E-MAIL AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED
Special Edition

This is a separate feedback page, to handle a lengthy conversation I continue to have with a Christian by the name of Jesse Perry.

My email address is estle46224@yahoo.com

Red indicates Mr. Perry's writing.
Blue indicates my writing; editorial comments are in italics.

Received 07-18-01
From Jesse Perry, perry_jd@msn.com
Subject: [No subject]

WARNING! This is a long one. You better go hit the can first if you plan on reading all of this.

Last reply sent on 12/01/01

QUICK LINKS TO THESE LETTERS:

Jesse's Letters: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Read My Replies: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Nathan,

I have read through a lot of your material, and I would like to offer a few points to consider, of which I look forward to receiving some feedback.

First, in your introduction document "Are my beliefs justified?", you state, "Changing beliefs requires a good reason. What is the solid evidence that led me to change my beliefs? The one thing? Well, nothing. And everything. I don't know if there was one of them that was most responsible, or just a collective atmosphere of doubt, but something did it. Who knows? The point is, I feel justified to myself." Excuse my presumptuousness, but it doesn't seem that you have a good reason for your beliefs after all.

It must be admitted that evolutionary cosmology cannot prove its assertions. It remains a theory. In fact it would be impossible to provide evidence for something that can't be observed or experimentally recreated, and cites a "singularity" (in which all of the laws of physics break down) as its origin. A lack of evidence haunts the validity of evolution.

It is not possible to prove the existence of God, either. However, the evidence readily and overwhelmingly supports this fact. Extraordinary logical contortions are required to attempt to deny the obvious complexity of the universe (i.e. the argument that "it looks like chaos, but it really isn't"). Entropy provides evidence against the basic premise of biological evolution. Cause is a necessity to the existence of logic itself, and therefore can't be denied. The concept of perfection requires actual existence to be literally termed "perfect". And even the most morally relativistic person experiences shock at the most senseless and disgusting of crimes, indicating the existence of absolute moral truth.

Atheism is held not for scientific or logical reasons, but for moral ones. You said it very well, "I feel justified to myself. That's all that really matters". We all are bent towards escaping the moral standards of the Bible in favor of creating our own standards for right and wrong. But it is ultimately futile to continually create but what about... scenarios to escape our own responsibility for the existence of evil and suffering. If we admit our responsibility, however, we find forgiveness and atonement for our sins in Christ's death on the cross; the ultimate demonstration of love. The only true reason for atheism is an unwillingness to truly understand the Bible and submit to the truth.

I look forward to your feedback. Please post this letter on your site. Thanks.

-Jesse



My Response:

Dear Jesse:

Wow. You managed to condense virtually every subject in modern Christian apologetics into one letter. I am a bit overwhelmed. Hopefully I can get to everything, but this is going to be a meaty reply.

Cosmology, to me, is a fascinating field of study. I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically, as cosmology is a large subject with different evolutionary aspects. My guess is that you are talking about the life cycles and beginnings of stars and planetoids. Let me say this: The time scales involved prevent us from observing one star or planet for its entire life span, but we can draw clues from other stars at different stages. This is analogous to taking a snapshot of a group of humans that happens to include a pregnant woman, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, a teenager, and adult, and an elderly person (male and female of each). While one doesn't see the actual "evolution" from fetus to corpse of one person, one can draw some conclusions.

Such is the study of stars. And like any true science, falsifiable predictions can be made. We can observe changes in stars, even though the changes take time. The entire foundation of the study of stars would be scrapped and replaced if we observed a supernova slowly forming into a star like our own sun, or a Red Giant calmly dispersing into space dust.

As to singularities, I find it an intriguing concept, but I don't consider it much more than educated guesswork. It seems reasonable, in that the universe is expanding even as matter condenses. I won't go into it. I am no authority on theoretical physics. If you wish to enlighten me, feel free.

Quoth the Jesmeister:
"It is not possible to prove the existence of God, either. However, the evidence readily and overwhelmingly supports this fact."

Yes! Please present this evidence. I (and most of the world) have been waiting for some good positive evidence of the existence of God. Please withhold it no longer! If I can be convinced of the existence of God by you (or anyone else), I promise to join your (or their) religion, denomination, and specific congregation (if possible). I find I can't sit still or hold a thought in my head, I'm so excited.

Okay, all kidding aside now, here are some quick quips:

1. The entropy theory you cite only applies to closed systems, which this planet is not, on account of the sun. The sun constantly adds energy to the Earth System, and excess energy leaves through the atmosphere.

2. I don't deny the complexity of the universe; I just see it differently. I see a broken vase with pieces large and small scattered about in a general way. You look at the same broken vase and see design. "Look at the razor sharp pieces pointing upwards! You can't explain that with your test tubes!"

3. Saying the concept of perfection requires perfection to exist is illogical and, frankly, idiotic. The concept of nothing requires nothing to exist? The concept of mathematics requires mathematics to actually exist? I could go on, of course.

You said:
"Atheism is held not for scientific or logical reasons, but for moral ones... [w]e all are bent towards escaping the moral standards of the Bible in favor of creating our own standards for right and wrong."

What prejudice. Hopefully you will understand why I take offense. Other than the obvious (not worshiping the Jewish war god), what exactly do I do that is immoral? What bad things am I doing now that I would magically not be able to do were I a Christian? Maybe I can close with an example. The old switcheroo.

You said:
"The only true reason for atheism is an unwillingness to truly understand the Bible and submit to the truth."

The only true reason for Christianity is an unwillingness to truly understand the word of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and submit to the truth. Christianity is not held for scientific or logical reasons but for evil ones. Christians are bent towards denying the one true God, Allah, and instead worshipping the prophet Isa (PBUH), whom they call "Jesus", and making Allah, a perfect Being, into three beings. Such is the nonsense of those infected with the jinn. Even though their own book specifically warns against worshipping idols, and Isa clearly instructs them to worship only the God of Ibrahim, they rebel. They will burn in the fire for their trespasses, and Allah is Just, Merciful.

My personal opinions are, of course, my own. I owe no justification to anyone for my beliefs, and I only owe one to myself if I want to keep a sane mind. In my mind, I am satisfied with my conclusions and consider them justified, and you no doubt feel the same about your conclusions.

