…
9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
12 so that, "`they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
[Here Jesus quotes parts of Isaiah 6:9-10]

Matthew 13:3-15 has the same story and quotation. Jesus intentionally talks in parables specifically to keep some people from understanding, and he does this so that they will not turn and be forgiven. (Obviously, Jesus does not want everyone to be saved, but that's another issue.) Note in verse 11 Jesus even tells them that he is giving them “the secret.�

Mark 4:33-34:
�With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.�

That is teaching in secret.

Matthew 13:
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.
35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."[Psalm 78:2]
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
37 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one…
51 "Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked. "Yes," they replied.

So Jesus is clearly shown using parables, and he's explained that the does so in order to keep those not in his "inner circle" from understanding the real meaning of his teachings. Then his disciples ask for an explanation when they are alone with him, and Jesus gives the explanation. That is teaching in secret. The most important aspect of the parable, its meaning, was told in secret.

That Jesus had secret teachings is the issue known to scholars as "The Messianic Secret." This thesis was first explained and defended by Wilhelm Wrede in his 1901 book Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Here are a few examples of Jesus asking others to keep his activities or his nature a secret.

Mark 9:9: "He ordered them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves."

Jesus wants demons to refrain from telling who he really is. Mark 1:
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out,
24 "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!"
25 "Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!"
26 The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek…
34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

When Jesus heals someone, he asks the man to keep quiet. Mark 1:
41 Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning:
44 "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."

Jesus asks people to keep quiet about healing a little girl in Mark 5:41-43, again after healing a man in Mark 7:34-36, and, after healing a blind man, Jesus tells his own disciples to keep quiet in Mark 8:26-30. And there are other examples. Jesus is portrayed as telling people to keep a secret about his true nature and about his activities. This is clearly keeping something secret that is important about himself.

Those who believe that account in John 18:20 of what Jesus said is accurate are committed then to either admitting that the many verses that conflict with it are incorrect or that Jesus lied. If the account is inaccurate, the Bible is not inerrant. If Jesus lied, then this is a contradiction. Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:22 show Jesus saying that lying is evil. Proverbs 6:17-19 tells us that God hates a lying tongue and a false witness. If Jesus is God, and God cannot do evil, then Jesus cannot do evil. So Jesus was either God or he lied, but not both. The Bible says that Jesus was God and he lied, so the Bible contains a clear contradiction.

In any case, Gastrich’s argument from the alleged inerrancy of the Bible is a nonstarter. If one of the allegedly inerrant Bible claims is that God exists, then his argument begs the question of whether God exists. On the other hand, if Gastrich holds that all the claims except that God exists are true, it is not clear at all how this would show that God exists. There are other books on mathematics, science, and so on that, through years of editing and correction, have no errors. But this does not show that God exists. Gastrich writes: “It is reasonable to have faith in Him if you have found answers to every alleged Bible error.� But even if the Bible were inerrant (excluding the claim that God exists), this would not show that God exists. At least, if this conclusion is supposed to follow, Gastrich will have to develop the argument further to attempt to show how this is so.

By the way, Gastrich claims of my book that I devoted more than half of my introductory book on atheism, What is Atheism? A Short Introduction, to the Bible. As readers of my book can readily see by perusing my book, this is false. Gastrich claims to have read my book, so why he writes this is not clear.

My Long Term Relationship with God
Gastrich’s assertion that his relationship with God shows him that God exists commits the fallacy of begging the question. If the issue is whether belief that God exists is reasonable, stating that it is reasonable on the grounds that God exists is a textbook case of the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Charitably, perhaps one can interpret Gastrich as saying that belief in God changed his life. However, people have their lives changed by false beliefs, so the fact that Gastrich felt happier or more comforted with his belief in God does not show that the belief is true. The followers of Rev. Jim Jones held that he was god incarnate, and many were happy in their beliefs. The same is true of the followers of David Koresh. But their happiness does not make their beliefs true. All major religions have comforted their followers. Unless Gastrich is willing to hold that all religions are correct in their assertions about their gods existing (even polytheistic religions), then he must admit that his argument from an alleged relationship with God doesn’t support his conclusion. The psychology of holding comforting beliefs can easily and nonsupernaturally explain why someone can hold a false belief and still have his or her life changed. No appeal to gods is necessary to explain the effects of belief in a god.

By the way, Gastrich seems to have the mistaken impression that the Supreme Court has a higher standard of evidence than lower federal courts. This is not so. It uses the same federal rules of evidence used in any federal court. Gastrich also perpetuates the myth that atheists are unreasonable in their demand for evidence for the existence of God. This is not so. I explain this in detail in my book, to which I refer Gastrich. If he thinks atheists have unreasonably stringent expectations for evidence for the existence of God, he should demonstrate this and not merely accuse atheists of bias and prejudice.

Miracles and the Effects of Prayer
Gastrich cites several cases of alleged miracles. His case of allegedly having his eyes cured by miraculous power is interesting. Gastrich states that he recently saw an eye doctor and he has 20/20 vision. But nowhere in his story does he state that he ever had other than 20/20 vision. He only had eye strain headaches. It is not clear what the alleged miracle is. The headaches went away? Perhaps he had eyestrain headaches from reading in poor light. Maybe he stopped doing that. We don’t have to appeal to the supernatural to explain why his headaches went away. In fact, the human body has natural mechanisms for healing. Healing without medical intervention is natural. So why should we be surprised when this happens?

His other stories are equally as irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence in science means little. If Gastrich wants to show that a miracle has occurred, he needs to fulfill some basic evidentiary requirements. Here is what he would need to do. For medical miracles, he would need to show medical records to substantiate that someone has a particular ailment. Then he needs to show that someone prayed to have this ailment disappear. Then he would need to produce medical records after the prayer to show that the ailment has indeed vanished. And, he would have to show that medical treatment for the ailment is not what is responsible for the positive result. Finally, he would have to show this consistently in many cases if he wants to argue that prayer has a causal relationship to improved health.

Sometimes people recover after prayer, sometimes they do not. That they sometimes do shows nothing about the effect of prayer, since it would be absurd to suppose that all people prayed for never get better. So individual, scattered cases where people recover does not establish a causal relationship between prayer and positive results. A major study with reproducible results could establish this, and despite millions of dollars invested in such studies, none have shown the efficacy of prayer. If prayer works, why can’t studies demonstrate this?

Benny Hinn is a well-known faith healer who claims to have healed thousands of people, far more than Gastrich claims. Yet a recent Dateline expose shows that attempts to prove his healings genuine turned up not one single case that could be documented. Other faith healers have identical track records.

Of course, it is interesting that for all the talk of the power of prayer, the millions of people who prayed for the recovery of Terri Schiavo, and the hundreds of millions (perhaps a billion) who prayed for the health of John Paul II did not get the miracle they hoped.

The NT has Jesus give a simple test for faith.

Luke 17:6-7 (NIV), Jesus speaking:

He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.�

See also Matthew 17:20. Recall that Mark 4:31 holds (erroneously) that the mustard seed is the smallest seed sown. So Jesus is saying that even if you have the smallest amount of faith, you can command a tree (or a mountain in Matt. 17) to move and it will move. Mark 11:22-24 has a similar story. Remember 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.� So let’s conduct Jesus’ test. If Gastrich has even the smallest amount of faith, he should be able to do as Jesus described, if the Bible is inerrant. If he can come to my house and make one of my trees in my backyard plant itself in the sea at his command, I will convert to his religion. However, I expect that Gastrich will continue to claim that he has a lot of faith and yet not perform this simple feat described by Jesus in his allegedly inerrant book.

Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies
Biblical prophecy fulfillment claims are common among fundamentalists, yet not one such prophecy holds up under scrutiny. In my book What is Atheism? A Short Introduction I list some commonsense criteria for evaluating whether a prophecy fulfillment claim can successfully serve as evidence for the existence of God. Here is a similar list that we can use for the purposes of our debate.

1.The interpretation of both the prophecy and the event that allegedly fulfills it must be shown to be correct interpretations.
2.The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.
3.The prophecy must be known to have been made before the event that is supposed to be its fulfillment.
4.The event foretold must not be of the sort that could be the result of an educated guess.
5.The event that fulfills the prophecy cannot be staged, or the relevant circumstances manipulated, by those aware of the prophecy in such a way as to intentionally cause the prophecy to be fulfilled.

