Atheists Are Not Intellectually Superior!

            I used to be very passionate about Cricket. Not playing, but watching. I hardly missed any of the matches that the Indian cricket team played. I loved watching the Indian team play cricket.

            This passion lasted for more than a couple of decades (the 80s and 90s). But when the media exposed match fixing in Indian cricket, I lost all my passion to watch cricket. I stopped watching cricket.

            I reasoned in my mind that if corruption had entered the sport, then I should not be wasting my time watching that sport because the results were not due to good or bad play, but the results were being manipulated by corrupt forces to cheat the innocent fan. I did not want to be cheated.

            What I thought was a good idea (watching cricket) became a bad idea, hence I buried cricket in the graveyard of my mind.

            This decision that I took many years ago was freely taken by me. I used sound judgment and reason to decide that I was following the wrong sport.

            Similarly, I decided, years ago, to be a Christian because Christianity is true.

            How did I know that Christianity is true and another worldview such as atheism is false? It’s because I applied my mind into studying these worldviews rather extensively, and then based on sound judgment and reason I arrived at a conclusion that Christianity is true and atheism is a false dogma.

            I used my free will to decide between atheism, the other worldviews, and Historic Christianity. Nobody controlled any of my actions or decision. I was neither controlled by the physical laws nor by a mad scientist!

Atheists are Determinists

            Atheists, on the other hand, are determinists. Atheists deny free will.

            Neuroscientist Sam Harris believes that free will is illusory, “Sam Harris, recognized in skeptical circles as one of the four leading voices of modern atheism, penned a book titled Free Will. In that short volume, he wrote: “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making…. We do not have the freedom we think we have.”⁶ He further stated, “I cannot determine my wants…. My mental life is given to me by the cosmos.”^…And, “What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, a mystery—one that is fully determined by the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature (including the contributions of chance).”⁹ As he begins to summarize his views toward the end of the book, he says, “You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise.”¹⁰”¹

            Richard Dawkins, another celebrated new atheist, is very well known for his quote that each of us being determined as we are, are dancing to the tune of our DNA’s, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”²

            When atheists deny free will, they also should deny that they are rationally superior to those subscribing to the other worldviews. Significantly, atheists by virtue of being determinists cannot make a truth claim.

Atheists Cannot Claim Rational Superiority

            On what basis would an atheist make a truth claim?

            How could an atheist argue that their worldview is superior? To say that atheism is rationally or intellectually superior to every other worldview is to make a truth claim. (When atheists attack religion and deem religious faith as evil, then atheists claim intellectual superiority.)

            Professor Paul Copan explains that atheism cannot claim intellectual superiority, “…I asked Dawkins how he could claim that the naturalist [is] rationally superior to the theist since, according to his book River Out of Eden, all of us are dancing to the music of our DNA. Our beliefs are the product of non-rational, deterministic physical forces beyond our control—whether we’re theists or naturalists. In fact, if the naturalist is right, it’s only by accident—not because he’s more intellectually virtuous than the theist. That is, the naturalist has accidental true belief (which is not knowledge) rather than warranted true belief (which is knowledge).”³

            By adhering to determinism, the atheist implies that he/she cannot freely think because they are controlled by the forces of nature. Christian apologist Tim Stratton explains, “If one assumes determinism is true…they do not believe human agents have free will or the ability to change their own minds. This is because they affirm that things external to humans (such as physics and chemistry) causally determines all things — including human thoughts and beliefs…

            …The naturalistic determinist would have to appeal to physics/chemistry, the initial conditions of the big bang, or perhaps to random events in quantum mechanics. None of these things are up to the determinist, so if their mind is to be changed about anything — including the topic of determinism — then things external to the determinist would have to force and determine them to reject determinism or to change their minds about anything else. If determinism is true, one simply does not possess the ability to freely think, and thus, they are simply held captive and “along for the ride” dictated by the forces of nature.”⁴

            Since atheists cannot think freely, whatever belief they subscribe to is an accidental belief. Accidental belief is not knowledge.