What's wrong with that?

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

2nd Letter:

Dear Nathan,
Thanks for your response (and so quickly! :) ). I don't pretend to think that I can pin you down and force the Bible down your throat. That is not my intention. My intention is to (just as the word "apologetics" indicates) defend Biblical Christianity as being true. It is completely up to you (or me, or anyone else for that matter) to accept it or not. Forced "conversion" in history has always resulted in atrocities, aside from the fact that it is unbiblical. By the way, I realize that all of this sounds prejudiced and arrogant. I apologize. My only intention is to present the Bible as the answer to mankind's questions because it is 100% true.

By "cosmology" I meant any explanation of the origin of the universe (everybody has a theory on cosmology whether it be evolutionary or creationist).

In response to your statement about the life cycle of stars, I have 2 counterpoints. First, the snapshot illustration is misleading. We CAN view a "fetus" changing into a corpse. This change is the development of a single organism, not "evolution" as you stated. Second, stars obviously have a life cycle, some of which can be extrapolated by observing the various stages in which we find stars. The circular nature of that life cycle is not empirically verifiable.

Regarding the evidence you requested, I provided several items which you itemized and countered. There is a difference between evidence and proof. We can't prove God's existence, but we can cite evidence for it.

I know that solar radiation is generally regarded by evolutionists as the source of mutations that cause evolution, but the odds against radiation causing a consistent string of gradual, helpful mutations in multiple species simultaneously requires more faith than I am willing to invest. :)

Again, the vase illustration is misleading. The universe is not broken. It functions. A more accurate illustration would be a vase that is intact, of which we would both agree was made by a potter.

Mathematics exists because it is observable. Nothing does not exist because non-existence is contained in the definition of nothing. Existence is contained in the definition of "perfection". Existence is not contained in the definition of mathematics, etc.

On the question of morality, I did not mean to imply that you were immoral. Many atheists are moral people. One thing is certain about atheists, though, atheists don't believe that God is the absolute authority on right and wrong. :)

Finally, I didn't understand your response to my statement, "The only true reason for atheism is an unwillingness to truly understand the Bible and submit to the truth." I meant to convey that if the Bible is read without an anti-biblical bias, then the uniqueness of the Bible is apparent, and the basis of disbelief is volitional, not logical or scientific. Could you clarify your response?

I appreciate your communication. You really force me to think. Hopefully this correspondence will be beneficial to both of us.

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

As I mentioned before, I have no doctorate in theoretical physics, so I am not the person to ask about the origin of the universe. For now, I am content with saying I don't know how it all started, but I think it is a natural phenomenon. I liken it to lightning. Five hundred years ago, one would be hard pressed to come up with a rational, natural explanation for the seemingly random event known as lightning. As science advances, we will come to know more about the origin of the universe and different theories will fail or be supported by the evidence. And yes, there is evidence, like the constant background radiation in space that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) predicted.

Real scientific theories make falsifiable predictions. So far, the BBT has made and confirmed two rather large predictions: background radiation leftover from the massive blast, and the universe constantly expanding. Some other theory may explain these things better, and replace the BBT, but it is all part of a process. (And again, I shouldn't be the one talking about any theories.)

"To evolve" simply means to develop, to change, so the life of stars could easily be described as a form of evolution, especially since they change so drastically over time and between stages. All of which can, of course, be observed. Some transitions take thousands of years, some take only decades. Because stage changes in stars are extremely quick compared to the total life, we have observed and are observing changes in stars, so these things can indeed be empirically proven. Also, I am aware of no "circular nature" in the life of stars. It was my understanding that they eventually die out, explode, or collapse to form black holes.

I do not, I repeat, do not think radiation is a significant or important factor in mutations. The sun adds energy, in the form of heat, light, X-rays, U/V, radio, et al. to this planet constantly. In addition, energy stored in the Earth in its molten core also adds energy (heat). I find that many Christians cite the theory of entropy without understanding what it means at all. Things naturally go to disorder (like my messy bedroom), but only if they are closed off from outside influence, particularly outside energy (like when I clean up my bedroom). Without the sun, all plants, animals and other life would die out, leading to chaotic disorder as the theory of entropy demands (the core of the Earth would also have to die out to kill off microbes). But it must be a closed system.

I do not see how the universe functions. It is a sloppy array of gas, dust, big ol' rocks and fireballs. Gravity pulls them around and smacks them together. I see no order or design.

I would ask that you give your perfection argument again and in more detail. I think I have an idea of where it is going, and had hoped to defuse it from the get-go, but we can't always get what we want.

My response to your statement about submitting to the truth was exactly the response a Muslim might give you (assuming he were a little bit fanatical). A reading of the Bible, while I was a wavering Christian, pushed me over the edge--so I had no anti-biblical bias. On the other hand, a reading of the Qur'an after I was an atheist raised some legitimate questions in my mind, and I have nothing but positive feelings about the exercise. I still consider Islam, out of all the world's religions, the most likely to be true.

Compare that to the incomprehensible Bible, with its goofy and complicated theology, historical incoherence, numerous contradictions.... I can argue specific points, general theology, and quibble over semantics, but I have come to realize that my best argument is simply: "Oh, come on!"

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

3rd Letter:

Dear Nathan,
Our letters seem to get longer and longer, so after this letter, I think I'll stick to one subject at a time. There are two things that I'll mention very briefly regarding our previous discussions and then I'll move on. "Heat, light, X-rays, U/V, radio" are all forms of electromagnetic radiation. How do these forms of energy counteract entropy?
Background radiation and the expansion of the universe (which is supposedly caused by an observed "red shift") could have a source other than a "big bang". To quote from The Nature of Matter by James Rees, "The existence of the background of matter provides a much more direct cause and effect explanation for the source of the cosmic microwave background radiation than does the more far fetched explanation that the cosmic microwave background radiation is the afterglow of the creation (big bang) of the Universe." (he's not a theist, by the way).