Gastrich cites Isaiah 53, by the anonymous “Deutero-Isaiah� or “Second Isaiah,� as scholars call him, as evidence of fulfilled prophecy because, he claims, it is a description of the crucifixion of Jesus. But criterion #1 above involves showing that one’s interpretation of the event is correct. Isaiah 53 can be interpreted in a number of ways. The “servant� can be interpreted as the nation of Israel because of passages such as Isaiah 44:1: "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.� (See also Isa. 41:8.)

The Daniel 9 prophecy Gastrich refers to has been championed by many, most notably Sir Robert Anderson in his book The Coming Prince. Gastrich writes that “Daniel was a prophet of God and he predicted the exact day that Jesus Christ would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and let people worship Him as Messiah the Prince (or King).� The book attributed to Daniel was not written by Daniel. Biblical scholars know this. However, for prophecy, this is irrelevant. More importantly, the claim of prophecy in Daniel 9 suffers from enormous liabilities. First, it cannot be shown that Jesus really rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Since the fulfillment cannot be known to be true, the prophecy fulfillment claim is worthless. Second, even if Jesus did ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, no one knows when this would have taken place. Jesus’ dates cannot be pinned down with any precision at all. Anderson’s version of the prophecy has the event in 32 CE, but Passover would have been on the wrong day of the week that year. Third, the Daniel 9 “prophecy� about dates is arrived at by unreliable means. Anderson creates an arbitrary start date for his calculations, so there is no reason to think that this alleged prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. There are interpretation problems with this prophecy too. (“Robyn Banks� has roasted Gastrich on this prophecy at TheologyWeb, in case viewers want to take a look.) This prophecy has been rebutted many times by skeptics, so why Gastrich keeps using it remains a mystery.

I also found it interesting that Gastrich would assert that atheist Farrell Till, an expert in rebutting inerrantists, stated that the Daniel 9 prophecy “only failed in its fulfillment by 3 days!� Till said no such thing, and he doesn’t think there’s anything to this prophecy or any other. I expect that next time Gastrich posts in this debate he will correct his error about Till.

Gastrich’s use of some names in Genesis 5 is likewise a poor candidate for prophecy. Gastrich asserts that the names Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, etc. form a sentence suggesting the mission of Jesus. But the meanings of the names are not known with certainty. For example, “Adam� can mean “clay� or “red,� “Seth� can mean “fixed,� “Enos� can mean “forgetful,� and so on, differing from the meanings Gastrich cites to form his sentence. Comparison of several online Bible dictionaries reveals disagreement on what the names mean. But even if the names did form the sentence Gastrich claims, what would this show? It would not show that divine intervention led to this statement. The story of Adam and his descendants is myth. Characters in myth often have meaningful names. Messianic concerns could easily have led the anonymous author(s) of Genesis to put names in a meaningful order. That proves nothing about gods.

Intelligent Design
The design arguments Jason uses are nothing new. He uses both an intelligent design argument concerning biology and the fine-tuning argument.

Regarding the fine-tuning argument, Jason writes: “In order for the life we have on Earth to exist, over 150 factors must be just so.� He then discusses galaxy type. The idea here is that if many natural laws could have been different, then the chances that any one set of “cosmological constants� being the way they are now is improbable. So these factors must have been made to be the way they are intentionally. But we don’t know the probability of our universe being the way it is. It is possible that the universe could not in fact exist in any other way. If this is so, then this universe would not be improbable. For all their talk about improbability, theists cannot show that universes could exist in any other form than it does now. In addition, physicists have theoretical models showing how it is possible that there have been a multiplicity of universes. If this “multiverse� theory is correct, we should not be surprised that there is a universe like ours if there are billions of different universes existing simultaneously in different dimensions. Our universe would not be unlikely. Those who would counter that we don’t know for sure that there are other universes, or that there have been others in the past must admit that they also don’t have any evidence for the claim that a god made the universe. In fact, there is more theoretical foundation for the “multiverse� theory than there is for the view that all that we see was made by a ghost.

Gastrich’s comments about evolution betray his lack of scientific understanding. Evolution is a fact of biology, and intelligent 21st century people should be aware of this. He asks, “If the eye evolved, how good would 10% of an eye have worked?� This “problem� with evolution has been rebutted for decades. We know eyes evolved because the fossil record proves that they evolved and we see eyes in different states of evolution now. Some animals have eyes that work only 10% as well as ours.

Evolution is not even an issue in science anymore. The weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, and arguments for the existence of God that trade on the alleged “irreducible complexity� fail. In fact, creationists have yet to produce a single example of irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution.

Gastrich commits the usual creationist fallacy of accusing scientists of promoting evolution by indoctrination. Evolution is taught in schools because it passed the rigorous test of the scientific method, including peer review, observation, and testing.

For rebuttals of the irreducible complexity of the eye or the lungs, Gastrich should read: This (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html)

Conclusion:
Some of Gastrich’s arguments ask us to evaluate his credibility. His personal anecdotes about miracles and his relationship with God depend on our accepting his word. However, in his concluding remarks Gastrich asks “Why do you think the majority of the world is over 90% Christian?� That Gastrich would make such a remark shows more than simply that he does not check his facts. Just a few minutes with an almanac would have shown him that of the 6.4 billion people on Earth, there are a billion Muslims, a billion Indians, most of whom are Hindu, and that few of the billion Chinese are Christian. It is not the case that the majority of the world is Christian, nor that the majority of the world is over 90% Christian (whatever that means). About one third of the world population is Christian. (See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm ) Gastrich has shown repeatedly that many of his statements, under scrutiny, do not hold up.

Gastrich writes: “Atheism answers nothing. It simply denies everything and naysays. It’s an incredible position based on willful ignorance.� Atheism is not a position that denies everything. It is only a position on the existence of God. I have known many more atheists than Gastrich, and all of them I have met are positive people with an appreciation for life. I know that is my own approach to life, and for Gastrich to accuse me of “willful ignorance� when he can see in my book that I have given the atheist position a careful, reasoned examination is both insulting and laughable.

Gastrich has not come close to showing that there is sufficient evidence to make belief in God reasonable.

[Jason Gastrich]

Round 2

In this round, I will support my rebuttal to Doug’s post. I’ll also be presenting some new information and some new arguments. Thanks for reading and I hope you continue to enjoy our debate.

Before I begin, I want to clarify a statement I made in my last post. I made a confusing statement regarding 90% of the world and their beliefs. My statement was supposed to read, “90% of the world believes in God.� If this were the only proof of God’s existence, it would be pretty weak. However, it isn’t and it is a very interesting fact in support of God’s existence.

But in the matter of existence claims, it is unreasonable to hold important beliefs about existents, especially gods, without demanding extraordinarily strong evidence.

I agree that evidence is necessary. However, I see no good reason to have a presumption of atheism. Evidence is necessary for your claim as well; and strangely, the wording of your assertion above provides for my assertion.

Gastrich would agree, since he does not believe in the vast majority of the tens of thousands of gods that have existed in human history. So faith in god, as defined biblically, is not reasonable.

There is not enough evidence for those gods. There is far more evidence for the biblical God.

The Inerrant Bible.
Perhaps the most surprising of Gastrich’’s arguments for a belief in God is this argument from an inerrant Bible. The claim that the Bible is inerrant is not taken seriously in any reputable seminary or theological school in the 21st century. Examples of contradiction abound even in scholarly publications. Gastrich has not been able to rebut every example in the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and in some cases his “harmonization� raises more problems than they solve.

This simply isn’t so. Doug must have a very different definition of “reputable seminary or theological school.� For instance, Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) is one of the very best seminaries in the nation. They boast influential graduates such as Dr. David Jeremiah, Dr. Tony Evans, Mike Gendron, etc. They have employed amazing faculty such as Chuck Swindoll and Dr. John Hannah. Incidentally, I’ve visited DTS and I’m friends with some of the graduates.

I could go on and on about universities that affirm biblical inerrancy, but the list would be far too long. Doug has simply asserted, which is the logical fallacy of argument by assertion, so I’ll wait and see if he has any proof before I take his assertion (I can’t call it an argument) any more seriously.