            Atheists or determinists cannot think rationally, “If determinism is true, then genuine free will does not exist, and if free will does not exist, then free thinking does not exist. Given the determinist’s view, how could anyone ever freely choose to be rational and know they are? If everything is determined by factors external to you — including your thoughts and beliefs and your thoughts and beliefs about your thoughts and beliefs — then your choice to follow the laws of logic and to think rationally would only be an illusion. You have no say in the matter.

            If determinism is true, then the determinist who holds to determinism did not come to that conclusion based on their intelligence, and by choosing to examine the evidence to infer the best explanation. They were simply determined by physics and chemistry to be determinists. It has nothing to do with knowledge, logic, or rationality. If determinism is true, then there is no free will either in assessing whether one thought is better than another or not. All that remains is question-begging assumptions and presuppositions.”⁵

            If rational thought process eludes an atheist, he cannot claim that he or his worldview is rationally superior to another worldview.

Endnotes:

¹http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1228

²https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#River_out_of_Eden_(1995)

³https://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/03/dawkins-determinism-and-truth/

⁴https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/determinisms-self-destruct-button

⁵Ibid.

Websites were last accessed on 29^th February 2020.

Reasons For God’s Existence (How Do I Know That God Exists?)

            If you had been born into a Christian home, you would have been drilled/trained thoroughly with the notion that there is God. Hence you may not have given this topic adequate research.

            What if your [non-theist/non-Christian] friend(s) wants you to explain as to why you think God exists? What if they say that God’s existence is implausible when there is so much evil in our world? How would you rationally and reasonably defend your belief in God’s existence?

            To say that the Bible reveals God’s existence to a non-Christian is not a good answer because a non-Christian does not believe in the Bible, to begin with.

            How then do we explain the existence of God (with reasons outside the Bible)?

            J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity explains that there is evidence outside the Bible that is best explained by means of God’s existence, “There are a number of circumstantial lines of evidence pointing to the existence of God, and the diverse, collective nature of this evidence is most reasonably explained by the existence of a Creator.”¹

            So for instance, we know for a matter of fact that our universe began to exist. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that God created our universe because everything that exists should have a cause. Since our universe had a beginning, there should be a Beginner or a First Cause who created our universe. So God must have been the cause for the existence of our universe. This is otherwise termed as the Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence.

            J. Warner Wallace explains the Cosmological Argument as follows:²

(1) The Temporal Nature of the Cosmos (Cosmological)

(a) The Universe began to exist

(b) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause

(c) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause

(d) This cause must be eternal (uncaused), non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (having the ability to willfully cause the beginning of the universe)

(e) The cause fits the description we typically assign to God

            Our universe is incredibly well designed. Consider the “Fine Tuning” of our universe (The Teleological Argument For God’s Existence). “The fine tuning refers to “just right” properties. Our universe has several properties that are set to precise values, and slight changes to those values would prevent life as we know it, claims an article on the Biologos website.³  

            Take the gravitational constant as an example, “The strength of gravity has to be exactly right for stars to form. But what do we mean by “exactly”? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies, or planets. And with no planets, there would be no life. Change the value slightly, and the universe moves along a very different path. And remarkably, every one of these different paths leads to a universe without life in it. Our universe is friendly to life…”⁴

            Brett Kunkle of Stand To Reason explains why God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of our universe, “Scientists tell us there are more than 50 "just right" details in the universe that make life on planet earth possible. What are the chances of this happening? Really smart guys who calculate this stuff tell us there is a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent chance. In other words, there is no chance for chance. Instead, a finely tuned universe points to a Fine Tuner, God.”⁵

            Here’s J. Warner Wallace’s formulation of the Teleological Argument:⁶

(2) The Appearance of Design (Teleological)

(a) Human artifacts (like watches) are products of intelligent design

(b) Many aspects and elements of our universe resemble human artifacts

(c) Like effects typically have like causes

(d) Therefore, it is highly probable the appearance of design in the Universe is simply the reflection of an intelligent designer

(d) Given the complexity and expansive nature of the Universe, this designer must be incredibly intelligent and powerful (God)

            The Moral Argument For God’s Existence argues for the existence of God because of the presence of objective moral values. An article on the website of the Apologetics Press details the moral argument as follows:⁷

The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

            Some object to the moral argument by claiming that God cannot exist because of the rampant moral evil in this world. Ravi Zacharias demonstrates that this question is absurd/self-defeating, “When you say there’s too much evil in this world you assume there’s good. When you assume there’s good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that’s who you’re trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there’s no moral Law Giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. What is your question?”⁸

            Atheists strive to explain God away as the causal factor for objective morality. Some atheists do so by claiming that there is no objective morality.

