The Questions Continue and the Answers Remain the Same Part II

Last Thursday I answered questions 4-6 of a You Tube video which asks Christians ten questions and starts by claiming that Christians only have "...silly excuses for God" in answer to the questions. The video concludes that the only reasonable answer to these questions is that "God is imaginary." I warn parents that the video is intended to bring doubt upon the Christian worldview.



Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ



Question Number 7 - "Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave any evidence behind?" I have to admit that I am not really sure what the point is of this question . What kind of evidence would one expect to be left behind that we could find today from someone being healed of blindness, raised from the dead, or a lame man made to walk? It seems to me that the video is arguing that it is unreasonable to believe in miracles if they happened before video cameras were invented. Other than people following Jesus with cameras capturing all of his miracles, I am not sure what the naturalist would acknowledge as evidence. Honestly, I would wager that if video footage of Jesus' miracles existed, the naturalist would not be willing to accept the video footage as authentic evidence.

I wonder if the naturalist honestly expects someone to dig up a stone tablet with the inscription "April 4th year 26 Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding, all of the undersigned here vow that they are eye witnesses to this event." I have heard atheists say that even if the Gospels - except for Luke - were eye witness accounts, they would not consider the Gospels as evidence for miracles. Furthermore, any video footage of Jesus' miracles would probably be explained away with special effects and talented editing. Worldview will determine how one interprets any evidence. Presuppositional apologists are not against evidence, but they do believe evidence will be interpreted through one's worldview grid.


Question Number 8 - "How do we [sic] explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you [Christians]?" Again, I find it difficult to take this question seriously. The video's argument seems to be that Jesus never appeared to you; therefore Jesus does not exist. I am sorry, but that is definitely a non sequitur, and therefore a weak argument. The argument would carry weight if the Biblical claim is that Jesus is guaranteed to appear to you. However, anyone with a passing familiarity of the Bible would know that is not the Biblical teaching.

Question Number 9 - "Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?" Since I was raised in a Christian home I understand that this statement of Jesus is ultimately meant to be understood in context of his death on the cross and the covenant sign and seal that is carried out in communion. When Jesus begins the sacrament of communion at the last supper, he uses bread and wine to symbolize his body and blood. The Bible does not teach that the bread and blood are actually the body and blood of Christ. Catholics, who believe in Transubstantiation (the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ), still hold that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ in the form of a piece of flesh and actual blood. The Bible does teach that Christ is Spiritually present in the Communion but the bread and wine never cease being bread and wine. I understand that the naturalist could be ignorant of this, however, if I were to make arguments against naturalism that did not seek to understand what naturalists believe, and accurately represent their belief, I would be inviting scorn and contempt upon myself from the naturalist. It is important to note that the early Christians were continually having to correct the accusation of the wider culture that they were cannibals.

Question Number 10 - "Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?" This argument falls under the fallacy of arguing from the character of persons who hold to an idea and not the idea itself, otherwise known as an ad hominem (to the person) argument. However, let me say that there needs to be a call to professing believers to submit themselves to the will of God as revealed in the Scripture rather than follow their own desires. In the end, the will of God will be more satisfying. Furthermore, I also believe that there needs to be a call to the church to practice Biblical discipline. The video does put together an actual (if weak) argument after the question. The argument states:


1.) God is all powerful


2.)God has joined married couples together


3.) Jesus declared that what God puts together "...let no man put asunder (separate)."


4.) Men do put asunder what God has joined together.


5.) Therefore God cannot be all powerful.

I will assume that the video really believes this argument to fit the context of the passage where Jesus says "what God had joined together let no man put asunder (let no man separate) Matt 19:6" otherwise it would seem the video was grasping at straws. Jesus is explaining to the pharisees the basis for life long marriage. Jesus goes on to explain that Moses gave certificates of divorce because the hardness of the Israelite's hearts but that it was not that way from the beginning. Clearly we are talking about a moral category. God has joined the two people together in what is meant to be a life long covenant but people in there sin can break that covenant. The language the Scripture uses exhorts men to not separate what God has joined together not that man is unable to do so by sin.


The Video concludes with the claim that the only way to make sense of these questions is to assume that God is imaginary. However, I say that the only real way to make sense of these questions is to assume that God exists. If He does not exist, then the questions are meaningless.

Next week I am going to put a hold on critiquing the atheistic worldview. I am hoping to do a worldview analysis of Dean Koontz's "Odd Thomas" and "Frankenstein" series.