I’ve snipped your link to the site who is illegally using my name and cybersquatting. However, even that site has only a handful of quibbles with my answers. My full and complete rebuttal to The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible offers nearly 4,000 answers.

Quick aside. I saw you ask the ii_errancy group at Topica.com for help on biblical inerrancy. Does this mean that you cannot find any errors on your own?

I. The Divorce Contradiction

This is a rather pedestrian misunderstanding. Here is the solution.
* Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9 are all different statements, made by Jesus, about divorce. They don't contradict each other, though. They complement each other.
* First, Jesus makes it clear that God created man and woman to enter into a covenant with God to stay married. He quotes Genesis, too. This is the ideal.
* Here are the things that we learn from these four statements by Jesus:
1) If a husband or wife divorces the other and marries another, then they commit adultery (Mark 10:11). Since no reasons or circumstances are given, Jesus is obviously talking about divorce without fornication.
2) If a husband divorces his wife and marries another, then he commits adultery. If the divorced wife marries another, then she commits adultery (Luke 16:18). Once again, Jesus is talking about divorce without fornication being the cause.
3) If a husband divorces his wife for any reason besides fornication, then he causes her to commit adultery. Whoever marries this divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). Now, Jesus is giving instructions about a married person who commits fornication.
4) If a husband divorces his wife for any reason besides fornication and marries another woman, he commits adultery. Whoever marries this divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:9). Once again, Jesus is giving instructions about a married person who commits fornication.
* It is obvious from the text that the first two verses are toward people who have not committed fornication. The third and fourth verses are given to people who have committed fornication. These don't contradict each other, but they give instructions to people in different circumstances. Furthermore, they aren't taken from the same times and places in Jesus' ministry, so they cannot be misquotes or omissions.
* 1 Corinthians 7:15 addresses another circumstance. Paul gives instructions to spouses who have an unbelieving husband or wife that abandons them. They are no longer in bondage to them.
Citation: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, [removed solicitation - NS]

II. Jesus Lied.

During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus says, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)). Here Jesus claims he shared all of his teachings with his public audiences; he never kept important parts of his teachings a secret.

Doug and I discussed this issue in one of our previous debates. Although it’s obviously a “pet issue� with Doug, it doesn’t seem as if anyone else has made it an issue. For instance, the author of The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (which is an exhaustive, atheist Bible commentary, trying to point out every alleged error and contradiction in the Bible) doesn’t even mention it.

To further illustrate my point, before I explain Doug’s error, see the following link. In Google’s entire archive of 8 billion web pages, there is only ONE web page about this alleged error. It’s from a guy named “Brad� with a hotmail email address and a free, geocities web page.

In over 2000 years of biblical scholarship, no Bible scholar has ever taken this claim seriously, yet Doug thinks he’s on to something. Maybe “Brad� is his pen name.

Link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=John+18%3A20+Bible+error+Jesus+lied

Now, it’s important to recognize that Doug Krueger has never given the entire context for this passage of scripture. This should be a red flag if we are wondering whether or not Doug will be able to understand the passage. As you can imagine, pulling one verse out of a 2000 year old document and trying to understand it, out of context, is simply poor hermeneutics and poor exegesis.

I’ll quote the passage, so everyone can read the context.

John 18:19-21 reads, “The high priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. Jesus answered him, ‘I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said.’�

In order to prove Jesus is lying, we would have to have the specific questions from the priests. Wouldn’t we? You can’t accuse someone of giving a false answer to a question if we don’t even know the question. That’s part of Doug’s problem. The question isn’t mentioned.

Now, if you want to be extra-literal, as Doug is trying to do, then why can’t we apply this statement to Jesus’ entire private life? He’s saying that He has never spoken in private. This is, of course, absurd. However, it’s no more absurd than Doug’s claims.

Jesus’ point was that His teachings were for everyone and He wanted the entire world to know about His doctrines, His plans, etc. This passage could even be considered prophecy. The things He taught to His disciples have been shared all over the world and billions of people!

So, I think it’s very obvious that Doug is falsely accusing Jesus of lying and misinterpreting the passage. If there is any doubt, then why didn’t the high priest accuse Jesus of lying?

Finally, I seem to remember Doug misinterpreting the following part of the verse: “I always taught in synagogues and in the temple.� He thinks that if he can find Jesus teaching in another location, then He is a liar. It’s unfortunate that Doug lacks understanding, though.

In my phone debate with Doug, I compared this to me saying, “I always eat hamburger.� Do I ALWAYS eat hamburger? No. I eat it a few times a week and sometimes I don’t eat it for days at a time. Am I lying? No. The word “always� is an ambiguous word and it can refer to probability or necessity.

In any case, Gastrich’s argument from the alleged inerrancy of the Bible is a nonstarter. If one of the allegedly inerrant Bible claims is that God exists, then his argument begs the question of whether God exists. On the other hand, if Gastrich holds that all the claims except that God exists are true, it is not clear at all how this would show that God exists. There are other books on mathematics, science, and so on that, through years of editing and correction, have no errors. But this does not show that God exists. Gastrich writes: “It is reasonable to have faith in Him if you have found answers to every alleged Bible error.� But even if the Bible were inerrant (excluding the claim that God exists), this would not show that God exists. At least, if this conclusion is supposed to follow, Gastrich will have to develop the argument further to attempt to show how this is so.

Comparing the Bible to a mathematics or science book is a bad premise. The Bible was written by 40 people, over thousands of years, in several countries, by priests, shepherds, kings, prophets, etc. It contains all kinds of literary devices like poetry, historical narrative, didactic treatise, etc. It’s also thousands of pages long.

So, when we have an inerrant Bible, it is far more awesome than an allegedly error-free math or science books. Incidentally, if Doug wants to propose that there is an inerrant math or science book, he may, but he needs to support his premise. Where is his proof? Where is his work and research that supports this claim? Not here.

By the way, Gastrich claims of my book that I devoted more than half of my introductory book on atheism, What is Atheism? A Short Introduction, to the Bible. As readers of my book can readily see by perusing my book, this is false. Gastrich claims to have read my book, so why he writes this is not clear.

Your book is 222 pages long. It begins at page 9 and ends on page 231. The pages that have scriptures on them or clearly address the Bible include 20, 26-28, 30-50, 61, 64-65, 68-70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 92-124, 131, 134, 138, 140, 161, 163, 164, 167, 169-173, 176-178, 182-194, 196-198, 201-206, 208-209, 222, 224, 229, 230. This amounts to 113 pages directly talking about the Bible and this doesn’t even count all of the pages that indirectly talk about the Bible or Christianity.

So Doug, it’s correct to say that over 50% of your book addresses the Bible. It’s also correct to say that you represent most atheists with your oddly consuming, pre-occupation with the Bible; even in a supposed introductory book on atheism. For instance, I don’t believe that pink unicorns exist, so I devote about .000001% of my time talking about them. It makes people wonder when atheists feel the need to address the Bible so much. If God doesn’t exist, then why bother?

By the way, page 86 lists Anthony Flew as an atheist. Will you be changing this in the next revision of your book?

If he thinks atheists have unreasonably stringent expectations for evidence for the existence of God, he should demonstrate this and not merely accuse atheists of bias and prejudice.

In a phone debate with you, you said that you wanted God to spell your name in the clouds before you’d believe in Him. This is an unreasonable request. You have been given plenty of other proof. There is no good reason to waste a miracle on your ego. Billions of others believe in God without this sort of proof. This miracle would serve no altruistic purpose and would not help to benefit humankind. Therefore, you do not have a reasonable request and you do have an overly stringent demand.

Miracles and the Effects of Prayer
Gastrich cites several cases of alleged miracles. His case of allegedly having his eyes cured by miraculous power is interesting. Gastrich states that he recently saw an eye doctor and he has 20/20 vision. But nowhere in his story does he state that he ever had other than 20/20 vision. He only had eye strain headaches. It is not clear what the alleged miracle is. The headaches went away? Perhaps he had eyestrain headaches from reading in poor light. Maybe he stopped doing that. We don’t have to appeal to the supernatural to explain why his headaches went away. In fact, the human body has natural mechanisms for healing. Healing without medical intervention is natural. So why should we be surprised when this happens?