            Atheists believe that man is an animal and they deny objective moral values:⁹

“Allegedly, man not only descended from fish and four-footed beasts, we are beasts. Charles Darwin declared in chapter two of his book The Descent of Man: “My object in this chapter is solely to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (1871, 1:34).”

Atheists find themselves in a conundrum: (1) They must admit to objective morality or, (2) They must contend that everything is relative—that no action on Earth could ever be objectively good or evil. Rather, everything is subjective and situational.

…Relatively few atheists seem to have had the courage (or audacity) to say forthrightly that atheism implies that objective good and evil do not exist. However, a few have. Some of the leading atheists and agnostics in the world, in fact, understand that if there is no God, then there can be no ultimate, binding standard of morality for humanity. Charles Darwin understood perfectly the moral implications of atheism, which is one reason he gave for being “content to remain an Agnostic” (1958, p. 94). In his autobiography, he wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added). If a person has the urge to suffocate innocent children, like a snake may suffocate its victims (including people), then, if there is no God, there is no objective moral law against suffocating children. If a person impulsively drowns a kind elderly person, similar to a crocodile drowning its prey, then, if atheism is true, this action could neither be regarded as objectively good or evil.

…The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the self-contradictory, atrocious philosophy that it is. Atheists must either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise (“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”) and illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. can never once be condemned as objectively “wrong.” According to atheism, individuals who commit such actions are merely doing what their DNA led them to do. They are simply following through with their raw impulses and instincts, which allegedly evolved from our animal ancestors. What’s more, if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be punished for such immoral actions, since “no inherent moral or ethical laws exist” (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

            Since atheism is inundated in a dilemma, it cannot negate God based on moral values. However, the Moral Argument reveals the presence of a transcendent God.  

            Is this all we got?

            No, these are the basic arguments for the existence of God. But there are more. Kalam Cosmological Argument is a case in point. Dr. William Lane Craig christened the argument Kalam Cosmological Argument, wherein Kalam is the Arabic word for ‘medieval theology.’

            The formulation of this argument is as follows:¹⁰

1. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Dr. Craig offers three reasons to support premise (1):

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1

Premise 2 is also true because:

        1. The number of past events must be finite.

      2. Since the past involves a series of events that has been formed by adding one event after another. It cannot be actually infinite. Hence, the universe cannot be eternal. It must have had a beginning.

    3. The standard Big Bang model states that the universe had an absolute beginning.

    4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the universe had a beginning. This law states that unless energy is being fed into a system that system will become increasingly disorderly. Since our universe is constantly expanding it will soon become disorderly (into a state of heat death). If our universe did not have a beginning, then by now, we should be in the state of heat death of sorts. Since we are not in a disorderly state now, we can confidently assert that our universe had a beginning.

So there are good reasons to believe that our universe had a beginning. Dr. Craig then analyses the First Cause, “What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy. Finally…this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.”

            So to conclude, four arguments for the existence of God have been discussed here. They are the Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Kalam Cosmological arguments. These arguments provide more than sufficient, adequate and reasonable reasons to believe in God’s existence.

Endnotes:

¹https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/cumulative-evidence-and-the-case-for-gods-existence-free-bible-insert/

²Ibid.

³https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-do-fine-tuning-and-the-multiverse-say-about-god/

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://www.str.org/articles/does-god-exist#.XlZzJCEzZhE

⁶https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/cumulative-evidence-and-the-case-for-gods-existence-free-bible-insert/

⁷http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101

⁸ https://apologetics315.com/2013/01/ravi-zacharias-on-the-problem-of-evil/

⁹http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101

¹⁰https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

Websites last accessed on 27^th February 2020.

Reasons For The Existence Of Historical Jesus (How Can We Be Sure Of Christ’s Existence?)