We could define perfection as the infinity of every positive quality. If this is the case, then existence would necessarily be included in these qualities. And not only simple existence, but infinite existence (omnipresence) and self-existence (being uncaused). Someone must possess these qualities for them to exist, and this conclusion indicates God. There is also the matter of where the concept of infinity originated. If our minds are finite, then how could we possibly conceptualize infinity? Apparently, the source of the concept is God.
You said in your last letter, "I still consider Islam, out of all the world's religions, the most likely to be true." Why do you consider this religion more likely to be true than any other?
-Jesse

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

Entropy, is a measure of the disorder in a closed system. That is a system, in simple terms, free from outside influence. The Earth is not a closed system, because the sun constantly adds energy (as you enumerated) to the system. Systems naturally move towards disorder, but not when there is heat pumping into them.

To put it another way, entropy, as defined by the online Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm), is "a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder...." The unavailable energy. When energy is being added to a system, the unavailable energy is not increasing, but rather decreasing. More energy is available, therefore entropy decreases, and therefore disorder does not occur. Order occurs.

This is a basic overview of a fairly complex idea. As I said in a previous letter, I find that Christians use entropy without ever understanding what it means. They apply their own concept of "disorder" rather than a scientifically defined one, they completely ignore the "closed system" part (or don't know what it means), or they just flat out lie. I wouldn't be taken very seriously if I denigrated the Bible by making up my own verses, so I insist on a minimum level of competence from the other side.

I do not dispute that those phenomena could have been caused by other sources; in fact I explicitly stated as much in my last response: "Some other theory may explain these things better, and replace the [Big Bang Theory], but it is all part of a process." I am not beholden to that explanation for the universe, and will go where the evidence leads. And, the universe expansion is not "caused by an observed 'red shift'." Not knowing what "red shift" was, at least not by that name, I quickly found a lesson for high school students that explained it quite nicely: (http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/classroom/activity2.html). Perhaps this can help you better grasp what Hubble really did.

Now this is the part I was really interested in, and I was right in guessing where it was going. I will even cede the majority of what you said. That is, in my personal opinion existence, "self-existence", and perhaps infinite existence would be necessary aspects of a perfect person or thing. This is where I stop. Yes, were God to exist, he would have to possess these qualities to be called perfect. But just because we conceptualize these qualities does not mean that they exist, or that a being with all of these qualities exists.

You said: "[s]omeone must possess these qualities for them to exist...." Then you went on to say: "If our minds are finite, then how could we possibly conceptualize infinity?" I'm afraid these are two sides of the same fallacious coin. We can only conceptualize infinity because such a thing cannot exist. We conceptualize omni-presence and self-existence because such things cannot exist under the rules of this universe. They must be conceptualized in order to use them (in mathematics, philosophy, etc.), but every little thing that humans can think up need not necessarily exist.

I consider Islam the most likely to be true because it wraps up most of the loose ends from its two predecessors. It gets around divinity problems by simply saying that Jesus was not divine, though he was created divinely (from dust, like Adam, the Qur'an says). If we are to believe its claims, it was written by an illiterate Arab in the year 600 C.E. after he spoke to the angel Gibreel (Gabriel), and is written in an epic, poetic style. It makes reference to events only found in early Christian books (long gone by 600 C.E.) and shows an understanding of Judaism, Christianity and monotheism in general which is out of place for desert idolaters.

It is hampered by its strong support of the Eden creation myth and some counter-intuitive rules for living. Other things, like existence of evil and many other classic atheist problems still apply. Free will does not, however, because the Qur'an indicates that we have no choice at all, and Allah chooses whomever he wishes. (Not very comforting, but there is no logical contradiction, you have to give them that much.)

Sorry for the length,

Nathan

4th Letter:

Dear Nathan,
I apologize for the delay in responding to you. Regarding entropy, the universe as a whole is a closed system. If no matter or energy is currently being created or destroyed (as the law of conservation states), then when the sun contributes energy to the earth, the sun tends to disorder. Entropy refers to a decrease in useful energy, not total energy. That's where statistical thermodynamics comes in. The energy contributed to an open system (earth) tends to randomize (cause decay and disorder), not to increase orderliness (cause evolution).

The perfection argument is valid because, as I stated earlier, existence is contained in the concept of perfection. I completely agree with you that "every little thing that humans can think up need not necessarily exist." Existence is not contained in every idea. We can imagine many things that do not, by their definition, warrant existence. Finally, you stated that Islam circumvents 2 "problems" that I assume you mean to infer that Christianity still espouses; namely, man's free will and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I might have misunderstood your argument regarding Jesus' divinity, but Islam still maintains that Allah is God. Could you clarify?

Biblical Christianity doesn't have a logical contradiction in its assertion about man's free will. Allow me to make 4 points.

First, God created man to have a loving relationship with Him.
Second, In order to make decisions that always yield a positive outcome, we must possess omnipotence and omniscience. As humans, we possess neither.
Third, without God's direct intervention, the universe tends to decay. When man chose to refuse God's control, we subjected the universe to natural forces of decay. The universe is not self-existent.
And finally, in order for love to exist, so must free will. Without the freedom to refuse, love cannot exist (it is impossible to force someone to love). Therefore, God's omniscience does not make Him responsible for our refusal of him. Freedom must exist or love cannot. The Bible says that even though God knows who will accept Him and who will reject Him, He does not force us to make one decision or another. To quote Peter Kreeft, "The source of evil is not God's power, but mankind's freedom." In the book of Job, Satan accuses God of controlling Job's circumstances so that Job will "love" God, so God removes his protection from Job so that Job is truly free. Job experiences true freedom from God (the loss of all of his possessions and his family), and still turns to Him, displaying genuine love.

While I am sure that you disagree with several of the Bible's assertions on free will, the position as a whole coheres internally (it also corresponds to reality, but that is another discussion).

I tried to shorten the letter up, really I did. I still enjoy our correspondence, it will just take a little more time for me to respond. :) I look forward to seeing your response.

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

Treating the universe as a closed system is tricky business, mostly because it is more like an infinite system than a finite, defined, closed system. This is high level stuff--and I shouldn't be speaking authoritatively on it. The sun--to which the term "closed system" might be applied--is moving towards disorder, to no useful energy as Entropy demands, and will get there eventually. The Earth, which can absorb and harness energy and release the excess, is not beholden to the Theory of Entropy. Evolution is a tad bit different, and not necessarily related to the "order" or "disorder" of a system. You are forcing one human concept of order--complex biological molecules--into a theory that deals with scientifically defined order--available energy. We are talking about apples and oranges ("order" and order) and we aren't even in an orchard (closed system).