Yes, the miracle is my painful, eyestrain headaches went away without any medication or surgery and without any physical therapy. I had eyestrain headaches each day. I prayed that they would go away and they went away. My diet and routine did not change. Therefore, God exists because He answered my prayer and it’s reasonable to believe in Him.
A major study with reproducible results could establish this, and despite millions of dollars invested in such studies, none have shown the efficacy of prayer. If prayer works, why can’t studies demonstrate this?

These sorts of studies have been done. I linked them in my last round post. However, you snipped them and avoided them.

Benny Hinn is a well-known faith healer who claims to have healed thousands of people, far more than Gastrich claims. Yet a recent Dateline expose shows that attempts to prove his healings genuine turned up not one single case that could be documented. Other faith healers have identical track records.

I do not support Benny Hinn. I have done research on him and I’ve found him to be a liar and a fraud. However, this does nothing to disprove God and nothing to show that faith in God is unreasonable.

Of course, it is interesting that for all the talk of the power of prayer, the millions of people who prayed for the recovery of Terri Schiavo, and the hundreds of millions (perhaps a billion) who prayed for the health of John Paul II did not get the miracle they hoped.

One out of every one person dies. However, prayer may extend people’s lives. How do you know that they wouldn’t have died much earlier without their faith and without prayer? The research shows that time spent in prayer effects your physical and mental health in a positive way, so it is very likely that they did live longer and better lives due to faith and prayers.

The NT has Jesus give a simple test for faith. Luke 17:6-7 (NIV), Jesus speaking: He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’’ and it will obey you.�

There is no evidence that this is a “test for faith� as you characterize it. Can you show that Jesus intended this to be a way to convert atheists?


See also Matthew 17:20. Recall that Mark 4:31 holds (erroneously) that the mustard seed is the smallest seed sown.

This is untrue. The scriptures do not call the mustard seed the smallest seed. They record Jesus calling it “the least.� It’s unclear exactly what relationship He is referring to when calling it the least, but if He would have meant “smallest,� then He would have said smallest.

If Gastrich has even the smallest amount of faith, he should be able to do as Jesus described, if the Bible is inerrant. If he can come to my house and make one of my trees in my backyard plant itself in the sea at his command, I will convert to his religion.

This is an unreasonable request. You have been given plenty of other proof. There is no good reason to waste a miracle on your ego. Billions of others believe in God without this sort of proof. This miracle would serve no altruistic purpose and would not help to benefit humankind. Therefore, you do not have a reasonable request and you do have an overly stringent demand.

Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies
Biblical prophecy fulfillment claims are common among fundamentalists, yet not one such prophecy holds up under scrutiny. In my book What is Atheism? A Short Introduction I list some commonsense criteria for evaluating whether a prophecy fulfillment claim can successfully serve as evidence for the existence of God. Here is a similar list that we can use for the purposes of our debate.

There are several problems with this list. I’ll comment and question it below.

1.The interpretation of both the prophecy and the event that allegedly fulfills it must be shown to be correct interpretations.

I agree with this.

2.The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.

This has nothing to do with whether a prophecy has been made or fulfilled.

3.The prophecy must be known to have been made before the event that is supposed to be its fulfillment.

I agree with this. The definition of a prophecy is history foretold in advance.

4.The event foretold must not be of the sort that could be the result of an educated guess.

This has nothing to do with whether a prophecy has been made or fulfilled.

5.The event that fulfills the prophecy cannot be staged, or the relevant circumstances manipulated, by those aware of the prophecy in such a way as to intentionally cause the prophecy to be fulfilled.

The reason why or how someone fulfills a prophecy has nothing to do with whether or not a prophecy has been made or fulfilled. This is an invalid criteria for prophecy fulfillment.

Gastrich cites Isaiah 53, by the anonymous “Deutero-Isaiah� or “Second Isaiah,� as scholars call him, as evidence of fulfilled prophecy because, he claims, it is a description of the crucifixion of Jesus. But criterion #1 above involves showing that one’s interpretation of the event is correct. Isaiah 53 can be interpreted in a number of ways. The “servant� can be interpreted as the nation of Israel because of passages such as Isaiah 44:1: "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.� (See also Isa. 41:8.)

Criterion #1 didn’t involve the ability to find other interpretations. It involved knowing the correct interpretation of the passage. While it “could� have been referring to Israel and possibly a variety of other things, it wasn’t.

Once again, you’re having trouble with context, hermeneutics, and exegesis. Before, you wanted to pull a single verse out of the Bible and try and find its meaning, independent of the verses around it. This time, you’re trying to interpret Isaiah 53 by using a single verse in Isaiah 44 and a single verse in Isaiah 41. Once again, this is poor exegesis and should be disregarded.

If you have a sound argument (e.g. premise and conclusion) regarding Isaiah 53, then present it. Otherwise, my premise that it was a prophecy about the crucifixion and my conclusion that faith in God is reasonable still remains.

The following premise about Isaiah 53 is why my conclusion is true.

1. The chapter describes crucifixion hundreds of years before it was a method of execution by the Romans.
2. The chapter describes the sufferings of Christ that we also see recorded in the gospels.
3. The chapter uses words and terminology that do not refer to the country of Israel.
4. The chapter says, “He is despised and rejected by men . . . He was despised and WE (Israel) esteemed him not.� (Isaiah 53:3)
5. The chapter corresponds with the treatment of Jesus by the Pharisees.
6. The chapter mentions the whippings that Jesus received.
7. The chapter reveals Jesus’ reaction to His persecutors.
8. The chapter prophesies His imprisonment.
9. The chapter reveals Jesus’ death with “the rich� and He was buried in a rich man’s tomb.
10. We find that His soul was an offering for sin. (Isaiah 53:11)


Since these prophecies clearly refer to Jesus Christ, it is reasonable to have faith in Him and the Bible.

The book attributed to Daniel was not written by Daniel. Biblical scholars know this.

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

However, for prophecy, this is irrelevant. More importantly, the claim of prophecy in Daniel 9 suffers from enormous liabilities. First, it cannot be shown that Jesus really rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.

Yes we do. We find this in Matthew 21:1-5.

Anderson’s version of the prophecy has the event in 32 CE, but Passover would have been on the wrong day of the week that year.

Please reveal your math. All I see is an argument by assertion.

Third, the Daniel 9 “prophecy� about dates is arrived at by unreliable means. Anderson creates an arbitrary start date for his calculations, so there is no reason to think that this alleged prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus.

There is no arbitrary start date. According to the scriptures, the command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the "month of Nisan and the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes". This king was the King Artaxerxes Longimanus of Persia. The day when he gave the command to rebuild Jerusalem was March 14, 445 B.C. [copied comments removed - NS]


[quote & link added - NS]
The Prophecy of Daniel (http://www.skepticfiles.org/xhate/prophet.htm)

The ACTUAL DATE of the decree was MARCH 14, 445 B.C. We know this from Neh 2:1-6 that the decree was issued "in the Month of Nisan, in the 20th year" of Artaxerxes' reign. History records Artaxerxes' reign as being from 465 - 425 B.C. History also records that "The 1st of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of Kings and for festivals" so we know that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, which would have been a Major decree was issued on the First of Nisan which in 445 B.C. fell on March 14.

As for Farrell Till, he wanted me to clarify and I’m happy to do so. He doesn’t think this is a prophecy, BUT if it were, then he thinks it’s off by three days. We’re splitting hairs here. I wasn’t trying to show that Till believed in the Bible and I think you both know that. I was showing that he thought this prophecy (I call it a prophecy) was fulfilled 3 days late. My question to the readership was, “What if he is off by three days?�

Intelligent Design
But we don’t know the probability of our universe being the way it is. It is possible that the universe could not in fact exist in any other way.

This isn’t the issue. Of course the universe could exist in another way. However, life as we know it could not exist if any of those 150+ factors were not just so. This is powerful evidence of a designer.

If this “multiverse� theory is correct, we should not be surprised that there is a universe like ours if there are billions of different universes existing simultaneously in different dimensions. Our universe would not be unlikely.

This is nothing more than a gambler’s fallacy. Every time you roll a six sided die, you have an equal chance of getting a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Doug seems to think that the astronomically small possibility of life being created by itself somehow grows if there are more universes. This simply isn’t true. Every time you roll the die, you have the same chance and every universe that exists still has the astronomically small possibility of life as we know it.

