The so-called 'Hiddenness of God' Part II: Dispatches from an intellectually-dicey atheist

And the winner of the 1st Annual Caias Ward Award for Intellectual Dishonesty is..... Justin Vacula! Congratulations pal! (Caias, you were 1st runner-up and Tricia Woodcock wound up in 3rd place) Place your Caias high upon your mantle of accomplishments my friend. You earned it.

It seems that Justin can write an entire entry on the so-called hiddenness of God but when asked.....

"So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against [people's] will ". I don't wish to define your position for you here, but would you argue for or against this idea? "[?]

Yes or no, for or against, pretty please, with sugar on top. We already agree on the definition of coercion. If by 'sky-god' you seek further clarification, then let's say that I'm talking about the God of the Holy Bible."

What clenched this victory for Justin over Caias was when Justin poured it on at the end and blocked me from 2 different sites from asking him a direct question pertaining specifically to something he wrote. Even though Caias had to be asked a simple, one-sentence question requiring a yes/no response 6X before answering it, Caias only sought to be my the intellectual bitch by taking the easy way out and blocking me rather than answering a straight-forward question on one site. Kudos to you both though. I'm in awe of your respective intellects.

Me personally? I would have conceded the point had I been in Justin's position. He had several options of which none of them, I imagine, must have seemed particularly savory to Mr. Vacula. Concede the point, deny the obvious that it would fit the textbook definition of 'coercion', come up with an imaginative new definition of the word 'coercion', or argue in favor of coercion. Justin, I fully realize that you dedicated a lot of text to explaining your position, but none of it related specifically to the direct question I posed to you and I do not feel that I should have to defend arguments I did not raise or points I did not make. What are you going to do in the highly unlikely event that you ever debate someone the likes of a William Lane Craig? Block him? Ignore the question? 'Tis to laugh. That the intellectually-dodgy atheist slithers back to his echo chamber where he can preach to the closed-minded choir and not have to answer hard questions concerning his position is only par for the course in these types of discussions.

EDIT: GCT posits the following (albeit with no corraborating evidence) Quote "He (Justin) has answered it, multiple times, in multiple wordings."

I'll tell you what. If anyone can show where Justin answered my question in any of the evasive, non-pertinent responses he provided, I will take back every word of this entry. Please note that this offer is conditional upon Justin having actually answered the specific question I posed to him. For instance, Justin could have responded to the above question by changing the topic and asking me how we would discern such a manifestation as being from God or from alien technology and I could have answer him by saying 'Blue'. Although it can be considered a answer, it does not answer the specific question posed to me in this example. Good Luck!

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: Final Statements

As we wrap up or first of what I hope would be would lead to other debates, I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Mr. Vacula in in his 2nd rebuttal.



JD mentions a “fallen world” as an explanation/justification for malaria, AIDS, Indian Ocean tsunamis,and the like and says that “these things came about after the fall.”

More specifically, JD offered this up as a basic tenant of Christianity to show why Christians believe these things are the way they are. Whether or not they are 'justified' to be around would be another discussion. But suffice it to say that's it's all part-and-parcel of basic Christian theology. If Justin is unsure of the circumstances surrounding the fall, then I would suggest that he explore the faith that he left for answers to some of the hard questions that are sometimes raised in reference to particular elements of Christian faith.



JD notes that these events such as earthquakes never occurred because the alleged fall. Are we supposed tohonestly believe that earthquakes, for example, are some sort of 'recent (?)' phenomena that only started happening when humans 'came on the scene?'



Off-hand, I don't have a detailed answer for this. I don't mind looking into this further to see what the experts say. That being said, I really don't think this topic is a major point of contention among Christian theologians.



Consider earthquakes – theresult of moving of tectonic plates. Were tectonic plates in such a manner that they only started shiftingas they do today because of 'the fall?' One would assume that it is more reasonable to believe thatearthquakes always happen and have nothing whatsoever to do with human action



If you like, go to the link I embedded in my first rebuttal in the words 'plate tectonics'. It explores a new theory being bandied about that stating that plate tectonics are necessary for the formation of life.