On the perfection argument, allow me to put it in the simplest possible terms. In order for God to be "perfect", existence would be a necessary quality for him to have. I agree. An entity can't be perfect if it doesn't, at the very least, exist. But just because some may call God "perfect" does not mean he must exist. Follow that? It is the difference between calling someone something and defining him as such. I'm struggling for an example, but here goes: In order for us to call Alexander Hamilton "The Greatest President Ever", he would have had to actually hold the office of President of the United States. It is a necessary quality of the title. But, we could call him that all day long, and it won't change the fact that he never held the office (died in a duel while Vice-president). Just because you say that your God is perfect does not mean he is. (He could be quite flawed, actually.) Just because you say your God is perfect does not mean he exists. And just because you say "the moon is made of cheese" does not make it true.

Islam avoids all the divinity problems inherent with Jesus. By simply claiming he is a prophet like Mohammed, it avoids any questions about Jesus being human and divine at the same time, about the whole sacrifice theology, and about the trilogy, which the Qur'an whole-heartedly rejects (Allah is one, he is perfect; how dare you say he is three?).

Free will! Free will! This is by far my favorite problem with Christianity (and perhaps the strongest contradiction). I honestly love to talk about it. I find it fun. Yes, fun. Unfortunately, looking at it now, I see that my writing on the subject is horribly inadequate. Jesse, you have inspired me to expand (or completely redo) my writing on Free Will. In the meantime, there is an excellent analysis (in plain English) on the British site Wasteland of Wonders. (Free will writing: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/freewill.html ) It is the finest analysis (and easiest analysis to read) I have ever seen. Hopefully, mine will be as good.

Thanks,

Nathan

Note: My new Free Will writing was completed on 07/31/01, and about two weeks passed before the next letter.

5th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Your revised essay on free will is one of the clearest presentations of the issue that I've ever seen. It helped me to identify and understand the core assertions of this argument more fully. Also, shortly after our last correspondence, I read Adrian Barnett's essay on free will as you suggested.

At the heart of the matter is one fundamental question, which you stated well in your essay, "Why would your god allow billions to exist, including me, if he knew we would end up in hell for eternity?" It is a question worthy of an answer.

There are 3 foundational ideas that work together to bring us to a conclusion one way or another on this issue. Our position on these foundations will determine our conclusion.

First, the quality of omnipotence is limited by context. For instance, can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? The answer is no, because in order to do so, omnipotence would have to contradict itself. Asking the question "Couldn't he (God) have made one (a universe) where all people 'freely' choose to believe and love him?" is similar to asking the question, "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?". God can't create only those who would love him, because doing so would prevent our freedom and consequently prohibit love.

Second, time, inclination (being influenced by any internal or external factor), and volition (free will) are separate and distinct from one another. You stated, "If a deity knows all things in the past, present, and future, and creates a universe, he becomes responsible for everything that happens in it." This statement displays confusion regarding time, inclination, and volition. For instance, if I traveled forward in time and watched you eat a Big Mac tomorrow for lunch, and then I traveled back in time and started trying to tempt you to order a Big Mac by talking about how delicious a Big Mac would be, it is possible, however improbable, that you might decide to have a Quarter Pounder just to spite me. Your decision was made in spite of the fact that you really wanted a Big Mac and in spite of my foreknowledge of the outcome of the event had I not intervened. My foreknowledge of the event (without intervention) and your desire for a Big Mac did not prevent you from changing your choice. Therefore, it becomes obvious that our actions are not determined by God's foreknowledge or the environment that he has created. In fact, he must create an environment that presents us with an opportunity to disobey him in order for us to be free to obey him.

Third, the issue of love is of key importance. That's why you "hear a lot of junk about love." I think we would all agree that in the broadest sense, love can be defined as placing value on a person or thing. God created man to love Him and to be loved, according to Scripture (Matthew 22:37-38 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment."). [Empasis added by J.P.] Therefore, if we are not allowed the possibility of refusing God, then we are not free, and love, by definition, requires freedom.

You cannot disprove a world view by attributing to it an assertion that it does not make. A world view is easily refuted if one argues against the assertions of that world view outside of the context of that world view. Although someone might disagree with the Bible's external assertions (i.e. God exists, The Bible is His Word, etc.) it must be admitted that the Biblical world view itself coheres internally.

One last thing; I am curious, Nathan, do you believe that man has a free will (is man determined)? Why or why not? If so, what factor(s) determine(s) man's decisions?

In Christ, Jesse

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

Let me jump right into it, because, as I've said before, this subject is my favorite.

The query: "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" is completely meaningless. It is exactly the same as asking: "Can God do something that God cannot do?" I think we are in agreement here. But that has no relation to my question about a universe where everyone freely believes. Are you saying that it is not at all possible for a universe to exist where everyone freely believes in God, even though they all have the option of turning away? That there can never be 100% adherence to Christianity in this or any other possible universe? Or are you instead indicating that no matter what the adherence percentage, the old bearded guy who set everything up is in no way responsible?

The example about the Big Mac is similar to the one used in my free will writing, although that one was more general. To respond to the example: I would still have my free will. You are minimizing your own influence, but the decision remains mine. The difference between you and God is that you didn't create a universe with full knowledge before hand that I would eat Big Macs and allow that to be, nor did you intervene in the past, creating a ripple effect that eliminated competition, leaving McDonald's as the only decent-tasting fast food joint. Let's follow this a little farther.

Bang! The universe is. Before that, when the Bearded One was creating matter and the conditions for the Beginning, he, being omniscient, looked into the future. He saw mankind, he saw my lineage on down to me. He foresaw my physical mind and my surroundings of influence. He foresaw my taste for Big Macs, and he new, before the Beginning, that on August the thirteenth, 2001, at 11:35 Central Daylight Time, I would leave work, drive a couple of blocks down, and order a Big Mac. He knew the exact route I would take, with infinite accuracy, and he knew every thought, naughty or virtuous, that I would have. He also knew every detail about everything else going on at that same time in the universe.

Since all this was before he made the universe, he knew full well how minute changes would affect every thing. After all, history would be completely different if just one star (out of all of them) were missing. How would religions, omens, wars, crops, daily activities et al. be different if one star didn't exist? What if the North Star were the one missing?