Doug has no tenable theory for the origin of life. Nothing has ever been observed that could help us understand how life could have originated on its own. Brilliant scientists cannot create life, yet Doug and the other atheists believe it happened billions of years ago on its own. It’s simply absurd.

Gastrich’s comments about evolution betray his lack of scientific understanding. Evolution is a fact of biology, and intelligent 21st century people should be aware of this.

I never disputed good science. I believe in every form of evolution that we have observed. I believe the primrose plant produced another species of promise plant. However, I’m very skeptical when it comes to assuming things about the distant past.

Answer me this. You have faith that the evolution of species (which is not a fact) happened. Why should I trade my faith for your faith?

He asks, “If the eye evolved, how good would 10% of an eye have worked?� This “problem� with evolution has been rebutted for decades. We know eyes evolved because the fossil record proves that they evolved and we see eyes in different states of evolution now. Some animals have eyes that work only 10% as well as ours.

These seems awfully fallacious and assuming. Can you produce some evidence that an eye evolved?

Evolution is not even an issue in science anymore. The weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, and arguments for the existence of God that trade on the alleged “irreducible complexity� fail. In fact, creationists have yet to produce a single example of irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution.

Really, Doug? Well, how would you explain this quote from an evolutionist in Nature magazine? “A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that new forms or functions often require the concerted efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is unclear how such changes might accumulate when they are likely to be deleterious individually and be lost by selective pressure’’ - True, H.L. and Lindquist, S.L., A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity, Nature 407(6803):477––483, 28 September 2000, p. 477.

The cases of irreducible complexity are no more accounted for than Doug understands the teachings or person of Jesus.

Arguments from Logic

Is it reasonable to have faith? Let us define reasonable and faith. Reasonable is defined as, “being within the bounds of common sense.� Faith is defined as, “confident belief in the truth.� Citation: Dictionary.com.

Some have said that atheism is a mental disorder. Is it common sense to reject belief in God? Or is it common sense to believe in Him?

90% of the world believes in God. If atheism is true, then 90% of the world is unreasonable and does not have common sense when it comes to an issue that permeates every aspect of life. Can this really be so?

However, if atheism is not true, then 90% of the world is reasonable and does have common sense when it comes to the issue of origins. Does this sound more like the world you see and know? Or is the world you recognize filled with 9 out of 10 people who are unreasonable and without common sense?

The one who calls 90% of the world deluded is deluded.

Atheism Waning

Recently, reports have shown that atheism is waning. Of course, this is exactly what the Bible predicts. We don’t read about end times atheism. We read about end times false religion and there are, of course, numerous religions and religious people in the world, today. Since the Bible predicts end times false religion and that is what we see, we can know that the Bible is a book with true and fulfilled prophecies in it.

I’d like Doug to explain why atheism is waning; why it isn’t accepted as an intellectual position like it used to be. Don’t worry about trying to explain Anthony Flew’s conversion to theism/deism. I’m interested in the numbers and the reasons for the other people. Here is support for my premise that if atheism is waning, and if the Bible is correct on this, then it is reasonable to have faith in God.

Atheism in Decline
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050303-115733-9519r.htm

From 1991 and 1999, the population of the world rose by about 600,000,000. During that time, the world's atheists plummeted from 240 million to 150 million. Citation: The World Almanacs (1994 and 2001).

Perhaps people are just becoming more reasonable.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jason Gastrich,

In your recent statement, I have found that you copied some comments nearly in verbatim from another source and without any attribution:

There is no arbitrary start date. According to the scriptures, the command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the "month of Nisan and the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes". This king was the King Artaxerxes Longimanus of Persia. The day when he gave the command to rebuild Jerusalem was March 14, 445 B.C.
History records Artaxerxes' reign as being from 465 - 425 B.C. Historians have also recorded that "The first of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of Kings and for festivals", so we know that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, which would have been a major decree, was issued on the first of Nisan. In 445 B.C., this day fell on March 14.

And here's material from The Prophecy of Daniel, by the Christian Information Exchange (http://www.skepticfiles.org/xhate/prophet.htm)

The ACTUAL DATE of the decree was MARCH 14, 445 B.C. We know this from Neh 2:1-6 that the decree was issued "in the Month of Nisan, in the 20th year" of Artaxerxes' reign. History records Artaxerxes' reign as being from 465 - 425 B.C. History also records that "The 1st of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of Kings and for festivals" so we know that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, which would have been a Major decree was issued on the First of Nisan which in 445 B.C. fell on March 14.

I have removed your comments in bold and replaced it with the actual quote from the original website. As you may be aware, plagiarism is a serious offence and would normally constitute a forfeit of the debate. But since only a few sentences were involved, I will merely provide a warning. A second infraction, however, will constitute a forfeit.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Doug Krueger]

I had solidly rebutted Gastrich's arguments in my first reply. His efforts to rehabilitate his arguments are futile, and indeed his posts show signs of haste and poor research.

For example, Gastrich recognizes that his statement that “the majority of the world is over 90% Christian� was absurd. He amends it to:

“My statement was supposed to read, “90% of the world believes in God.�

But this is still false. I defined “God� in the first round as

“omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, creator of the universe, and who is identical to the being described in the Christian Bible.�

Gastrich does not dispute or comment on this. Of the world population of 6.5 billion, the billion Chinese, who are Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, or atheist, the 900 million Hindus, and millions more, have no belief in God as defined. So Gastrich remains incorrect.

But the point is moot. Appealing to the popularity of a belief to support its truth is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. The popularity of a belief is not evidence of its truth, as philosophy students learn even in introductory classes. Gastrich writes that the popularity of belief in God is “a very interesting fact in support of God’s existence,� so he’s determined to commit this fallacy.

Gastrich says that he can see “no good reason� to hold a presumption of atheism, the view that in the absence of evidence of an extraordinary claim, disbelief is warranted. Regarding nonchristian gods, Gastrich admits he doesn’t believe in them because “there is not enough evidence for those gods.� So Gastrich uses a presumption of atheism! Indeed, in our telephone debate of 5/13/03 (sermonaudio.com (http://www.sermonaudio.com)) he agreed with this principle. How can Gastrich claim to see “no good reason� to have this principle and yet put it into practice?

But that is not our topic. On to the main rebuttals.

The Inerrant Bible Argument
Regarding his argument from an inerrant Bible, I pointed out that

“The claim that the Bible is inerrant is not taken seriously in any reputable seminary or theological school in the 21st century.�

Gastrich cites the Dallas Theological Seminary and says that it is “one of the very best seminaries in the nation� and that the faculty supports the inerrancy position. But the seminary's website (http://www.dts.edu/utility/file.aspx?id=63) states

“We are seeking applicants who are passionately committed to our mission and will subscribe in good faith to the school’s doctrinal beliefs. Do you adhere to the following doctrines?�

The first doctrine listed is “the authority and inerrancy of the Scripture.� The faculty endorses biblical inerrancy because they wouldn’t be hired otherwise, so their endorsement proves nothing about the tenability of biblical inerrancy.

In “Mistakes of Moses,� Robert Ingersoll explained:

“I want to free the schools of our country. I want it so that when a professor in a college finds some fact inconsistent with Moses he will not hide the fact; that it will not be worse for him for having discovered the fact…I want its professors so that they will tell everything they find; that they will be free to investigate in every direction, and will not be trammeled by the superstitious of our day.�

Any school whose faculty cannot dispute the basic doctrines of the school with impunity cannot be taken seriously. And of course these inerrantists have no good arguments for their position.

Since the faculty at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest university in the world, support the inerrancy of the Qur’an, would Gastrich be impressed by this as evidence for the inerrancy of the Qur’an?

The reason legitimate scholars reject biblical inerrancy is that there is a plethora of examples of error, especially contradictions.

I. The Divorce Contradiction
I explained in my first post the contradiction on the matter of divorce and remarriage. In Mark 10:11, Jesus states

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery,�

which is the universal statement

(x)(Dx & Rx → Ax)

where D is for "divorced," R is for "remarried," and A is for "commits adultery."