Further, even if it is the case that egregious suffering exists because of the actions of humans, how is compatible with an omni-good god?



Three questions here. What constitutes 'egregious' suffering? Is it univerally understood to be 'egregious' across different cultures? Also, 'is all suffering bad'? I read something recently that physical trainers, dentists, etc. would disagree with the last question and I'm sure if we put our heads together, we could think of other examples.



JD believes, of course, that God set the natural laws of the universe...and this is one of the biggest problems regarding theists and the problem of natural evil. A supposed omni-good god created such laws that guarantee human suffering. As I said, we should not expect such things from an omni-good god



But you see, over the course of these exchanges, we haven't even defined what a 'good' God would be like. We live in a world in which gravity exists. Let's say, for example, a large coconut fell out of a tree as I was passing under it, striking me in the head and causing an injury. Is this evidence that God is not good? Which one should be eliminated in this scenario, gravity or the possibility of being of being hit by a falling object in which God would interject himself into the equation in every instance in which the possibility exists?


These questions are a bit more profound than slapping the tag of 'evil' on something without first defining what we mean by it. It's my understanding that the question of pain and suffering hasn't been debated in the finer philosophy departments for years. It seems that these things don't constitute a valid argument against the existance of God and at best, it could be said that 'the existance of pain and suffering is poorly understood by many people' and that's about it.


JD wonders what I mean when I use the term evil and seemingly objects to my use of the term


My specific statement was 'I notice that Mr. Vacula made the huge leap of terming these things 'evil' without ever explaining how he arrived at that conclusion. At no point does he explain the criteria that must be met in order for any of these things to be defined as 'evil''. I don't 'object to his use of the term, rather I asked for some clarification.



I don't understand what this has to do with my argument and this seems quite silly. Persons 'on the street' know very well what persons mean when there is talk about the problem of evil and the term 'problem of evil' has widely been understood throughout history



Actually, I don't understand why you term things as 'evil' without explaining why they are evil. If we are to use 'person[s] on the street' to gauge these things, what do we do when the 10 people I randomly polled out on the street if something qualified as truly evil were disproportionately lunatics with the ability to function in society? Or staunch moral relativists who aren't prepared to refer to anything as 'evil'? Or heavily influenced by pagan, pre-Christian culture that (incredibly) is held up as some sort of oasis of culture and reason but the facts bear out were shockingly brutal, murderous and callous?



Are not the Sermon on the Mount, the Decalogue and the Book of Titus more helpful in determining good and evil than random imbeciles on the street who might not know anything?



JD says that I believe evil counts toward evidence against an objective good



JD did nothing of the sort. JD said the exact opposite when he wrote 'I would posit the fact that Mr. Vacula views these things as 'evil' counts towards evidence that an objective good exists by which we can gauge these things. And if that objective good exists, then what is it?'



I'm willing to give Justin a pass here in that maybe he read something a little too fast, but the facts are, A) I asked if an objective good exists, by which B) Justin can base his terming certain occurances as 'evil' and he provides nothing of the sort and basically punts on the question like so many good atheists have done before him.



JD says that “a strict materialist would simply look at these things and shrug.” JD poses, here, a false dichotomy and a 'loaded' version of 'strict materialism. 'Why should it be the case that 'strict materialists' ought to simply shrug?



OK, I'll clarify. A strict materialist would not blame God for a natural disaster. But then again, how would Justin convince a strict materialist if such an occurance came to pass that it is 'evil'? It can be 'unfortunate', a bit 'sad' and a number of other number of adjectives, but why 'evil'?



Regardless of how we codify morality or talk about what is undesirable, the evidential problem of natural evil still exists for the theist. It is not 'up to me' to give an accounting for morality or explain why I wouldn't 'just shrug' at natural disasters.



Actually it is. You termed a natural occurance as 'evil' and yet you have not explained why this is so.



