Alisa Childers I Blog

Do Atheists Steal From God to Make Their Case? With Frank Turek — The Alisa Childers Podcast #22

6/1/2018

Subscribe: iTunes | RSS

What is it like to visit college campuses and field questions from an audience who is hostile to your Christianity? What are the toughest questions asked on university campuses? How do atheists steal from God to make their case against Him? We talk about all this and more with today's guest, Frank Turek.

If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to have my weekly blogs and podcasts delivered directly to your inbox.

25 Comments

Ben link

6/1/2018 02:13:21 pm

I'm not sure if Turek is a presuppositionalist, but some of the arguments he trots out are all pretty typical of presuppositionalism. The flaws in those arguments are, of course, fairly well-known. For instance, Turek conflates objective and relative morality when he accuses moral relativists of having no moral standard. They *do* have a moral standard---only it's not objectively determined, according to them. To say otherwise is sorta like saying that if I point out the rules of chess are subjectively determined then I'm denying that chess has any rules!

Alisa Childers

6/1/2018 02:44:24 pm

Hi Ben. Frank is definitely not a presuppositionalist. I don't believe he is denying that atheists have moral standards....in fact, most atheists are quite opinionated when it comes to what they think is right and wrong. (Dawkins has no problem accusing the God of the Bible of being morally repugnant.) However, they fail to successfully defend the *objective* standard by which they claim something to be moral or immoral. Defining something as good or evil is not the same as defending why that something is good or evil. An "is" does not equal an "ought."

Ben link

6/1/2018 03:33:49 pm

Alisa Childers,

Thank you for the response.

I wonder, would you call the rules of chess objective? For instance, if I checkmate your king, is it objectively true that I won the game? Or is it merely my subjective opinion that I won?

The reason I ask is that I think the word "objective" only obfuscates rather than clarifies, in these situations. Using analogies can sometimes help illuminate what exactly the apologist has in mind, which is rarely clear in my experience.

Alisa Childers

6/1/2018 03:52:42 pm

The word "objective" is clarifying and important because it means that the standard is outside of personal opinion or feeling. It's a fact that is independent of the person uttering it. (Like 2+2=4....it's true whether or not someone believes it to be true.) This is what is meant by "objective morality." This isn't just something apologists came up with...philosophers have debated objective vs. subjective morality ad nauseam.

Dan Jensen link

6/1/2018 05:07:55 pm

Hey Ben. Most presuppositionalists do not even use theistic proofs and when they do like Frame, they usually only do so in a highly secondary manner. The fact that Turek so strongly advocates the moral proof for the existence of God should have right there tipped you off that he is not a presuppositionalist. My guess is that based on a very superficial reading of both presuppositionalists and Turek you came to your conclusion because presuppositionalists rightly make the point that all other worldviews knowingly or unknowingly borrow from the Christian worldview because the foundations of that worldview are basic to our humanity. I am not a presuppositionalist and so I do agree that there are some philosophical problems with their approach. However, a lot of what they say is correct. They are correct to point out the fact that all knowledge is based upon first principles of knowledge that are foundational and self-proving and cannot be proven by means outside of those very principles. I as a proponent of classical apologetics believe that we should still assert these first principles and argue from there. I believe that a failure to do this results in circular argumentation and thus my rejection of presuppositionalism. But I also have to admit that at the end of the day a lot of people will simply dismiss those first principles and there isn't a lot we can do about that and on that front the presuppositionalist is on strong ground because at that point all we can do is point to the contradictions in the worldviews of others, which is the primary way that presuppositionalists argue from the outset. A lot of people believe that the two approaches are wildly at variance with each other, but that isn't really the case for those who have read deeply from both camps. The differences are primarily about starting point and I believe that the classical position is stronger on that front.

And the argument, as Alisa makes clear in her replies to you, is not that relativists have no moral standard, it is that they have no absolute moral standard and therefore their standard is arbitrary. And in a sense, they do have an absolute moral standard and that is that there is no absolute moral standard and that it is wrong to ever try to impose an absolute moral standard onto others, but that in the most inconsistent manner imaginable becomes an absolute moral standard in itself, thus showing that they cannot themselves escape the inherent human knowledge that an absolute moral standard is inescapable and thus the charge that they are stealing or borrowing from the Christian worldview, which they most certainly are and both presuppositionalists and classical proponents would heartily agree on that.

I brought up the moral argument with you on my website and you chose not to deal with it, but were evasive as usual.