            The Bible teaches if Christ did not resurrect, our faith is useless (1 Corinthians 15: 12-19). So if Christ had not been raised from the dead, Historic Christianity cannot exist.

            If Christ had not existed, then HE, obviously, would not have been raised. So the existence of historical Jesus is the causal factor to HIS resurrection.

            Who is the historical Jesus? Dr. Mike Licona defines the historical Jesus as, “…When the data has been sifted, sorted, and assessed, the historical Jesus is the Jesus historians can prove with reasonable certainty and apart from faith.”¹

            How do historians determine the existence of the historical Jesus? Mike Licona provides a list of criteria used by historians to affirm the existence of the historical Jesus:²

        1. Criterion of Authenticity: The most common approach at present is to recognize that Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preacher who lived in first-century Palestine in a culture that was both Jewish and Greco-Roman. This provides historians with a background knowledge that helps them obtain a more accurate understanding of what Jesus taught and the impact it may have had on those who heard him. They then apply what are referred to as criteria of authenticity to the words and deeds of Jesus as preserved in the Gospels.

        2. Criterion of Multiple Attestation: If two or more sources that are independent of one another provide similar reports of the same event, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred than if only one source had reported it. This is called the criterion of multiple attestation. For example, the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s letters are independent of one another. So, when both report that Jesus was buried, we have multiple attestation of the event.

        3. Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources: If a source that is unsympathetic or even hostile toward the Christian faith provides a report that agrees with the Christian reports, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since the unsympathetic or hostile source would not have the bias carried by the authors of the Christian reports. This is called the criterion of unsympathetic sources. For example, Tacitus referred to Christianity as an evil and mischievous superstition (Annals 15.44). This identifies him as an unsympathetic source. So, when he reports Jesus’s execution by Pontius Pilate, a report entirely compatible with what we find in the Gospels, historians can have more confidence that the event had occurred.

        4. Criterion of Embarrassment: If a report in the Gospels provides data that would have been embarrassing to the early Christian movement, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since it is unlikely that the author would have invented content likely to detract from the cause for which he wrote. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Mark reports that Peter rebuked Jesus and that Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). Since Peter was a leader of the Jerusalem church, it seems unlikely that the early Christians would have invented and preserved a tradition that casts him in such an unfavorable manner.

        5. Criterion of Early Attestation: Historians prefer to have reports that are from eyewitnesses or from a source whose report was written close to the event it purports to describe. This is called the criterion of early attestation. For example, almost all scholars agree that Paul has preserved an oral tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that goes back to the earliest days of the Christian church and that the content of these verses, although not necessarily the creedal form in which the content appears, very probably goes back to the Jerusalem apostles.

            How can we be sure of Christ’s existence?

            A must-read for every honest seeker seeking the existence of historical Jesus is J. Warner Wallace’s article entitled The Case for the Historicity and Deity of Jesus (Free Bible Insert). This article has a marvelous compilation of points for the existence of the historical Jesus.³

            The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) provide us with details of Jesus’ existence. But a skeptic would not believe in the gospel account for he could claim that the gospel authors were biased.

            The same skeptic is more likely to believe in the affirmation of Christ’s existence by hostile non-Biblical, non-Christian accounts. Affirmation of Christ’s existence by the enemies of Christianity is a better source for a skeptic.

            J. Warner Wallace in an article entitled Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? has collated significant information about Jesus from non-Christian sources:⁴

…Let’s review what we’ve learned from hostile pagan and Jewish sources describing Jesus…:

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death.

            It is fascinating to learn that the hostile non-Christian sources have affirmed the following:

            1. Christ’s miraculous birth.

            2. Christ’s claim to be God and the Messiah.

            3. Christ performed the miraculous.

            4. Jesus was persecuted by the Jews.

            5. Jesus’ gory death through crucifixion.

            6. The empty tomb.

            7. Jesus’ resurrection, postmortem appearances to HIS disciples, and ascension.

            8. Disciples’ martyrdom.

            9. Early Christians’ regular worship.  

            Does the skeptic need more proof than this to believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If after learning this information, if the skeptic refuses to believe in the Historical Jesus, then it seems that the skeptic is dishonest in his search for truth.