JD seems to 'blame the victim' here when referring to natural disasters (seemingly taking theresponsibility away from god). He says, “Should […] they carry at least part of the blame if it affectedthem or their loved ones? […] Did anyone put a gun to their respective heads and force them to live in a flood plain? Is it God's fault if they didn't do their homework?”



Actually, let me give you a much more pointed example to see if you actually understand. If I notice that a building is smoldering and I decide I'm going to sleep there tonight and during the night it becomes completely engulfed in flames and I wind up either seriously hurt or dead as a result, is that my fault or God's and why?



The main problem, though, is that seemingly no matter what people do or no matter where people move, natural disasters will occur...and there's not enough room, finances, etc for everyone to move to safer areas



I would phrase it like this, 'a natural disaster can occur most anywhere'. Now, if we have a mere quarter-inch of light falling rain (which we need for life on this planet) and no wind at all, yet I skid on the pavement, hydroplaning into another car causing injury to another, is it God's fault for inventing rain or my fault for not driving with caution? What do we give up here? Cars? Physics? Personal responsibility? Water being wet? Which one Justin?



This next one is my favorite though, on 2 different levels.



It is not the fault of omni-evil god that so many people have to experience goodness so much, but rather it is the fault of humankind. No one puts a gun up to the head of those living in the prosperous secular democracies of Sweeden and Denmark! These people instead should just move to third world countries and suffer!



1) I never claimed that all natural disasters are preventable by humans. I merely asked 'Do humans bear any responsibility at all in these equations whatsoever?'. Justin, can I enter into a building that's on fire, get burned, and then blame God? Or am I at least somewhat subject to the decision I just made and if so, to what degree?



2) Justin brings up 2 shining examples of "prosperous, secular democracies' (Norway and Sweden) without ever noticing that both of those nations are well within the area of the world formally referred to as 'Christiandom' for many centuries in which the factors that led to these countries enjoying such a high standard of living were put into place, completely ignoring that secularization is the relatively recent exception throughout their history.



JD objects to my mention of animal suffering and asks why I settled simply on animals. He suggests that it might be the case that plants experience pain (!). JD suggests that I might be moresympathetic toward animals than plants because animals have faces or brains (and some other considerations). I don't see why this is being brought up. Let me, for sake of argument, admit that plants do indeed feel pain. This further demonstrates my point! The omni-good god that JD believes inhas even more of a problem because he created plants that feel pain! How can we got about livingwithout 'killing' and consuming plants, one would wonder. Why wouldn't omni-good god simply'design' the universe in a different way?



Actually, JD pointed out your appeal-to-emotion fallacy by invoking poor widdle animals and asked why not object to vegetables being eaten also, a question you still haven't answered. I guess a better question would be "Why do we have to eat living things at all?' but you never framed your inquiry as such because it would then lose it's fallacious appeal to emotion. Such reasoning to me is as quite ridiculous. I mean, it basically boils down to 'Why aren't more bunny rabbits dying of old age' and 'Y kan't wee awl jus' eeet roks?', which are questions that hardly seem theological in nature and and are occurring at a whole level of intellect apart from me .



JD says that Satan is the god of the world to address my second and third arguments, but I don't seehow this is relevant.. if JD wants to appeal to the Bible and Satan, he needs to show that Satan exists


JD was merely showing how such matters fit into the framework of a Christian worldview to account for the way the world is and to demonstrate that it is at least consistent.


Finally, JD says “Christians generally do not seek supernatural explanations except perhaps on originof life discussions...” I don't 'buy' this for a moment. Consider the Nicene Creed which alone containsmany supernatural claims: God made everything, God incarnate was on earth, Jesus raised from the dead, Jesus ascended into Heaven, [Heaven exists], there will be a judging of the living and dead, the Holy Spirit exists, the sacrament of baptism can 'forgive sins,' etc. While this claim is obvious anecdotal, although it can easily be verified, individual Christians use God in part of explanations for receiving promotions at work, finding car keys, answering prayers, performing well in sports events,receiving Grammy awards, and so much more

Christians do not typically seek supernatural explanations for events that occur in the physical world. Christians do not believe that God[s] give them promotions their employer does, that demons lost their car keys, that they did, that God didn't personally write the Grammy winning song, that they did.