God could see how his interference would completely change the future. What if he didn't meet Moses on the mountaintop, or what if he changed a commandment or two? Everything that happens is because God made it that way.

Didn't he know that you would believe before the Beginning? Couldn't he foresee that Jesse Perry would be a Christian before he set this universe into motion, and not change that at all? Couldn't he have made things differently or interfered a bit so that you were never born, or so that you were a strict Muslim?

This is why that warm and fuzzy "love" between God and man cannot be. He knew who would love him before he orchestrated the universe. He orchestrated it with full knowledge of what would happen and, being omnipotent, could have made it differently.

And another little thing, which I pointed out in my Oh my Heavens! writing. You said, "Therefore, if we are not allowed the possibility of refusing God, then we are not free, and love, by definition, requires freedom." Is there love in heaven? Can people in heaven choose to reject God? Are they free to do so? Is such a thing possible?

Now to answer your last three questions. I can't say whether or not man has free will unless we properly define it. Free will is usually defined in terms of God, which makes the question meaningless to me. I believe men are supremely responsible for their own actions, but that is more of a personal political persuasion. (I also think such a concept is contrary to Christianity, or at least an omniscient/omnipotent god, as my thoughts on this subject indicate.) My thought on man's decision making is best summed up by the quote I recently pasted above my free will writing:

EST VNVSQVISQVE FABER IPSAE SVAE FORTVNAE.
Every man is the artisan of his own fortune.
(Appius Claudius)

Warmest regards,

Nathan

6th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I think that our discussion on this topic hinges on two opposing presuppositions that result in our two divergent viewpoints.

If our decisions are predetermined by our composition and the environment that we are placed in, then yes, God is responsible for our actions (our refusal or acceptance of Him). The Bible clearly states that man is not determined by his makeup or environment. Therefore the Bible does not contradict itself when it states that God is not responsible for our decisions. Biblical Christianity is internally coherent; there is no contradiction within its assertions. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were created without the desire to disobey God in their makeup, however, they chose to disobey God purely of their own free will. And, to be able to obey, the possibility of disobedience must exist, so Adam and Eve were not determined by the environment God placed them in either. When arguing that God's omniscience prohibits man from having a free will, you make these two assumptions. You state that Biblical Christianity must accept that God has created "a universe with full knowledge before hand that I would eat Big Macs [in accordance with our illustration] and allow that to be", and that God intervened "in the past, creating a ripple effect that eliminated competition." The first statement claims that man's actions are determined by his makeup, and is a confusion of what must happen and will happen. You suppose that because some action was taken in the past, then that was the only possible option to choose. This is not so. If you knew what action you would have taken before time elapsed, you could have altered it. The action was not predetermined. The second claim (that man's actions are determined by his environment) lacks factual support. The Bible does not state that God manipulated the circumstances so that all options were impossible except one. In addition, the concept of the "ripple effect" does not seem logical or verifiable. Can you clarify?

One last question, and I'll close. If "every man is the artisan of his own fortune," then where specifically do his decisions form? Is his will separate and distinct from his predisposition or inclinations? Thank you again for your correspondence. I am looking forward to your reply.

In Christ, Jesse

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

I think the presuppositions here are slightly different than you let on. I (for the sake of analysis) presuppose an omniscient, omnipotent creator who occasionally intervenes and has conveyed (in part) a divine message to civilization in the form of the book. I then ask if the human-constructed doctrine of Free Will is consistent with the nature of that god. As to what the Bible says about all of this, I could care less. After all, that is where some of the doctrine comes from. I am not trying to use the Bible to disprove Free Will, I say that the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent god is contrary to Free Will, and therefore, the Bible as well. In essence, using logic in this case, either man has no free will, God is not omniscient/omnipotent, or it's all pointless because (gasp!) there is no God at all.

Adam and Eve is an excellent case, because it illustrates many of my points. God intentionally created fallible human beings (Adam and Eve), a God-defined boundary (the Fruit), and a tempting force as well, but that one is of minimal importance.

Even if we are to believe that God had no idea what would happen when all of this was set up (contrary to God's supposed omniscience), then doesn't the Almighty, the creator of all, at least have his own version of Murphy's Law? Come now! He either knew what would happen before he created the two humans, or he had know idea at all. To restate, he either created everything as he saw fit, or he is not omniscient. If Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, is is because (1) God put the fruit there, knowing they would eat it, or (2) God had know idea what they would do, meaning he does not know all.

Plus, the question has been asked but not answered. How does the "disobedience" option square with heaven?

God (presupposing existence again) does not take away all options but one, as you seem to be understanding me. This is such a wild tangent I am beginning to worry that I am not getting across at all. By the nature of things, God knows all that will happen, has intervened on occasion with that plan in full view, and set everything up from the universal constants down to every atom in the universe in the beginning with his divine plan in mind. Knowing all things, he would have known before he even made them how his atoms would move and react through all time, forming stars and the Earth, giving rise to life and eventually humans. He knew who would marry whom, and which exact sperm, out of millions, would match with each egg on down through human history. He know who would rise to power, when natural disasters would occur, when each and every person would be born, and when he would die, as well as everything else each person would ever do or think throughout every instant of his life. A slight change in the setup could change everything, but that's a side issue. He knew, if all of the preceding is true, before the beginning that I would die an unbeliever. He knew that most of the world would always be non-Christian. Those are serious implications, if the Bible is accurate.

As to the ripple effect, consider this: If I go back in time, say to 1853 Paris, and trip a random man in the street, then George W. Bush would not be President of the United States of America. He probably would have never been born. Of course, neither you nor I would have be born either. At first glance, this may seem a bit odd, but the theory is sound. The absolute minimal immediate effect is for Pierre to shake it off and proceed on his way as he normally would. But he's five seconds later than he was. His knees are a bit scarred, and his clothes are now dirty. It changes his whole day, which changes the day of others, and that ripple effect will move on outward. Maybe the only effect is that Pierre makes love to his wife five seconds later then he otherwise would. Well that would almost certainly mean slightly different paternal genes for his future son (who could well now be a daughter). Virtually any minute change ripples wide. When one man is different, he is now different than he otherwise would be to people he knows or meets, as are they, and on and on. It truly acts like a ripple. It spreads out and comes back on those previously affected, changing their destinies more. All of France is different, which changes the political landscape of Europe, which changes their people, and so on until the entire world is different. George H.W. Bush is killed in the US Navy in WWII on August 2, 1947, and his young girlfriend Barbara moves on to marry Joseph P. Pennywhether of Springfield, Mass.