            One of the more hostile voices in the highest academic forum is that of Dr. Bart Ehrman. Interestingly, he believes that Jesus existed:⁵ [Emphasis Mine]

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.   

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions). 

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah.   But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you — has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.risenjesus.com/assessment-present-state-historical-jesus-studies

²Ibid.

³https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/

⁴https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

⁵https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544?

Websites last accessed on 25^th February 2020

Are The Truth Claims Of Ex-Christian Mrs. Esther Dhanraj Valid? (Part 2)

            Sis. Esther Dhanraj’s allegations against Christianity are unbelievably primitive. Her so-called objections are archaic. They have been asked and answered. Answers to her questions are available on the internet.

            Given this situation, it would be legitimate to ask why Sis. Esther is positing the same old questions now. Does she not know that there are reasonable answers to her questions against Christianity? Did she not research well enough for answers? Or is she intentionally striving to mislead Christians?

            A few years ago, Da Vinci Code (the book) was published. It was authored by Dan Brown. One possible reason for Dan Brown to publish that book may have been to gain wealth and fame in the shortest time span. And he did!

            The Bible is the most read book on earth and Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Anyone who criticizes the Bible and Christianity would gain the attention of a huge number of Christians. This seems to be the most excellent technique to gain fame and wealth.

            Sis. Esther and Mr. Rajiv Malhotra allege that Christianity is a flawed product and that it fails scientifically, historically, logically and archaeologically.¹ Is this assertion credible?

            Historic Christianity has been in existence for more than 2000 years. Since then, none of the objections against Christianity has prevailed. As Ravi Zacharias said, “The Word of God remains eternal. Those who have tried to bury it only find out that the Bible rises up to outlive its pallbearers.”²

            Interestingly, Sis. Esther has not posted any substantive videos in 2019. Her interview with Mr. Rajiv Malhotra was her only public post after her initial accusatory video in 2018. One wonders the reason for the delay.

            Whatever the case may be, it should suffice if we can reasonably answer a couple of Sis. Esther’s main objections. Every allegation proceeding from Sis. Esther has been answered already. A cursory internet search will fetch the answers. Moreover, apologists from Sakshi Apologetics Network have countered Sis. Esther Dhanraj and Mr. Rajiv Malhotra through their vlogs on YouTube. Please visit these channels: Sakshi Apologetics Network and Sakshi Christian Voice.³

            Sis. Esther alleges that all narratives about Jesus’ existence are nonsensical or a myth.⁴ On the contrary, every serious historian or theologian in the highest level of academics do not doubt the existence of historical Jesus.

            In the past, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev also made similar allegations against Christianity. Is this a pattern in the Hindu apologetics scheme?

            While Sis. Esther urges Indian Christians to think and question their faith in Christ does she not know that they will also question her objections against Christianity?

            The historical Jesus did exist:⁵

As to the existence of historical Jesus, there is no doubt whatsoever, not even an iota of doubt exists. Historians are convinced about the existence of the historical Jesus.

Here are a few testimonies of hostile witnesses about the existence of the historical Jesus:4

The testimony of a hostile witness is very powerful (cf. Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources). Dr. Bart Ehrman is one such hostile witness. He is a much acclaimed and widely respected scholar.

Bart Ehrman is a hostile witness since he does not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. A hostile witness (in this context) has no bias or no need, whatsoever, to affirm in the existence of the Historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman believes in the existence of the Historical Jesus. Significantly, Ehrman emphasizes that scholars who have genuinely studied the evidence pertaining to the existence of Historical Jesus believe that HE existed, “Mythicists have often gotten upset with me for pointing out that almost no one with any qualifications in the requisite fields of scholarship agrees with them.  I can see why that would be upsetting.  My sense is that some of them think that I’ve been rubbing their noses in it.  But that isn’t really my intent.  My intent is to point out to anyone who is interested – for example, someone who just doesn’t know what to think – that those who are qualified to speak knowledgeably on such subjects are virtually unified on one view (there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth) and opposed to the other (he is a complete myth).”4

This should do it!

If every serious scholar believes in the existence of the Historical Jesus, every claim that attempts to disregard the Historical Jesus are insincere and hypocritical. Therefore, these hypocritical claims ought to be disregarded.