JD attempted to shift the blame away from God to humans (or to somewhere else) in order to respondto my evidential argument of natural evil. Such explanations fail because God ultimately allegedly designed the laws of the universe and could have made the universe in such a manner than egregioussuffering via natural disasters didn't exist. Additionally, God is supposed to be all-loving, so why wouldthis be the case to begin with?

Two things come to mind here..

1) I never attempted to entirely 'shift the blame' to humans but merely inquired to what extent ( if any) are humans liable for the decisions they make. It seems you refuse to answer this question.

2) If there were to be another installment of this debate, my question to Mr. Vacula would be, 'How would you design the world any differently if you had the ability to do so?'. I would be interested in his answer and then we could take it from there.

Justin also seems to be ignorant of one of the more basic tenents of Christianity insofar as our purpose and meaning here in this plane of existance. It certainly isn't for us to expect pain and suffering to go away any time soon because we know we will always have these things on this planet till Christ's return. The purpose of our meaning here is to "to glorify God", so that we may "enjoy him for ever". I feel that I am on fairly certain ground in stating this being that it is contained in both the Westminster Confession (read: Calvinist) and the Methodist church (read: Arminian). The elimination of such things as poverty and wars would serve to negate the existance of God and no amount of secularism interspresed with humanism and evangelical atheism is ever going to change that.

In order to read Mr. Vacula's closing statements, just visit his blog at JustinVacula.com

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: 1st Rebuttals

This post will constitute my first of two rebuttals that will take place in the debate between me and Justin Vacula. In order to see Justin's rebuttal to my opening statement (which appears below this thread), just visit his website at JustinVacula.com

While perusing Mr. Vacula's opening statement there were a few items that caught my attention and I will list them for his consideration and comment.

Can one honestly believe that malaria, AIDS, Indian Ocean Tsunamis, Chilean earthquakes, andthe like are the work of an omni-good god?

While we are discussing the concept of whether the Christian concept of a god exists, it is important to bear in mind that these things occur, according to orthodox Christian doctrine, because we all live in a fallen world. These things came about after the fall, this world/plane of existance isn't paradise, and the existance of these aforementioned items only serve to reinforce and help prove that contention. If the narrative was such that these things did not exist, then it would seem contradictory that they do, however, that is not the case.

I contend that 'natural evil' – earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, animal suffering, and the like – is incompatible with belief in an omni-good god and serves as a defeater to Christian belief

I notice that Mr. Vacula made the huge leap of terming these things 'evil' without ever explaining how he arrived at that conclusion. At no point does he explain the criteria that must be met in order for any of these things to be defined as 'evil'. I would posit the fact that Mr. Vacula views these things as 'evil' counts towards evidence that an objective good exists by which we can gauge these things. And if that objective good exists, then what is it?

A strict materialist would simply look at these things and shrug. An earthquake causing destruction? A seismic event that is the result of plate tectonics, and why did they make the decision to live near a fault line anyway? Should they be shaking their fist at God or do they carry at least part of the blame if it affected them or their loved ones? Same goes for a flood wiping out a bunch of houses and displacing hundreds, the materialist would think that it's the result of a meteorological event such as heavy rain. Did anyone put a gun to their respective heads and force them to live in a flood plain? Is it God's fault if the didn't do their homework? Do humans bear any responsibility at all in these equations whatsoever?

Again, by what standard are these things termed 'evil'? If a tsunami occurs out at sea and hardly anyone notices, is it 'evil'? If a tornado doesn't actually kill anyone, but does delay my flight out of Tulsa for an hour and a half, is it 'evil' or merely a 'nuisance'? If a hurricane causes some property damage and minor abrasions, is it 'evil' or just 'not very nice'?