Ben link

6/1/2018 05:39:52 pm

Again, words like "objective" or "absolute" I find more obfuscating than clarifying. Suffice it to say that atheists can and do make valid moral judgments. What kind of standards they use, and where those standards come from, are difficult questions, to echo David Silverman from his debate with Turek. But I've never seen any good argument to show that a moral standard must have its origin in God. In fact, I've never seen any good explanation of how God's nature could (as Turek alleges in the Silverman debate) constitute a moral standard at all, whether objective or otherwise.

Alisa Childers

6/1/2018 06:24:10 pm

You wrote, "Atheists can and do make valid moral judgments." My questions is, by what standard can you justify whether or not a moral judgment is "valid"?

Ben link

6/1/2018 06:44:40 pm

Alisa,

I don't claim to know the origin or exact content of the moral standard(s) we use, nor even if there are any such hard and fast standards as we find, for instance, in chess. As I said, such questions are very difficult.

What I *can* tell you is that theistic explanations for morality don't wash. Turek would have us believe that there exists something called the "nature" of God, and this somehow provides a moral standard. But how exactly this is supposed to work, he leaves unexplained. It certainly cannot be that God's nature *constitutes* a moral standard, as one has nothing to do with the other. (It would be as if I claimed this apple pie I just baked constitutes a moral standard. You would rightly express consternation at how to make sense of an apple pie grounding morality!)

Alisa Childers

6/1/2018 07:13:01 pm

Thanks Ben, but that wasn't my question. Respectfully, I'd truly like to know what, in your mind, makes a moral act "valid" or invalid.

Ben

6/2/2018 09:31:06 am

Alisa,

Sorry for not being clear before; the reason I didn't answer your question is that I don't know the answer! That's what I meant when I said that I don't claim to know the origin or exact content of the moral standard(s) we use.

I think it's better to be humble and admit we don't always know the answer to difficult metaethical questions than to pretend we do. It often seems like Turek and others don't want to accept that.

Alisa Childers

6/2/2018 11:02:49 am

Thanks for your honesty, Ben. Again, I wasn't asking about the origin or exact content of the moral standards we *use.* I am asking what makes those moral judgments valid or invalid. Was Hitler making a valid moral judgment to kill Jews? Why or why not?

Ben

6/2/2018 11:35:13 am

Well, I guess when I said that atheists can and do make "valid" moral judgments, I meant that the judgments have some force or pull in their context. And yes, Hitler's moral judgments certainly had that.

Alisa Childers

6/2/2018 04:03:16 pm

Interesting that you had to change the definition of the word in order to avoid answering the question again. I have to move on with my day so I’ll just end with this. If you can’t condemn Hitler’s actions as objectively evil, surely you can understand why so many people find this to be an incoherent, and intellectually unsatisfying view of morality. I thank God that MLK Jr. did not have that worldview. He said, “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.“ He understood that morality is objective… measured against standard of perfection..... not rooted in the subjective opinions of people and legal systems. You can’t know what a crooked stick looks like unless you have some idea of a perfectly straight one.

Ben

6/2/2018 05:49:16 pm

A.C.,

I don't know that I changed any definitions. But thank you for your responses, and enjoy your day.

Ben link

6/2/2018 08:46:43 pm

Alisa Childers,

After some reflection, I'd like to expand on my previous answers. I could sense your frustration at my unwillingness to tackle some of these issues. Just let me assure you, it's not because I'm trying to be evasive. Rather, I'm just very unsure about metaethics, and I don't want to say something that might not be true. (Also, I don't want to look silly by saying something ignorant!)

So, here are some initial thoughts on how to deal with competing moral standards. Just please understand, they are very tentatively held, and I don't have much justification for them beyond that they just seem right to me.

When someone like Hitler has a competing moral judgment or value which is at odds with our modern sensibilities, there are various possibilities for reconciling them. It could be that Hitler just doesn't understand that Jews are people too, and so if only it were possible to convince him of this then he would bring his moral judgment into alignment with ours. But that seems unlikely. Probably, he understands that they are people but holds to an in-group sort of moral focus, where he is free to trample on the well-being of the out-group. So, when we find his judgments so repugnant, how do we talk about that in terms of standards? Well, it seems to me that we just have a very different moral standard than Hitler. And this drives me to a kind of moral relativism, where I have to admit that there is no factual resolution to disagreements between the moral standards themselves.