Bart Ehrman is not the only secular scholar who believes in the existence of Historical Jesus. Here’s more from the website of Answers In Genesis:5

Here is what some scholars have written about the Jesus Myth (these statements are not just from conservative Christians—the first four are critical scholars who have rejected the miraculous elements of Christ’s life).

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community. (Rudolf Bultmann)1

To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all … was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worthwhile to enter here. (Günther Bornkamm)2

I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory [“that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure”] is historically untenable. (Willi Marxsen)3

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has “again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.” In recent years “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus”—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. (Michael Grant)4

Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely. (Robert Van Voorst)5

The total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence. (Paul L. Maier)6

On a side note, do remember that every claim of Jesus Mythers can be rejected by proving them to be incorrect. There’s an abundance of resources [on the internet] to help us achieve this.

Here’s an example: Jesus Mythers contend that Nazareth did not exist, hence Christ did not exist. But Bart Ehrman debunks this contention by ascertaining that [Palestinian] archaeologists believe that Nazareth existed because they have discovered evidence for its existence. He goes on to add that the existence of Nazareth is not even a point of debate among Palestinian archaeologists.6

            Sis. Esther also claims that the God of the Bible is not the God of the universe.⁶ She alleges that the God of the Bible is unfair.⁷ She substantiates this claim by referring to God’s massacre of the Canaanites.

            This allegation is not new to Christianity. The new atheists make similar allegations. These allegations have been reasonably answered:⁸

…a just God has morally sufficient reasons to kill people, so God is justified and none can fault God. What then is one morally sufficient and justifiable reason for God to kill people?

God Can Kill Wicked & Unrepentant People

            Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 20:16-18, Exodus 23:23, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 3:10, 9:24 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3 record God’s command to exterminate people. Take for instance the Canaanites, who were they?

            They were wicked. They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, sorcery, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality.1

            But wasn’t there a chance for these people to repent and be good? Yes. Genesis 15: 13-16 teaches that God refrained from his judgment upon the Canaanites for 400 years during which time God’s own people languished in slavery.

            If Canaanites did not repent in 400 years, common sense suggests that they would not have repented even if God had given them another 400 years. But God is omniscient (God possesses middle knowledge2 as well). Thus God knew precisely that Canaanites would not repent. Hence God judged them.

            What about children who were killed? Was God unjust in killing children? No!

            Death is either a gateway to heaven or hell. When children die, God in HIS grace takes them into HIS own presence (Cf. 2 Samuel 12: 23). So the death of children is in fact their salvation. Children who die will be with God in heaven.

            Just as how the owner of a building possesses all authority to demolish a building, God, the owner of every life, possesses all authority to create and to eliminate life. Instead of allowing the children to grow in the Canaanite practice, God in HIS mercy takes them away, and by doing so, favors the children from an eternal perspective.

            Having said this, let us engage some objections:

Objection #1: God Killed Millions But Satan Killed Only 60!

            Obviously this objection accuses God as the greater evil. Since the source of the data for this objection is the Bible, it’s only reasonable that we posit a response from the Bible.

            The Bible does not refer to Satan as a good being. Satan opposes God. The Bible terms Satan as an accuser (Revelation 12:10), tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5), and a deceiver (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3).

            If Satan opposes God, and if God is an evil killer (as proclaimed by the atheists), then Satan should be intrinsically good. But Satan is not good, instead Satan is purely evil. Therefore, the inverse condition is more reasonable i.e. since Satan, the evil being, opposes God, God should be intrinsically good.

            Significantly, those who raise this objection against God display a serious inadequacy of biblical comprehension. God is sovereign, whereas Satan is not. It is also evident from the Bible that Satan is not independent of God. Satan cannot kill anyone without God allowing him to. Therefore, attribute the 60 or whatever number that one wants to add to Satan’s credit into God’s account.

            Every single death by Satan can be reasonably explained. Consider Job’s family that was killed by Satan.

            God allowed it for a particular reason. While God commends Job’s righteousness, Satan accused Job of being godly and righteous for selfish reasons. If the godliness of a righteous man in whom God delights can be shown to be a terrible sin, then redemption is unimaginable, for the godliest of godly will be the most ungodly. More importantly, God’s judgment about Job’s righteousness would have been proven erroneous.