I do hope that some measurement for clarification is offered up by Mr. Vacula to help us understand how he determined this. And furthermore that any clarification put forward isn't based on anything so highly subjective as personal feelings, experience or opinion. Because after all, we know that these things indeed vary greatly from person to person. We'll see.

In addition to human suffering, an egregious amount of animal suffering exists – ecosystems thrive because animals kill other animals, often in a slow and painful fashion. Does this seem to be the work of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing being?

You know what? That's quite interesting. I don't recall that I have ever heard of the so-called suffering of animals objection that Mr. Vacula raises as being a valid argument against the existence of God.

But I wonder if we actually know how much these animals are truly 'suffering'. For instance, some animals inject a numbing venom so their prey doesn't feel the pain of being bitten. But setting aside the uncertain level of pain that some animals feel when being eaten by others, I would like to know why Justin simply settled on animals. I mean, who is going to stand up for the vegetables? What was the criteria considered when the animal kingdom got the big 'thumbs up' for approval that their experiences were valid and those of plants are not? Recent research would suggest that plants are suffering too.

"When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins.

Plants don’t just react to attacks, though. They stand forever at the ready. Witness the endless thorns, stinging hairs and deadly poisons with which they are armed. If all this effort doesn’t look like an organism trying to survive, then I’m not sure what would. Plants are not the inert pantries of sustenance we might wish them to be.

If a plant’s myriad efforts to keep from being eaten aren’t enough to stop you from heedlessly laying into that quinoa salad, then maybe knowing that plants can do any number of things that we typically think of as animal-like would. They move, for one thing, carrying out activities that could only be called behaving, if at a pace visible only via time-lapse photography. Not too long ago, scientists even reported evidence that plants could detect and grow differently depending on whether they were in the presence of close relatives, a level of behavioral sophistication most animals have not yet been found to show."

So why do plants get the short end of the stick here? They seem to have an awareness of whats going on. And lest you think that a diet of mushrooms would solve the problem and let you off the hook, the above article contains a link explaining how fungi are even more closely related to us than plants are. (provided evolution is correct) So I guess they are 'off the table' so to speak, also.

I don't wish to make my opponent's arguments for him, but are animals used in this argument against God because they have faces and perhaps we are more sympathetic towards them for mere sentimental reasons? Or perhaps because they have brains? The above quoted author brings up the example of Jellyfish which "can be really tasty when cut into julienne and pickled, [and] have no brains, only a simple net of nerves, arguably a less sophisticated setup than the signaling systems coordinating the lives of many plants" and asks "How do we decide how much sensitivity and what sort matters?"

Since Justin brought up this line of argument, I will assume that he has carefully thought through his position on the matter and will await for him to tell us just where the terminator line is as to whose suffering is uplifted and who the ultimate losers are to be in these scenarios.


If the amount of good in the world renders belief in an omni-evil god unreasonable, why doesn't theamount of suffering and death in the world render belief in an omni-good god unreasonable?...we are equally justified in believing that of evil in the world demonstrates that there is not a good creator god.

I don't believe that my opponent has a rudimentary understanding of one of the more basic concepts of Christianity, namely, that according to widely accepted, orthodox belief, the God of this world is not the Creator God. This is made quite clear in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God". There are various other passages that confirm this and I admit that I'm a bit puzzled that my opponent was (seemingly) unaware of this doctrine.

Premise One: Naturalism, the philosophical belief that all that exists is the natural world, is very inductively justified.

Premise Two: If naturalism is very inductively justified, we are justified in rejecting any supernatural explanations.

Premise Three: The Christian god is a supernatural explanation.

Conclusion: We are justified in rejecting belief in the Christian god.