Ben link

6/1/2018 04:36:08 pm

The rules of chess stand regardless of personal opinion, too, but they're still just human inventions.

Dan Jensen link

6/1/2018 06:12:44 pm

But that's just it Ben, the rules of chess are most certainly not universally binding. I often play games with my kids and we change up the rules and there is nothing immoral about that. You can say that if we were to do that with chess we wouldn't actually be playing chess, but that would not be so. There is no one universal way to play chess. The way chess is played in professional tournaments is very different than the way your average father and son play chess together. You can say but within the professional tournaments there are hard and fast rules. Yes, but again, these are still not universally binding. No one is forcing the leaders of these tournaments to make these rules, there is no objective universal outside standard of chess that they are trying to adhere to. They make up the rules as they see fit. And no one is forcing anyone to play in these tournaments either.

Things are very, very different when it comes to such things as murder and rape. People are universally obligated to avoid such things and this obligation is most certainly not a human invention as is the case with chess and its various rules. And so the question is where does this universal moral code come from? If you say that it comes from anything other than absolute perfection then this code is not actually absolute, it could be wrong and therefore would not be binding. Therefore, absolute perfection must exist. And if absolute perfection is not love then it is most certainly not absolutely perfect. Therefore, absolute perfection must be love. For love to exist, there must be a mind to love and there must be a subject-object distinction otherwise we would have a completely selfish love on our hands. If the object of this perfect being's love is outside of itself then it is dependent on this outside entity and is therefore not perfect in itself. Therefore, there must be subject-object distinctions within this perfect being itself.

Only a few religions assert such a thing and all of them are in some way dependent upon the Bible. However, all of these religions other than biblical Christianity state that the Bible is basically true but then blatantly contradict it at one or more places. Hence, they are proven incorrect. Only biblical Christianity remains standing and is thus proven to be the one true faith, religion, philosophy, worldview, whatever you want to call it. The Bible calls this perfectly Triune being (the subject-object distinctions within God) God and therefore God exists, biblical Christianity is true, and atheism falls flat.

Dan Jensen link

6/1/2018 07:39:41 pm

Before I say anything, I do want to say that even though I know I get pumped up sometime, you are overall a pretty cool guy Ben. Many atheists I have debated with on blogs can get just downright nasty and are often laced with profanity. You were very frustrating at times on my website, but you were always respectful. Please know that nothing I say is personal, I am simply brimming with passion regarding these issues.

With all that said, first, words such as "objectivity" and "absolute" have nothing to do with obfuscation. Almost everything you say Ben presupposes these concepts. The concept of objectivity is very simple. It means knowledge independent of the knower. The concept of subjectivity is also very simple. It means knowledge dependent on the knower. I go over all of this very carefully in my book if you would like a fuller discussion. When I say that the 49ers are my favorite football team because I'm from the Bay Area I'm not lying, this is a truth. But it is a subjective truth because no one outside of me can confirm this truth with absolute certainty. But if my credit card is in the drawer, that is an objective truth. Not only is this true as is the case with the Niners being my favorite team, but it is a truth that can be confirmed by others outside of myself by looking in the drawer. Many make the mistake of thinking that objective truths are only those that physically exist outside of us in some sense, but this is a mistaken notion. The laws of logic are objective truths even though they only exist in our minds. But we all know that they are true and we all know that everyone else knows this as well, thus making them objective even though they do not exist physically outside of us. But they are not dependent upon any one person and therefore they are not subjective.

The term absolute when it comes to morality is also very simple. There are things that only apply by convention, such as the rules of chess, and such rules are therefore relative. But there are things that universally apply to all people at all times and therefore such rules are absolute.

When you discuss the debate between Turek and Silverman or use apple pie in your arguments you are in every way, shape, and form presupposing objectivity as you are clearly saying that this debate actually happened as a matter of fact and can be referenced and you are also saying that we all know that apple pie exists and has certain properties. So when you try to avoid the concept of objectivity it is you who are obfuscating.

When you point to alleged flaws in arguments you are clearly presupposing an absolute moral ethic. You are saying that people should not use flawed arguments and are therefore operating according to the notion that avoiding the use of flawed arguments is a universal moral law. So again, when you try to avoid the concept of absolute moral principles it is you who are obfuscating.

Dan Jensen link

6/1/2018 07:51:56 pm

Ben, Turek and countless others down through the history of the church have indeed given painstakingly detailed explanations as to why the nature of God is the only explanation for universal absolute morality and they not only wash, they again are the only viable explanation available.