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.�

If someone can divorce and remarry without committing adultery, this is:

(∃x)(Dx & Rx & ~Ax)

which implies:

~[(x)(Dx & Rx→Ax)]

Thus we have a contradiction of:

(x)(Dx & Rx → Ax) & ~[(x)(Dx & Rx → Ax)]

So the Bible contradicts itself on divorce and remarriage. This is a formal contradiction supported by the biblical text.

Gastrich says of these verses:

“They don't contradict each other, though. They complement each other.�

But this is demonstrably false. I showed, using logical notation, that the statements contradict.

Gastrich says:

“If a husband or wife divorces the other and marries another, then they commit adultery (Mark 10:11). Since no reasons or circumstances are given, Jesus is obviously talking about divorce without fornication.�

That defense is inadequate. Jesus specifically states that the ban on divorce and remarriage applies to “whosoever,� meaning anyone. This is a universal statement, and any other statement that allows for divorce and remarriage necessarily contradicts this statement.

Gastrich writes:

“It is obvious from the text that the first two verses are toward people who have not committed fornication. The third and fourth verses are given to people who have committed fornication. These don't contradict each other, but they give instructions to people in different circumstances.�

This is false. In Mark 10, Jesus is addressing all those who are married. It is precisely because no exceptions are given that it is a universal statement. Gastrich’s intended defense actually underscores my point.

Gastrich continues:

“Furthermore, they aren't taken from the same times and places in Jesus' ministry, so they cannot be misquotes or omissions.�

It certainly wouldn’t follow that if statements are taken in different times and places that they can’t be misquotes, and if they’re cited, they aren’t omissions anyway. It is unclear what Gastrich is talking about.

But Gastrich has obviously not examined Mark 10 and Matthew 19 in context. The claim that Jesus was speaking on different occasions is implausible. Here are events surrounding the Pharisees’ questioning Jesus about divorce in Mark and Matthew.

1. Jesus goes into the region of Judea across the Jordan.
2. Large crowds followed him.
3. Pharisees come.
4. The Pharisees came to test him.
5. The Pharisees mention one issue.
6. That issue is whether a man can divorce his wife.
7. Jesus asks the Pharisees if they recall the OT view.
8. Jesus cites Genesis 1:27.
9. Jesus cites Genesis 2:24.
10. Jesus states that what God has joined together, let man not separate.
11. Jesus explains the divorce-and-remarry rule.
12. People bring little children to Jesus.
13. The disciples rebuke the people for doing this.
14. Jesus says they should allow the children to approach.
15. Jesus says that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these children.
16. A man approaches Jesus.
17. The man calls Jesus "good."
18. The man asks one question.
19. The man asks what he must do to inherit eternal life.
20. Jesus asks him why he called Jesus good.
21. Jesus says there is only one who is good.
22. Jesus tells the man to follow the commandments.
23. The man asks which commandments he must follow.
24. Jesus tells him to follow the commandments.
25. Jesus gives a short list of commandments.
26. This list includes `Do not murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t give false testimony, and honor your father and mother.'
27. The short list does not include any of the other ten commandments.
28. The man says that he has already been keeping these commandments.
29. It is stated that the man lacks one thing to gain life.
30. The man must sell everything he has and give to the poor.
31. If the man does this, he will have treasure in heaven, states Jesus.
32. The man hears this and leaves sadly.
33. The man is sad because he is rich.
34. Jesus addresses the disciples.
35. Jesus says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
36. The disciples are then amazed.
37. The disciples ask "Who then can be saved?"
38. Jesus tells them that with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
39. Peter says, “We have left everything to follow you!�
40. Jesus says something about everyone who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for him.
41. Jesus says that those who have left those things for him will receive a hundred times as much in return.
42. Jesus says that those who have done this will also receive eternal life.
43. Jesus talks to his disciples on the way to Jerusalem. (Now Matthew 20.)
44. Jesus takes the Twelve aside.
45. Jesus explains what is going to happen to him.
46. Jesus says that the Son of Man will be betrayed.
47. Those to whom he will be betrayed are the chief priests and teachers of the law.
48. They will turn Jesus over to the Gentiles.
49. Jesus gives a short list of things that the Gentiles will do to him.
50. The list includes that the Gentiles will mock Jesus, flog him, and kill him.

And so on. I have an even longer list with further parallels, but this is sufficient. All these descriptions of events, in the same order, in almost the same language, are clearly intended to be descriptions of the same sequence of events. Since this is so, the claim that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees in two separate occasions is implausible. And, worse still, even if these had been different occasions, contradictory statements on different occasions are still contradictory. Gastrich has not resolved this contradiction. In fact, I sent him the longer list of these parallel events on 2/7/03. Gastrich never rebutted my argument.

II. Jesus Lied
Gastrich ends his discussion of the divorce contradiction with one of his mean-spirited barbs, stating

“I saw you ask the ii_errancy group at Topica.com for help on biblical inerrancy. Does this mean that you cannot find any errors on your own?�

I need no help finding errors, but I had asked the Errancy group for contradictions Gastrich hadn’t resolved so I could tell readers of this debate that he has not “found reasonable and accurate answers to every alleged error in the Bible� as he claims. He never adequately responded to many issues. Anyway, just after suggesting that I can’t come up with my own Bible problems, Gastrich states in the next paragraph that my “Jesus Lied� contradiction is so unique that “it doesn’t seem as if anyone else has made it an issue�!

Of the “Jesus Lied� contradiction, Gastrich writes:

�In order to prove Jesus is lying, we would have to have the specific questions from the priests. Wouldn’t we? You can’t accuse someone of giving a false answer to a question if we don’t even know the question. That’s part of Doug’s problem. The question isn’t mentioned.�

But we don’t have to know the question to know if someone is lying. We just have to know what statements the person makes and whether the person knows or believes they’re true. Anyway, the question about his ministry is clear enough for our purposes. Gastrich has no rebuttal here.

He continues:

�Now, if you want to be extra-literal, as Doug is trying to do, then why can’t we apply this statement to Jesus’ entire private life? He’s saying that He has never spoken in private. This is, of course, absurd. However, it’s no more absurd than Doug’s claims.�

Gastrich needs to re-read my post. I stated that I was NOT going to take Jesus’ statement literally. I said:

“Jesus claimed, ‘In secret I have said nothing.’ Of course, we must grant that this is not to be understood literally. Surely this is intended to mean that Jesus claimed that he did not have important teachings that were secret.�

And then I showed how Jesus did have important secret teachings. Gastrich says:

�Jesus’ point was that His teachings were for everyone and He wanted the entire world to know about His doctrines, His plans, etc.�

I had specifically cited Mark 4:2-12 which shows that Jesus did NOT want everyone to know his teachings. Gastrich says nothing about that here. I cited verse after verse showing Jesus keeping important information secret, and Gastrich says nothing about any of this evidence. How can he expect to rebut me when he simply ignores my evidence?

The claim that Jesus lied in John 18:20 is simply an extension of the well-known Messianic Secret issue. That Jesus’ secrecy in Mark conflicts with John 18:20 surprises no NT scholar.

Gastrich writes:

“If there is any doubt, then why didn’t the high priest accuse Jesus of lying?�

If Jesus has secret teachings, the High Priest would not know them and would thus have no basis for accusing Jesus of lying.

I had also pointed out that Gastrich’s argument from biblical inerrancy is moot. I challenged Gastrich to show the connection between an inerrant Bible and the conclusion that God exists, and he did NOTHING to develop the argument.

Incidentally, Gastrich keeps insisting that most of my book is about the Bible. (He seems to think that if a page mentions the Bible, then the whole page is “devoted� to the Bible.) He is puzzled by this:

“It’s also correct to say that you represent most atheists with your oddly consuming, pre-occupation with the Bible; even in a supposed introductory book on atheism. For instance, I don’t believe that pink unicorns exist, so I devote about .000001% of my time talking about them. It makes people wonder when atheists feel the need to address the Bible so much. If God doesn’t exist, then why bother?�

I “bother� because so many people persist in a false belief. Why would this be unusual? Gastrich doesn’t believe Bible errors exist, yet he has devoted 100% of a book to Bible errors!

�My Long Term Relationship with God� Argument

I thoroughly rebutted this argument in my first post, showing that it was circular. Gastrich makes NO mention of this argument in his latest post, so he has apparently abandoned this argument.