I would like to turn this discussion back towards Christianity (or the 'Christian God'). Exactly where did Natural Law come from and was it in fact a necessary prerequisite that lead to methodological naturalism and ultimately sytematic science? Christians typically do not seek supernatural explanations except perhaps on origin of life discussions and numerous scientists seem to hold their faith concerning where the first living, reproducing organism came from with equal ardor. As one man put it, "Supernatural intervention plays no role in Natural Law, except to have set the ground rules".

EDIT: 2nd rebuttals are to be posted on our respective blogs on Thursday night.

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: Opening Statements

This debate came about through a series of emails between me and atheist Justin Vacula. In order to see Mr. Vacula's opening remarks, please visit his website at JustinVacula.com.

In our opening statements we are to limit ourselves to a maximum of five main points. I will attempt to to abide by that rule in order to streamline this discussion as much as possible and avoid plunging into any senseless rabbitholes.

For me personally, the answer to the question 'Does the Christian God exist?' would be a resounding 'yes', I believe that He does. Let me attempt to lay out what I think are five good reasons why I believe this is so. Please note that my beliefs are not limited to these five reasons, but after no small amount of consideration, I decided to use these in my arguments for the purposes of our discussion here.

#1. The fine-tuning of the earth's position in our solar system. There are numerous criteria that must be met in order for this planet to sustain life. Our moon must be positioned precisely where it is in order to slow the earth's rotation. If it were not for the moon then we would have 6 hour days and high, sustained winds[1] of approximately 500 miles an hour and thus life would be much less likely to form and survive. If our planet were to be located a mere 5% closer or further away from the sun, then the three states of water that exist (liquid, frozen and vapor) that are so necessary for life on earth would be much less likely to "prevail"[2]. Additionally, If the earth did not have the large, outer planets in our solar system protecting it, we would be bombarded much more by space debris such as meteors.[3]

These are just a few of the supposed 'coincidences' that led to habitability on this planet. A couple others that could be added are our location within a 'co-rotation radius' that is to say, between the spiraling arms of the Milky Way[4] and the earth's 23.5 degree tilt on it's axis that prevents much greater tempurature extremes in our summers and winters [5]. I believe that if one considers the mathematical odds of all of these factors lining up in an arbitrary manner, the statistical probability as such would appear to be quite remote if not practically impossible. If Mr. Vacula would like to utilize mathematics to demonstrate the likelihood of these factors all coming about randomly through undirected processes, I would invite him to do so.

This brings us to the next point I would like to bring up...

#2. The possibility that life first arose on this planet through completely random, undirected processes is so low that it constitutes an argument against such an occurance.

Or as one well known writer put it..

"There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, robustly imagined mechanisms for it notwithstanding. To claim that because there was no life before, but there is now, ergo abiogenesis occurred, is the very sort of philosophy that science has largely come to supplant." [6]

In support of the remote possibility of life occurring as such, I would like to quote this professor who offered up his thoughts on the matter...

"..the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn't work. If you took all of the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the fastest rate possible and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it." [7]

So as you can see, it would appear reasonable that one could believe that these two things had an intelligent first cause directing a desired outcome.

However, all I've done so far is raise two arguments in favor of a generic god. What makes me think that Christianity is unique here? Aren't there other religions that also have their own creation account? Out of the other competing claims out there, why is it that I believe the Christian God is responsible and the ultimate source of truth?

For me anyway, the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazereth is evidential enough. After considerable study, the scholar NT Wright has written that the resurrection and post-mortem appearances of Jesus of Nazereth are "in the same category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70".[8] In fact, according to one author, "The textual case for the historical Jesus is orders of magnitude stronger than the one for the historical Alexander the Great..There are no primary sources for Alexander and the most trustworthy of the five secondary sources was written by Arrian approximately 470 years after Alexander’s death."[9] And practically nobody doubts the historicity and accomplishments of Alexander.

You must admit, if someone suffered a very public and horrific death and then came back to life three days later, that would certainly constitute a miracle. For my other three points, I would like to offer up what I think are the best evidences for the Resurrection.