In the secular view of things, each man makes decisions based on his mental capacities and previous experience. He is responsible to others for his decisions, and steers his own future. There is no conclusion already written in the divine book, and the future is wide open.

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

7th Letter:

Dear Nathan, I apologize if I am not communicating clearly. Let me quote your last letter: "I say that the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent god is contrary to Free Will, and therefore, the Bible as well." The problem here is that you yourself are defining "omniscient" to exclude the limitations that God himself has placed on His omniscience (remember the rock example that we both agreed on?). The Biblical definition of omniscience states that God limited Himself to allow man's freedom. Therefore, the Bible's definition of omniscience is not contradictory to free will, only yours is.

Again you state, "God intentionally created fallible human beings". May I ask, how could God have created infallible human beings? Infallible human beings would have been neither human nor free.

And again, "If Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, it is because"God put the fruit there, knowing they would eat it." I agree with you. God did put the fruit there, knowing they would eat it. However, that does not make him responsible for their actions. I keep stressing the difference between what must happen and what will happen because even thought I might set something before you that you consider irresistible, you still must decide to take it. You are ultimately responsible, not I. (As a side note, if I refused you access to that irresistible item, I would be controlling you, and you would not be truly free to make your own decision.)

This brings us to the question you posed about freedom in heaven. God knew man would fall, and therefore he provided redemption in Christ "before the foundation of the world"(1 Peter 1:20, Hebrews 9:26). This redemption includes a new body untainted by sin's effects and a recreated nature that does not desire sin. Before you object, remember that (1) God created man for fellowship "to love Him " not primarily to obey, and (2) in heaven, the option to disobey is still present, but the desire to disobey is eradicated because that person chose to accept Christ.

As for the ripple effect, it is a conceivably possible theory, but then so is the possibility of me winning one hundred $6,000,000 lotteries in my lifetime. But I think we would all agree that the probability of that happening is so remote as to be absurd. (Especially since I don't gamble.) :)

P.S. I hate to be a nag, but I still have questions about your position on free will. Are "mental capabilities and previous experience" the only criteria for decision making? In your view, why are we "responsible to others for his (our) decisions"?
In Christ, Jesse

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

Such ground to cover here. First off: om-'ni-scient 1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge (from Merriam Webster online dictionary). Perhaps we are not in agreement on the rock example after all. That dealt with omnipotence, not omniscience, but the example did not serve to illustrate limits on God's powers; the question itself was meaningless, and therefore unanswerable.

You seem to be indicating that your god, in order to ensure freedom, denies himself access to his own knowledge. How does he decide in advance what he will and will not know? Wouldn't he have to know all things to decide what he wants to know about and what he wants to be in the dark about? I think you're moving into ridiculous scenarios here.

I think this gets to the core of it all. Partial knowledge of things by an all-powerful being is not possible. He either knows absolutely all things, or he is shocked on a daily basis by the wacky stuff that goes on in his little experiment. (1) If he knows all things, then he necessarily set it all up with full knowledge beforehand of all that would happen. You may "choose" to be Christian, but he knew your choice before you or anything else ever was, and made things that way. Or (2), God has no clue what will happen next, meaning he is not omniscient.

Your Heaven Explanation is a true cop-out. It is merely asserted, based on nothing, in order to neatly solve the problem. On top of all that, it is illogical. If the "option" is there but there is no disobedient desire of any kind, then no one can choose to disobey. All are de facto human robots, with no choice, no free will. I thought virtue in the face of temptation was the ultimate goal of a follower, not virtue because one cannot do otherwise, or because one is prevented a priori from wanting to.

And my "tripping the Frenchman" example is not a matter of chance; it is simple, linear, logical conclusions. The chance aspect only applies to the relative future. With all the randomness of events, especially that of human procreation, its validity is indisputable. Were my example to actually occur, all things would change drastically. But the sequence of events I used only served to show how wacky it could all become. In all likelihood, George H. W. Bush and his girlfriend Barbara would not have been born either.

As to your post scriptum, I will go out on a major limb and claim that human decision making is solely a product of the mind, which is shaped by any number of things, e.g. environment, genes, personal experiences. If you are looking for an answer as to why and when we are responsible to others, I think we have drifted into a political area that I really don't want to get into. Between the two of us, we have written enough for a novella, and politics would make these letters even longer.

Nathan

8th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I apologize for the delay in this letter. Obviously the events of the past week have affected all of our lives.

First of all, I must apologize for my typos in the last letter. I intended to use "omnipotence" when I instead used "omniscience". I hope that clarifies my statements. Please reread my previous letter noting those changes.

Please explain how the rock illustration (dealing with God's omnipotence) is meaningless. I contend that it states a meaningful point; namely, that God cannot do something that contradicts a previous decision. If He decided to give man freedom, then He cannot be held responsible for man's actions. His own decision limits Himself. The idea that "God made it that way" is an invalid conclusion from the assertions "God knew what we would do" and "God created us". God did create us, and God did know what we would do, but it does not necessarily follow that he caused our behavior. It's like shooting someone, and claiming, "I wouldn't have shot him if the gun store hadn't sold me the gun!" While it is true that you could not have shot anyone if the guy at the store hadn't sold the gun to you, it was still your decision to pull the trigger, and therefore you are responsible. Even if the gun store owner knew of your intention to commit a crime, he must prevent your ability (freedom) to commit the crime in order to prevent the crime itself. While it is the duty of every citizen to report such activity, God, possessing infinite knowledge, is the only one qualified to pass judgment on which events can and cannot be allowed.

Let me clarify the heaven explanation. According to Scripture, Satan used to be an angel. From this fact, we see that there indeed is the possibility of sin in heaven. Here is the key: those who go to heaven go because they have asked God to forgive and regenerate them. They have chosen to have their desire for sin eliminated. Therefore they are not robots.