Your comparison to apple pie is way, way off the mark. You are correct that simply saying something has a nature in no way implies it can constitute a universal moral standard. But that is because the natures of all things other than God are imperfect. God's nature constitutes the absolute moral standard because God is His attributes and those attributes are entirely perfect. God is love, He is righteousness, He is holiness, He is goodness, He is justice, He is mercy, etc. There is no standard that exists above and beyond Him that He must adhere to as that would imply imperfection in Him and something above Him and we should at that point seek that something as God rather than Him, which would be absurd. This most certainly cannot be said for the nature of apple pie or anything else.

The fact that you or Silverman or any other atheist has absolutely no answer for where our moral standard comes from only thoroughly proves our point. And simply saying these are just hard questions and tough issues is just an evasion, plain and simple.

Ben

6/2/2018 10:43:13 am

Dan,

It's just incoherent to say that God is identical to his attributes.

Also, I would ask you the same question I asked Miss Childers: if I checkmate your king, is it merely my opinion that I have won the chess game? Or have I really won, regardless of opinion?

Dan Jensen link

6/2/2018 01:30:16 pm

Ben, with the utmost respect, you so often confuse categories that it is honestly very hard to even keep up with all of your confusion sometimes. Yes, if we both agree upon the rules of the version of chess we are playing and you checkmate my king you have won the chess game, that would be an objective fact. But what is subjective and relative are the initial rules of the game themselves. A person or persons made up those rules and not according to any larger absolute standard and the reasons why this person or persons chose these particular rules were subjective reasons. The reasons why the two of us are choosing to play this game of chess and according to the version of the rules that we are agreeing upon would also all be subjective reasons.

We could even change the rules if we wanted and call it a different game where you have to checkmate the queen and even change up the way the various pieces work. But all such rules would not be according to any absolute objective standard outside of ourselves. Once we agree to follow these rules, if you checkmate my queen then it would be an objective fact that according to the rules we have agreed upon with this new game that you would have won. The key point is that the rules of chess are not binding upon anyone. People can use them, change them, or completely discard them. But the same is not true with morality. To say that it is, is to completely betray the constant mantra of atheists that they are also moral people. I agree that many atheists, like my brother, are indeed extremely moral people, but only because they hold to an absolute moral standard that is categorically different than the non-binding rules of chess. Stick to the actual issues instead of always engaging in muddled thinking.

And there is nothing incoherent about the simplicity of God whatsoever. You constantly throw out assertions without ever offering the slightest scintilla of defense. Not only is the simplicity of God coherent, as stated earlier, it is the only coherent option because if things such as love, justice, truth, holiness, righteousness, goodness, mercy, etc. exist as abstractions outside of the perfect being then this perfect being is not in fact perfect and we must seek higher perfection in one of these abstractions. But love, for example, on its own cannot be absolutely perfect as an abstraction because without omnipotence it is powerless to actually love perfectly. This is why all of these attributes can only exist in an absolute sense in one absolutely perfect being. And as stated, if this perfect being does not exist then we have no grounds for morality as you have so eloquently admitted. To simply say that you just don't know and point to mystery, is again, just evasive. You are correct that there are all sorts of things we simply just don't know and that must be left to mystery in philosophy. But this just isn't one of them. It is a very simple philosophical principle: if the ultimate moral standard is not itself absolutely perfect then it is not binding upon us. If this were true then to whatever extent we think moral principles are absolute it is just an illusion, simply our minds and instincts deceiving us, from a current secular atheistic perspective probably just a remnant from our evolution. But if this is the case then neither the government or any other entity has the right to impose sanctions on any human behavior precisely because there would be no grounds for doing so. This is of course absurd. So an appeal to mystery doesn't work. Mystery is simply where we say we don't know and not where we use the principle to defend the utterly irrational.

And why according to you is the simplicity of God incoherent? Give me clear specifics.

Ben

6/2/2018 02:58:20 pm

Dan,

I'm glad you agree that a person can *really* win a game of chess, independent of opinion, even though the rule of chess are subjective.

As for the simplicity of God being incoherent, this is widely known and has a number of obvious and absurd consequences, such as abstracta being endowed with causal powers, or such as two attributes like mercifulness and angriness being identical.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it quite bluntly: "The very notion of an ontologically simple being will be dismissed by many as self-evidently incoherent."