Miracles and the Effects of Prayer

Gastrich repeats his anecdote about his vision being healed. I already explained why anecdotes of healings are worthless. Individual cases where people recover do not establish a causal relationship between prayer and positive results.

What would serve as evidence for the power of prayer, I said, is a major study with reproducible results, yet no such studies have conclusively shown that prayer works. Gastrich claims that studies of this sort have been done, and he linked to them. One link was a page about the increased mental health of those who pray. This is no miracle. The same effects occur from simple meditation or from yoga. His other link was to a round-table discussion of prayer, and one panelist states,

�There are studies that show that prayer has apparently been associated with improved health care outcomes for a high proportion of patients in certain studies. However, other studies show that prayer doesn't seem to have the same degree of effectiveness.�

If Gastrich wants to use prayer studies as evidence for the efficacy of prayer, I am not going to do his homework for him. He needs to select a study, explain how it was conducted, and explain how it supports the claim that belief in God is reasonable. He must also reply to critics. So far he has not made reference to a single prayer study.

When I asked Gastrich why prayer did not work for Terri Schiavo or John Paul II, he said:

"How do you know that they wouldn’t have died much earlier without their faith and without prayer?"

Ignorance of whether someone would live longer is not evidence of the power of prayer. But knowledge that what was asked in prayer was not granted is evidence that prayer does not work.

I also cited Luke 17:6-7, where Jesus says:

“If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.�

Since Mark 4:31 holds (erroneously) that the mustard seed is the smallest seed sown, Jesus is saying that even if you have the smallest amount of faith, you can command a tree to move and it will. If Gastrich has even the smallest amount of faith, he should be able to do this.

Gastrich says:

�There is no evidence that this is a ‘test for faith’ as you characterize it. Can you show that Jesus intended this to be a way to convert atheists?�

Weren't “signs� used in the NT to convert people or confirm “the word�? Yes. See John 2:23 and 6:2. And Mark 16:20:

“And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.�

Can’t Gastrich could do as Jesus described as confirmation of “the word�?

Gastrich protests:

“The scriptures do not call the mustard seed the smallest seed. They record Jesus calling it ‘the least.’ It’s unclear exactly what relationship He is referring to when calling it the least, but if He would have meant ‘smallest,’ then He would have said smallest.�

Or “smaller than all the seeds on earth (NKJV)�? But let’s use Gastrich’s terminology. If you have “the least� amount of faith, you can do as Jesus described. If Jesus says those with “the least� amount of faith can do this, it is not unreasonable to ask someone with faith to do it. Can Gastrich do this? On our phone debate, we discussed this and he waffled on whether he believed it. Doesn’t he have even “the least� amount of faith? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.� Why won’t Gastrich do this test?

Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies Argument

Gastrich provided some alleged fulfilled prophecies as evidence for the existence of God. I provided some reasonable criteria for him to meet. Gastrich takes issue with criteria #2 (uniqueness), #4 (the result of a guess), and #5 (a staged event). He fails to understand that if the alleged event is supposed to serve as evidence of divine intervention, if an event is not unique (“The President in 2045 will drink water!�), or if it can be reasonably guessed (“There will be violence in the Middle East next month!�), or if the event can be staged (“A prophecy says a house will be built here? Let’s build a house here!�), no divine intervention would be required to explain such events. Eliminating those criteria undermines the appeal to the very explanation the prophecy argument is supposed to show.

And Gastrich’s examples don’t meet the reasonable criteria.

Isaiah 53
Regarding Isaiah 53, Gastrich has not shown that his interpretation of the suffering servant refers to Jesus. If other plausible interpretations of the prophecy can be shown, Gastrich’s interpretation won’t be compelling. The “servant� can be interpreted as the nation of Israel because of passages such as Isaiah 44:1: "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.�

Gastrich writes:

“While it ‘could’ have been referring to Israel and possibly a variety of other things, it wasn’t.�

A denial is not a rebuttal. Oddly, although Gastrich has not put any of his arguments in premise/conclusion format, he demands that I do so with my Isaiah prophecy rebuttal. If he’ll do the same with all his arguments, I’ll be happy to comply.

Gastrich lists these prophecy details:

“1. The chapter describes crucifixion hundreds of years before it was a method of execution by the Romans.�

Isaiah 53 does not describe a crucifixion. No cross, pillory, pole, or crucifixion is described, nor are Romans.

�2. The chapter describes the sufferings of Christ that we also see recorded in the gospels.�

This is question-begging. That is what he is trying to show.

“3. The chapter uses words and terminology that do not refer to the country of Israel.�

Chapter divisions in the OT are later additions, so if Isaiah 44:1 and 41:8 refer to the servant as Israel, it is arbitrary to say that a later “chapter� does not mean this too.

“4. The chapter says, ‘He is despised and rejected by men . . . He was despised and WE (Israel) esteemed him not.’ (Isaiah 53:3)�

There were many who loved Jesus and did not despise him. Many others were despised. This is too vague to be useful.

“5. The chapter corresponds with the treatment of Jesus by the Pharisees.�

Again, this is what Gastrich is trying to show.

“6. The chapter mentions the whippings that Jesus received.�

There is no mention of any whippings. Verse 53:5 has “stripes� in KJV, but the Hebrew “chabbuwrah� (Strong’s 2250) could also mean “wound,� “bruise,� or “blow.�

“7. The chapter reveals Jesus’ reaction to His persecutors.�

Too vague to be useful.

“8. The chapter prophesies His imprisonment.�

Many people killed by authorities are imprisoned first. This is not unusual.

“9. The chapter reveals Jesus’ death with ‘the rich’ and He was buried in a rich man’s tomb.�

Show this. No one knows what happened to Jesus’ body. And Isaiah does not say that Jesus would be buried in a rich man’s tomb. A “death with the rich� could mean any connection with a rich person surrounding the death would qualify. It fails the uniqueness criterion.

“10. We find that His soul was an offering for sin. (Isaiah 53:11)�

This is a theological statement. Gastrich cannot show that this happened.

Now some dissimilarities Gastich overlooks:

“He shall see his seed.� (v. 10) Jesus had no children.
Verse 7: “He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.�But Jesus speaks to the chief priests (Luke 22:67-70), to Pilate (Luke 23:3, John 18:37; 19:11), as he is led to crucifixion (Luke 23:28-31), and as he is crucified (Luke 23:34). There are other examples. Anyone who points to other verses in which Jesus does not speak commits the fallacy of selective evidence. Everyone is sometimes silent and sometimes not. To say of someone that “He opened not His mouth� and insist this was miraculously realized in someone who sometimes talked and sometimes remained silent is ridiculous.

It is likely that the anonymous gospel writers added features to the story of Jesus based on what they read in Isaiah, which would require no divine intervention either. For example, based on a mistaken reading of Zechariah 9:9, Matthew 21:1-7 has Jesus riding two animals into Jerusalem instead of just one as described in Mark and Luke. (See Farrell Till’s article at: Farrell Till's article (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html)) Literary license is the most parsimonious explanation for the alleged prophecy “fulfillment,� and since Gastrich can’t show that his interpretation is correct, explain away dissimilarities, or show that all of the Isaiah details really happened to Jesus, he has no case.

Daniel 9
I pointed out of the Daniel 9 prophecy that it cannot be shown that Jesus really rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, Gastrich writes:

“Yes we do. We find this in Matthew 21:1-5.�

What you find in Matthew is that Jesus rode two animals, not one. (See Till’s article, above.) Since it is clear from this discrepancy that literary fiction is part of the gospel accounts, I challenge Gastrich to establish that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a specific date. He can’t.

At http://www.gastrich.org/coming_prince.html, one of Gastrich’s critics writes:

“In Death of the Messiah (Vol 2, p1374), Raymond Brown makes reference to a survey of 100 scholars on the date of Jesus’ death. Fifty-three decided on AD 30; 24 chose AD 33; 13 chose AD 29; each of AD 26, 27, 28, 31, 32 & 36 received the support of only 1 to 3 scholars out of the hundred.
“…The main reason that AD 32 is implausible is that the astronomical new moon for Nisan AD 32 would have meant that Nisan 14 occurred on a Monday. The Jewish new month depended on viewing the new moon on the night after the 29th day. This could therefore be delayed by at most a day, if the full moon was not visible. As Finegan (Hebrew Chronology) writes, ‘conditions might be such that the actual visual sighting could not be made and, in this case, it was established that one month would have 30 days and the next 29. The month with 29 days was considered “deficient� by half a day, the month with 30 days was “full�, being half a day over the true lunar period.’ Maimonides, commenting on the ancient determination by the Sanhedrin, notes that ‘If the new crescent did not appear and no witnesses arrived, this day was counted as the 30th day of the old month, which thus became an embolismic month.’ (Sanctification of the New Moon).