And finally, you state that chaos (Frenchman) theory is "simple, linear, logical conclusions". In fact, it is a string of "what ifs". What if you tripped a Frenchman, and what if he made love to his wife 5 seconds later, and what if a different sperm fertilized her egg, and what if that person... etc. While there are undoubtedly some key events in human history that could have resulted in drastic changes by some minor influence, the potential of the vast majority of minor changes is inconsequential. Furthermore, on human procreation, your belief of what makes a person a person is completely naturalistic, and therefore credits that person's personality traits to DNA and genes. With this assumption, it is logical to conclude that a slightly different chemical composition would make a different person. However, it is not the case that we are determined by our DNA and environment. The soul consists of a person's mind, personality, and will; it is separate and distinct from the body; and it is only influenced (i.e. temptation) by DNA and environment, it is not determined by them.

The question I asked about our responsibility to others deals with ethics, not politics. We both have other responsibilities, and I don't wish to unduly burden you, but I would very much enjoy hearing your position on ethics. Why, in your view, is man obligated to conduct himself according to any specific ethical code, and what does this ethical code consist of?



My Response:

Dear Jesse,

The question about the rock is a meaningless question because the question itself is contradictory. It might be simplified to: "Can God do something that God cannot do?" Obviously he cannot. Although the question is meaningless, one can assert an answer: NO! Can Jesse Perry do something he is completely incapable of doing? No. Is blue yellow? No. Or, for example, let's ask a contradictory question that has no answer: What type of mammal is the bullfrog? See what I mean now? There may be a semantical answer to the rock question, but the question and answer both tell us nothing and examine nothing.

If a gun store owner sold a gun to person he knew for certain was about to use it for a murder, he would be charged with criminally negligent homocide. He would also violate federal and possibly state gun laws that deal with exactly this sort of circumstance. He would be punished, and rightfully so. I've read just about every gun law on the books, from the sensible to the ludicrous (see my letter to President Bush: http://www.nathanestle.f2s.com/soul.html), and you have mistakenly walked into one of my areas of expertise.

While such a man might even be deemed equally responsible, you would would give God a free pass in an analogous situation. That's not much of a shocker to me, since we are talking about the all-knowing king of kings here. But was does surprise me throughout this whole dialogue is your complete unwillingness to hand God any responsibility, much less blame. He's got the whole wide world, in his hands...unless something nasty happens, in which case he wasn't even part of the equation. Nope, it's just us hairless apes, doing what we will with no interference, influence, or divine plans. Sounds like something I might say.

When we get to Satan, then we are just going round and round. Why, and how, would a perfect, infallible deity create such an evil beast, Lucifer, not see his betrayal coming, and then continue to allow him to exist and screw things up when God could eliminate him without so much as a thought? Besides, the concept is clearly stolen. The ancient Jews had no concept of an Evil One until they were captive in Babylon, which did have a Good vs. Evil theology. Satan does not appear in the Old Testament until the later books, after the Babylonian captivity. Before that, all good and evil was thought to come from God.

The Frenchman example is so blindingly obvious in it's veracity that I figure I might as well give up on it. If I can't get you to see that, then there really isn't much point. I'll confess that my explanation for human behavior is naturalistic. Would you really expect anything different? I'll agree that mind, personality, and will (which I consider to be part of the same thing--the mind) are what makes a person unique, and that these things are influenced, to varying degrees, by genetics. If you want to call this uniqueness a "soul", then that's fine with me. But just for my own mental exploration, let me examine something.

I say environment and genetics, two very powerful influences (environment more so), are what makes a person, and nothing else. You seem to be unsatisfied with this explanation and would like to assert something else, like some sort of divine instillment. Which would mean:

1. Everyone has the same divine instillment, which would negate its effect. If it's the same in everyone, then it doesn't determine individuality.

2. Everyone, or at least some, has a different divine instillment, or compass, or whatever. This trait, being directly of divine origin, would mean that God picks and chooses different people and guides their base natures. This would contradict your previous arguments about virtually everything.

Finally, my code of ethics is a simple one that stems from the unwritten contract of societies and populations everywhere, including the animal kingdom. It is wrong to unjustly harm or deceive another. That's it. Virtually all of our laws are based on this simple premise, and I generally oppose all of the ones that are not, including gun restrictions and drug prohibition. You see, this gets political real fast. I subscribe to the base concepts of the republic government theory: majority rule with individual rights. I do not believe in divine origin for these things (especially since God is said to favor monarchies), but I find them to be sound models for a productive society.

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

9th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Judging from our previous correspondence, it seems that we cover the same ground repeatedly, so I tried to identify exactly where we were not connecting.

I believe that the problem lies in the method that has been used to examine Biblical Theism. In order for ANY world view to be true (including atheism), it must meet two logical criteria. It must first be internally coherent. A world view that makes assertions which contradict each other cannot possibly be true. Second, the world view that is true must correspond to reality. It must present evidence that supports its claims. It must be admitted that the Bible does not contradict itself philosophically, and therefore is internally coherent. It is impossible to disprove the Bible by appealing to determinism. The Bible does NOT claim determinism. Free will also corresponds to reality. It can be demonstrated by the fact that we possess self-awareness. Every time we say "I", we prove that we have a free will. Free will can also be demonstrated by observing those who overcome the influences of their environment and physical limitations to accomplish extraordinary things simply because they decided to do it.

There is a fundamental error in the basic argument that the existence of evil proves that God does not exist. Let's summarize it:

There is evil and suffering in the world.

If there were a God, he would have done something about it.

Nothing has been done about it (it still exists).

Therefore, there is no God.

#2 makes a major error in assuming that it is possible for God to remove evil from the world AND allow us to make our own decisions regarding our actions (as you have already admitted, "God cannot do something that God cannot do"). If God removed evil from the world, He must also remove our free will to decide to commit evil, and that would be self-defeating.

#3 makes an error because it is a deduction in itself and lacks inductive support. It basically asserts that 'if God existed, He would do things my way.'

The fact is, God has done something about evil and suffering, without eliminating our free will. He Himself suffered the consequence of all evil and suffering for us on the cross.

Suffering results from two causes:

Evil- one person's actions to harm another

Decay- disease, pain that results from imperfection in the purpose and structure of living organisms that resulted from the fall (by the way, to clarify a point made in one of my previous letters, the Bible states that God has only partially removed his control from the universe. God still intervenes when men ask Him, and to prevent the total collapse of creation.)