            Therefore, God allows Job’s travails, and true to God’s commendation, Job emerges as godly and righteous after that severe trial. Satan was proven to be a false accuser.

Objection #2: God Cannot Murder

            If you and I cannot murder, then God cannot murder as well.

            Because the universe in its creational intent is temporal, human life is also temporal. Therefore the creational intent is that death is inevitable for every human life - that which is born should die. As said before, only the creator God can eliminate life when HE determines the appropriate time and reason according to HIS perfect knowledge and justice. 

            God does not murder when HE eliminates life from this temporal world. God judges people for violating HIS laws. The consequence of God’s judgment is death initiated by God.

            A case in point is that a just human judge does not murder when he sentences a convict to death; instead the judge pronounces a judgment upon a law-offender. A judge has the authority to sentence a criminal to death, if the said criminal is a proven offender of the law.

Objection #3: If God Can Kill, So Can A Parent

            Life is created by God. A father and a mother do not create life. They merely provide the sperm and the egg, which is the creational design of God. Thus father and mother are a means to creation of life.

            Parents are created beings themselves. Parents are not creators of life. Therefore, parents are merely stewards of life created by God.

            Since parents are not creators, they are not owners of life, hence parents, as created beings themselves, do not have the authority to eliminate life. Only the creator God has the authority to eliminate life. No one else has this authority.

Objection #4: Why Did God Not Offer Sodom & Gomorrah 400 years To Repent?

            We posit God’s deferral of judgment upon Canaanites for 400 years as justification for the Canaanite massacre. But this act of God requires a greater understanding.

            God is omniscient – HE knows everything with respect to the past, present and the future. God possesses middle knowledge as well.

            To begin with, God would have known that even in 400 years the Canaanites would not repent. So to infer that God hoped for the Canaanites to repent and believe in HIM is incorrect.

            Why then did God wait for 400 years to judge Canaanites? On one hand, God waited for 400 years to judge the Canaanites but on the other hand, God punished Sodom & Gomorrah rather quickly. Why?

            Both Canaanites and the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of sins against God. Neither of them repented before God’s judgment. So it was morally sufficient and justifiable for God to judge them both for their sins.

            The Bible teaches us, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18: 25c, NIV). God, for reasons that are just, but best known to HIM, defers judgment upon people, according to HIS will.

            But the Bible does provide a clue about God’s judgment of Canaanites and Sodomites. In Genesis 15: 13-16, God says that “…the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” So God waited for their sins to reach its full measure to pronounce judgment upon the Amorites - a Canaanite clan. Similarly it is possible that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah had reached its full measure when judgment was pronounced (Cf. Genesis 19: 13).  

Conclusion

            We can go on and on reasonably dealing with every objection that are posited against God. When a mind compulsively argues against God, then it’s a given that that mind integrally refuses or does not innately desire to comprehend God. This is a mind that has rejected God. This mind, as long as it continues to integrally reject God, will not comprehend God, barring a divine intervention in the likeness of an intervention on the road to Damascus. 

            Then there are honest objections against God. These objections are from a mind that earnestly desires and seeks to comprehend God and HIS actions in this world. An infinite being’s actions in this world are not effortlessly comprehensible by finite minds, such as yours and mine.

            Therefore, our starting point is to earnestly seek God in all humility for all our doubts and confusions. May we, by the grace of God, endeavor to assimilate the humility that Christ practiced, and may the peace of God that transcends human comprehension fill our hearts and minds and guard us in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNdgGttyvyA&t=1804s ; Time: 24:30 & 25:34

²https://twitter.com/ravizacharias/status/450107278432432128?lang=en

³https://www.youtube.com/user/SakshiApologetics & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6uoWgBWqi4ZIcn3NXOYwdw

⁴https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihkMjrXtsfM; Time: 14:04

 

⁵http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/09/debunking-sadhguru-jaggi-vasudevs-false.html

⁶Ibid, 20:35.

⁷https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nR3w9xNtgA&t=21s , Time: 3:42

⁸http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-did-god-kill-25-million-people-in.html

Websites last accessed on 13^th February 2020.