#3. The apostles were transformed. Following the crucifixion and interment of Jesus of Nazereth we read that the remaining apostles at least believed he was dead and they had little reason to believe otherwise, prior predictions by Jesus not withstanding. The apostles then became aggressive proclaimers of the Resurrection of Christ and despite facing hardships and terrible martyrdom, there is absolutely no record whatsoever of any of them ever changing their story in the least. There was nary an Oliver Cowdery or David Whitmer among them.

#4. Why do the gospel accounts record that it was women who had found the tomb empty? This is especially interesting in light of the fact that the testimony of women was not considered to be admissible in those times in the Ancient Near East. This is hardly suprising given that attitudes haven't changed that much over the millenia in this part of the world.

If the empty tomb account was simply made up, wouldn't if have made much more sense to have the apostles there at the tomb in this case and (additionally) not making them look like such doubters and failures that even Peter refused to stand up for his faith when asked about it by a young servant girl?

As an interesting aside (I really don't expect Justin to address this), this leads to another question stemming from the opposite end of Christ's earthly existance, the account that it was shepherds out in the field who were among the first people recorded to herald the birth of Jesus. Why would the writers of the gospels use them in this narrative if the testimony of shepherds was not admissible either during this period of time in the Ancient Near East?

This hardly seems like a firm foundation for "the Christian church, which is the largest institution or organization that has ever existed on the face of the earth, with membership easily passing two billion people by the end of this decade. Nothing comparable to her or even close has ever existed before. The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by an Indian dragging a stick, and the Christian Church wasn't created by a myth."[10]

In reference to the women discovering the empty tomb (along with shepherds heralding the birth of Christ), maybe there was something at work here in addition to the Son of God becoming flesh here on earth to make our relationship right with God. Perhaps as a byproduct of this happening, God wished to see the existing order of doing things shaken up and irrevocably changed.

The last point I would like to raise in support of the resurrection would be..

#5 The complete lack of any widespread, competing claims from the 1st century A.D. as to what happened to the body of Christ. If it wasn't a bodily resurrection, then what happened? There simply is no sort of 'Solly and Biff from Haifa spirited the body away on the Saturday night following the crucifixion and dumped the body in the Mediterranean. And thus Jesus of Nazereth sleeps with the fishes.' There's nothing remotely like an accepted, competing account from the time and thus applying Occam's Razor in this instance, the earliest, most widely accepted version of events would tend to be the correct one in this case.

I'll give Dr. Jerry Newcombe the last say on the topic of the empty tomb.

"Historians-secular unbelieving historians-tell us that the Christian Church began in Jerusalem in 30 A.D. [It could have been 33], the year Christ was killed and that she began because the apostles began to preach that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. You strip everything else away from their preaching, their main message was that Christ rose from the dead (e.g. Acts 2:23-24)

..many adherents to many religions can travel to the place where the founder of their religion is currently entombed and say, "Here lies the dust of our estimable founder." You cannot say that about Christ. He was not in the grave. He is risen. For 1,700 years there was virtually no contraversy that the tomb was empty. The Jews didn't deny it. The Romans didn't deny it. Nobody denied it until just recently. With our vast "rear view mirror" wisdom, we look back through more than 1900 years and we decide, "Oh, the tomb wasn't empty." Too bad those who were there couldn't have been so smart."[11] (Emphasis mine)



[1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=104
[2] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Water
[3] http://people.hofstra.edu/lois_miceli/modules/SOLARS1.html
[4] http://www.reasons.org/location-location-location-research-reveals-fine-tuning-solar-systems-position
[5] http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast03jul_1/
[6] Day, Vox; http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/lecturing-butterfly-collector.html
[7] Bradley, Walter, PhD. Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University (interview)
[8] Wright, NT; The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003
[9] Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist pg. 116, 2007
[10] Newcombe, Jerry, DD. Sunday school notes, 10/30/11, The New Presbyterian Church, Pompano Beach, Florida
[11] Ibid

EDIT: I forgot to mention, our respective 1st rebuttals are going to be posted on Tuesday night.