Jesus provided a remedy for both of these on the cross. His payment for our sin provides our forgiveness, and by being regenerated, we can choose to obey his commands. When we obey, suffering that results from our evil actions is eliminated. God will eliminate decay by remaking the physical bodies of believers in a perfect state (the resurrection).

Nathan, you obviously have a thorough knowledge of most major religions (as you have stated), but I have noticed a lack of knowledge of the Bible itself. All of these things are clearly taught in the Bible.

Justification for atheism requires more than simply saying, "if that kind of God exists, then I'm not going to acknowledge him." That position leaves open the possibility that God does exist, even though an individual might not wish for him to exist. Atheism shares the burden of proof with all other world views. Atheism cannot be accepted by default simply because one eliminates all other worldviews- that would lead to agnosticism.

I hope that this letter clarifies some of the ambiguities that seem to be apparent in my previous letters. I would like to ask you another question: in your view, what is the meaning of life? For what purpose does man exist? Thanks for your time, Jesse

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

My site is based on the notion that Christianity and the Bible are internally incoherent. It is true that the Bible does not claim determinism, which is exactly what makes it contradictory. But let's not get back on Free Will again.

I don't much like proofs, but I would like to modify your Argument from Evil. (No need for straw-men.)

Assertions:
1. There is evil, bad things, needless suffering, etc.
2. A deity, called "God" is master of all things, i.e. knows all.
3. This deity is capable of anything, i.e. all-powerful.
4. Said deity created all that is.
5. God answers to no one, and does what he wants, according to his plan, his nature, etc.
Conclusions:
6. By (1) and (4) God created evil.
7. By (1) and (2) and (4) God made the universe with full knowledge of the evil to occur.
8. By (3) God has the power to eliminate it, but by (1) he has not.
9. By (4) and (5) and (6) and (7) and (8) God made the universe and evil, knowing exactly what would happen because he wanted to, and evil continues to exist because God wants it to.

This is a crude proof, but it is far more representative of atheist thought than yours is (naturally). And I know of no atheist proof that concludes with "God does not exist" or anything similar (except as a demonstration of a bad proof).

And, while I would acknowledge any god I thought was real, I would not, emotionally, want to believe that the deity delineated above actually exists. And he wouldn't get my praise, that's for sure.

Finally, atheism, literally, is a lack of a belief in a deity. I am an atheist. All agnostics are atheists. All "negative" or "weak" atheists are agnostics.

I'm in a bit of a transitional period about whether or not I am a "strong" or "weak" atheist, but I have always considered myself an agnostic as well. "Atheist" better describes my thoughts on the subject, though.

Sincerely,

Nathan

10th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I'm sorry that I have taken so long to reply. I have given a lot of thought to your last letter and I would like to ask some questions. Please bear with me and respond to each question, if you would.

First I'll start with a key point that illustrates that Biblical Theism is not internally incoherent (in this instance, in the area of the existence of evil/man's free will).

The definition of omnipotent (according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) is "having virtually unlimited authority or influence" (please note assertion #3 in your proof). A key distinction must be made in defining "omnipotent". Omnipotence is the ability to control everything, not the act of controlling everything. If one possesses omnipotence, one may choose what one will and will not control. Ability does not imply activity. God is able to control everything, but that doesn't mean that He does control everything (although God does control some things). In addition, there are some things that omnipotence cannot do (it can not contradict itself). In making a decision, God limits Himself. God has chosen to give man a free will, therefore God cannot also control man's will. (In addition, our will can be influenced by our environment and genetic makeup, but we still have the freedom to act against those influences. Neither environment nor genetics forces our wills.)

The question I have is this (in two parts); assuming that God exists, and we can demonstrate our free will, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that God created us with a free will? (Note: The factual basis of these claims is not in dispute at this point. I am merely asking if they are coherent.) If God decided to create us with a free will, then could God decide to control our will also? Obviously not. This shows that even though God is omnipotent, He can't contradict His own decision.

My second question deals with the conclusion of your proof. You state "I know of no atheist proof that concludes with 'God does not exist' or anything similar". If that is so, what does your proof conclude with?

My third and final question deals with your ideological identity. I am not trying to pigeon-hole you, I just want to understand your position better. Webster's dictionary defines an atheist as "one who denies the existence of God". In other words, one who positively asserts God's non-existence. An agnostic is "one who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable". According to these definitions, which title would you call yourself?

Thanks for your time.

In Christ, Jesse

My Response:

Dear Jesse,

Please forgive the lateness of my reply. I have been very busy. I will try to completely answer your questions.

If we could somehow establish that God exists, I personally don't think you would be able to show that free will exists. Were I a theist, I would be a determinist, because with an omniscient (forget omnipotent, that's irrelevant) creator free will could not exist. I know you are only offering a hypothetical, but I still consider it logically impossible. Nonsense.

My proof concluded with the four things listed under the "Conclusions" section. It could not have concluded with any existence resolution, especially since the positive existence of "God" was one of the assertions. The proof only served to show that under very basic Judeo-Christian theory, God made evil and allows it to exist because he wanted to. Forget all the man/separation from perfection (i.e. God) theology. When you get down to brass tacks, that's all a bunch of garbage. It doesn't fit with the bare basics.

The dictionary definition of "atheist" tends to rub a lot of atheists the wrong way, and I am no different. Why? It simultaneously goes to far and falls short. First, the word "deny", if we mean "to claim to be false or untrue", is not really accurate of most atheist thought. "To think something is false, untrue" would work better. I might actually fit the first, but that's beside the point. Second, it says "the existence of God" which does not go far enough. Two-thirds of the world doesn't believe in the existence of "God", but atheists also don't believe in Allah, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Juno, ad infinitum.

The definition, most likely written by Christians, must reflect the common public usage of the word. So, quite frankly, I surprised the "official" Webster's definition is not "spawn of the Hellbeast." If I were to write it, to reflect how atheists themselves think and to reflect the etymology of the word, I would say "one who does not hold a belief in any gods or goddesses" or a close variation.

And as I said, I consider myself an agnostic and an atheist.

Nathan
Venture to second Feedback page.
Return to first Feedback page.
Return to main page.