�So unless you want to support a Monday or Tuesday crucifixion, AD 32 is out.�

So Gastrich cannot establish his end date for the prophecy. Regarding the start date for the Daniel 9 prophecy, Gastrich says that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the “Month of Nisan, in the 20th year" of Artaxerxes' reign. But there is no justification for holding that this decree was given in any particular day of that month. The start date is arbitrary.

And the span in-between? Anderson, the champion of this prophecy, arbitrarily jumps between two different calendar systems, with errors, to get his desired number of days, using an arbitrary 360-day year. Correcting for the length of the year shows calculations off by at least 7 years. Other corrections show the prophecy off by many more years.

Also, there are interpretation issues as well. The Messiah in Daniel 9 may be King Cyrus. (See link above.) There is no hope for this prophecy.

Gastrich still persists in stating that Farrell Till, expert in demonstrating biblical error, “thought this prophecy…was fulfilled 3 days late.� Till holds no such view, and directly e-mailed and corrected Gastrich, who unfortunately still spreads this misinformation.

Intelligent Design Argument

Gastrich asserts that of the laws of nature,

“life as we know it could not exist if any of those 150+ factors were not just so.�

I claimed that we do not know whether a universe could exist in any other way. If the universe could not exist in any other form, then this universe is not unlikely, and we needn’t appeal to design to explain its existence.
Gastrich replies:

�This isn’t the issue. Of course the universe could exist in another way.�

It is the issue. He needs to show that this universe is improbable or no appeal to design is needed.

I also cited the “multiverse� theory that if there are billions of different universes existing simultaneously in different dimensions or in the past, our universe is not unlikely among the set.

Gastrich writes:

�This is nothing more than a gambler’s fallacy. Every time you roll a six sided die, you have an equal chance of getting a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Doug seems to think that the astronomically small possibility of life being created by itself somehow grows if there are more universes. This simply isn’t true. Every time you roll the die, you have the same chance and every universe that exists still has the astronomically small possibility of life as we know it.�

Gastrich apparently cannot distinguish between the probability of a single trial and the probability over a series of trials. A six-sided die has a 1 in 6 probability of a given number for one roll, but not over a hundred rolls. Similarly, even if our universe is unlikely if singular, it may not be unlikely in a series of billions or trillions of universes. Since Gastrich can’t show that our universe is improbable, his argument fails.

Regarding irreducible complexity, I gave Gastrich a link to explain the evolution of the eye, yet he seems mysteriously oblivious to this and asked for such information. Although evolution has been observed, Gastrich still denies that too. But this is off-topic. Gastrich asserts irreducible complexity exists in biological systems, so he must provide an example evolution cannot explain. I explained how an eye could evolve, and all Gastrich said was:

“These seems (sic) awfully fallacious and assuming.�

That’s a retort with no substance.

“Arguments from Logic�

Gastrich ends with some definitions and barbs. He says,

“Some have said that atheism is a mental disorder. Is it common sense to reject belief in God? Or is it common sense to believe in Him?�

This is pointless speculation from someone with no credentials in the field of mental health.

He then suggests that since so many people believe in God, it is more commonsensical than atheism. But this is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Again, Gastrich is determined to commit this fallacy.

Regarding his false claim that atheism is waning, since it is irrelevant to our topic, I will only refer him to Darrel Henschell’s post in the peanut gallery, page 14, which rebuts this claim.

Gastrich has already abandoned one of his arguments and has been unsuccessful in supporting his others. He is clearly unable to establish that belief in God is reasonable. His arguments get weaker while my rebuttals get stronger. His case for the reasonableness of belief in God may be beyond repair.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jason Gastrich,

Please note that the time limit to post your next statement has passed. The rules, however, permit a grace period, extending your deadline to June 17.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jason Gastrich has informed us that he will be unable to meet the grace period due to various unforeseen circumstances. He has requested that the grace period be extended 5 days. We have to decided to grant an exception to the rules and have agreed to grant his request. The grace period is now extended to June 22.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear IIDB and Doug,

I hope you’re well.

Before I begin, let me say one thing. I find it humorous that whenever one of my debate deadlines is approaching or if I need an extension, unbelievers and atheists start saying I have no answers, I’m afraid, I’m going to quit and never return, etc. Some may not realize all of these accusations, but I’ve heard some and rest assured, they are awfully absurd.

Don’t forget. I’m the guy who wrote an entire, exhaustive rebuttal to The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. I found answers to every single, alleged Bible error known to most every skeptic. If you think you have a stumper, send it to me and send it to Steve Wells (author of The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible) and I’ll address it and he’ll put it on his site.

Now, I’m not saying I’m a genius or that I know everything. I’m a regular guy who has worked hard to investigate the claims of skeptics. In my research, I have found reasonable and complete answers to every, alleged Bible error.

So, to say that I’m afraid, unable to complete the debate, or anything on that level is quite absurd. After beginning, I’ve never quit a formal debate. If I didn’t have some extreme circumstances and some previously unforseen responsibilities, my post would have been completed and posted on time.

Thanks to the moderators for the extension. Without further adieu . . .

Doug’s definition of God is irrelevant when it comes to my points. My point was that over 90% of the world believes in God. Despite Doug’s attempts to redefine God in a way that is convenient to him, over 90% of the world still believes in God.

Doug’s claim that this is a logical fallacy is incorrect as well. It may be a logical fallacy if I said that this very large majority meant that God existed. However, this isn’t what I’m saying. What I’m referring to is a probability and the probability that the resolution of this debate is true.

The resolution of this debate is: Faith in God is reasonable. How is something determined reasonable? Well, if 90% of the world believes something, it could be considered reasonable on that basis alone. Couldn’t it?

So, Doug has tried to change my argument to his liking (again), but he has also failed, again. It is in times like these that I wish I were having a public debate with Doug. The audience wouldn’t have to wait several weeks before fully understanding Doug’s attempt at deception. Just as I pointed out this tactics during my public debate with Eddie Tabash, I will do the same if Doug ever agrees to a public debate.

Now, on to rebutting Doug’s attempts to prove his case.

In reference to my entire argument about biblical inerrancy and DTS, Doug writes:

The first doctrine listed is “the authority and inerrancy of the Scripture.� The faculty endorses biblical inerrancy because they wouldn’t be hired otherwise, so their endorsement proves nothing about the tenability of biblical inerrancy.

This is a large assumption on Doug’s part. How does he know that people simply affirm inerrancy, so they can be hired? If you think this sounds like poppycock, it’s because it is.

Now, although I gave an airtight explanation regarding the nuances in the situations ending in divorce and the teachings on them, I’ll address Doug’s quibbles below.

“If a husband or wife divorces the other and marries another, then they commit adultery (Mark 10:11). Since no reasons or circumstances are given, Jesus is obviously talking about divorce without fornication.�

That defense is inadequate. Jesus specifically states that the ban on divorce and remarriage applies to “whosoever,� meaning anyone. This is a universal statement, and any other statement that allows for divorce and remarriage necessarily contradicts this statement.

The word “whosoever� isn’t mentioned in Mark 10:11. Nonetheless, Doug is ignoring the context and the obvious implications of the passage.

Regardless of Doug’s list of events, non-contradictory statements are still non-contradictory. As I showed in my last round post, the teachings on divorce can be easily harmonized.

Gastrich writes:

“If there is any doubt, then why didn’t the high priest accuse Jesus of lying?�

If Jesus has secret teachings, the High Priest would not know them and would thus have no basis for accusing Jesus of lying.

This isn’t what Jesus told him. Jesus told him that he knew about His teachings. Nonetheless, the issue isn’t that of secret teachings. The issue is of a public ministry and Jesus had one and tells the High Priest as much. Doug has invented this idea of J