Dan Jensen link

6/2/2018 06:01:38 pm

Ben, I am genuinely in my heart of heart not trying to be mean or overly hard on you, but you really are an extremely evasive person in debate, often engaging in equivocation and just plain slippery intellectual dishonesty. I am not even sure if Alisa will even post this because of such a sharp critique, but those things need to be said and I hope she does.

You make a glib statement regarding our chess back and forth, something you started out as being so confident in, but you utterly avoid the actual issue that Alisa and I have been trying so hard to pin you down on, namely how can you as an atheist consistently maintain any sense of morality from a philosophical standpoint. You just bob and weave, but don't ever strike.

And your quote from the SEP is absolutely downright dishonest. The quote comes from the first sentence of the sub-section dealing with the question as to whether or not the doctrine of divine simplicity is coherent and it is simply saying that the doctrine upon first blush is counterintuitive. It is in no way embracing this sentiment as you imply. It goes on to discuss the objections of Plantinga, which are notably weak and have been thoroughly answered by classical Christian theists. The article itself goes on to acknowledge this although it in no way advocates the doctrine as that is not the purpose of the SEP, it is not a theological work, it is not even really philosophical, it is simply a summary of the history of philosophy in an encyclopedic fashion.

I've been going back and forth with you for a few months now and this sort of thing has become quite typical of you. You often just assert things or give snippet answers without ever giving a fully orbed answer to much of anything. You say things like, "this is widely known" all the time. But what you mean is that atheists widely believe such and such. So what? I could easily say that it is widely known that atheists have no answer for the moral proof for God's existence, which while true, does not prove a thing for anyone reading these comments because it would just be a bare assertion. I have to defend this and I have done so and you have provided absolutely nothing approaching a substantive answer. Alisa has asked you a number of very clear and pointed questions and you cannot answer them, but again just evade, evade, evade.

The abstracta objection does not follow. It is true that the abstracta never have causal power in imperfect objects, but that is precisely the point, God is not an imperfect object. The abstracta are not abstracta in God, they are concrete attributes of His being. Omniscience is not an abstracta the way knowledge is in the created world. God does not have knowledge, He is knowledge and infinite knowledge at that. God is a personal being and as such all of His attributes have infinite power because they are all one in His personal being. There is nothing incoherent or philosophically absurd about this, but leads logically from the fact of an absolutely perfect being precisely because if God was not one with His attributes then these attributes would indeed be abstracta and would then exist outside of Him and above and beyond Him and would therefore render Him imperfect, which would be an absurdity in light of the moral argument that you repeatedly fail to answer.

As far as the alleged contradictions between these attributes, this also does not follow but is based on a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine itself. First of all, "angriness" is not the proper term as that term implies an emotion that can come and go and therefore cannot be predicated of God. The proper term is "wrath." This term is badly misunderstood. It does not mean God is angry in a human sense, although the Bible often describes Him this way anthropomorphically, but these descriptions are just that, anthropomorphic. It means that God is entirely committed to the eradication of sin. His holiness and justice demand that sin can never be condoned and His wrath therefore must see that His justice and holiness are fulfilled and that sin is entirely eradicated from His creation. And this attribute properly understood is in no way antithetical with God's mercy, but is entirely one with it. God can show mercy without spurning His justice. God's justice always demands that sin be recognized and sentenced for what it is, but justice does not demand that it always be given its full punishment. God can therefore often lessen a punishment. However, justice can never be completely wiped out by mercy, this would be patently unjust. And this is precisely why the atonement is so necessary in order for God to completely wipe out the punishment for His people. All of God's attributes work together and are ultimately one. God's love is an omnipotent love, it is an omniscient love, it is a just love, it is a holy love, etc., and this is precisely what makes it a divine love, it is perfect love and is not an abstraction, but is an absolute attribute of God.

Ben

6/2/2018 08:08:14 pm

Dan,

I've been trying to keep my responses to you fairly short for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you are persistently condescending, rude, and downright insulting. I mean, you have to be aware of this---you weren't even sure if Miss Childers would approve your last post. But for some reason you think it's acceptable behavior. And then as if that weren't bad enough, you regularly accuse me of being dishonest. You also have a bad habit of misrepresenting me. It all gets very tiresome.

But anyway, I try not to complain. I'm only mentioning it now to explain to you and others who might be reading why it is that I have kept some of my responses to you so short.

As for divine simplicity, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the SEP article. To say that it is incoherent is not to say that it is merely counter-intuitive. Plenty of counter-intuitive things can be (and are!) the case, but nothing that is incoherent could ever be true. It's worth noting that probably the most brilliant Christian philosopher of our day, Alvin Plantinga, rejects divine simplicity for its incoherence. But frankly, it doesn't take a brilliant mind like Plantinga's to see that the doctrine is hopelessly confused.

As for justice, we've talked before and if I recall correctly I've already explained why it doesn't make sense in the context of God. But honestly, that's just an irrelevant sidetrack. Whatever attributes you want to assign to God, the doctrine of divine simplicity makes mockery of them by equating them all.

Dan Jensen link

6/2/2018 09:14:14 pm

Ben, if I have ever been truly condescending, rude, or insulting I genuinely apologize. I would be the first to admit that I let my passion get the best of me sometimes. On that note, this will be my last response to you regarding this particular post and I will gladly give you the last round as far as this battle between us goes.

But it really is hard for me with you sometimes. You came off pretty rude and condescending towards Alisa when I first encountered you when you were critiquing her defense of PSA. And it was all the more frustrating as so many of your criticisms were based on such shallow knowledge, something I thoroughly demonstrated whether you want to admit that or not. And you were often very rude and condescending towards the beliefs of myself and my regular readers on my website, often saying things like you just don't have time for invisible spirits and talking animals and comparing our beliefs to the beliefs in aliens and leprechauns, which were rude, condescending, and evasive, again whether you want to see that or not. And you were quite rude and insulting towards McDowell and again based on a clear lack of knowledge regarding the subject. You often come off as very arrogant and yet it is always very clear you rarely really have any grasp of the issues you are critiquing, making my responses often very sharp and I believe for good reason.

And your responses to Alisa are often very short and dismissive as well, are you doing so for the same reasons? You can accuse me of being too firm sometimes and I will grant the point, but you would have a much harder case with her. Maybe it's not us who are the problem Ben.

And your response to my comments on the SEP article are again very typical of your twisting of the facts. I am well aware of the fact that to say something is incoherent is not in any way the same thing as saying something is counterintuitive. Please, please stop constantly misrepresenting things, it gets so frustrating. I was saying the reason the article made that quote is because the doctrine can seem that way at first blush because it is counterintuitive. You keep implying that the article is accusing the doctrine of being incoherent, but it does not such thing, anyone can go and read it and see how blatantly misleading you are being.

As for Plantinga, I don't consider him to be the most brilliant Christian philosopher of our day by a long shot. He is so popular, especially amongst non-Christians, precisely because he often argues in a way they find acceptable because he is so often willing to contradict traditional Christian doctrines. But he is often terribly weak in his arguments and he is so on this one. Geisler does an excellent job in his systematic theology of making it clear how Plantinga isn't even accurately representing the historic doctrine in his critique. I'll stick with Aquinas over Plantinga any day.

And you again never ever give specifics in your accusations but simply appeal to others. You say that the doctrine is hopelessly confused and point to Plantinga, but that's it. But that is a blatant use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, a fallacy you utilize constantly. That isn't me being rude, condescending, or insulting, that is just a fact and I just pointed to yet another example of it. Make it clear how the doctrine is hopelessly confused.

And no you never ever gave anything coming remotely close to explaining away the justice of God on this website or my website. You usually just evaded arguments by making silly statements about invisible spirits, talking animals, aliens, and leprechauns, and how you are so above it all. These are not arguments that are worthy of someone who runs a counter-apologetics website, certainly not if he wants to be taken seriously.

And there is no mockery at all. God has only one ultimate attribute and that is the attribute of absolute perfection. But for us to break down this attribute in our finite minds we have to discuss what in the created world are finite, imperfect, shadowy, abstracta that resemble this one attribute looked at from different angles. But as stated earlier, perfect love cannot be perfect love unless it is an omnipotent love otherwise this love is powerless to fully express itself. Omnipotence would be an imperfection if it were not also an infinitely good omnipotence because it could then be abused. In the ultimately perfect being all of the perfect attributes of God must be one for these reasons and this is eminently reasonable and really is the only plausible explanation philosophically and nothing Plantinga or anyone else says to the contrary negates that.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Do Atheists Steal From God to Make Their Case? With Frank Turek — The Alisa Childers Podcast #22

Leave a Reply.