Recently, the Institute received an email from a concerned Christian. His name was Dylan. In the email was the transcription of a video on YouTube. Rather than link to the boring and tedious video, I’ll paste the transcript:

“God declares in the Holy Bible that his priests will daily prepare his food and drink for his consumption. The feeding of God begins at Mount Sinai with the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood. As is quite clear from the prophet Ezekiel God is to be fed by his priests for all of eternity upon the return from Exile.

Why does God “need” to consume food and drink? This question is never asked in the Bible. The purpose of food and drink is to sustain mortal life. Mortals will die if they have nothing to eat and drink, but a God presented as being immortal shouldn’t “need” food and drink daily to survive. The answer to this “mystery” is surprising: Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees in Mesopotamia and in this region it was believed in myths that the god had made man to care for their city-gardens in the Edin of Sumer and present them daily in sacrifices at temples the harvested food for the gods to dine upon.

But wait a minute you say, aren’t the gods immortal? They shouldn’t need to eat in order to stay alive, should they? Wrong! The early myths have the gods possessing bodies of flesh, they can be killed and wind up after death in Edin-the Underworld. While alive in the Edin of Sumer, they need to eat to keep their fleshly bodies alive. Hence the reason they created their gardens of Edin and placed in them fruit trees, vegetables, and grain for bread.

Later, tiring of the work in caring for their gardens they create man. Man will care for their gardens and raise animals to be slaughtered and fed to the gods like fowl, sheep, and cattle. The Hebrews never question “why” their God, Yahweh-Elohim, had to be fed a meal twice a day, they just accepted the Mesopotamian (Sumerian) not that one of man’s duties was to feed the gods.

Christians understand that after their deaths the resurrected righteous will dwell with God in Eden and eat and drink once again. According to Christian belief the resurrected righteous will be given eternal life, they will be immortal like God. If they are immortal why should they need to eat and drink? This makes no sense and is but another example of religious nonsense!

The Christian notion that after death, man will eat and drink once again is not a new concept. The Mesopotamians understood that after death the dead, good and evil, who dwelt in Edin-the-Underworld would continue to eat and drink (eat clay and drink muddy water in the underworld). Ezekiel describes in great detail the feeding of God in the post Exilic Messianic Age at the Temple (Ez 37:21-26; 44:7, 15).”

Of course, I completely disagree with the conclusions drawn in the video. Before I go into detail, here are a few obvious flaws:

1) Let’s suppose that, at mount Sinai, Moses really did command Israel to feed their god, Yahweh (which he did not). If Yahweh was in fact a Sumerian deity borrowed by Abraham, how on earth would Moses, hundreds of years later, have known what a Sumerian deity needs? Abraham certainly hadn’t seen a need to feed his god; Why now suddenly with Moses? Besides that, hadn’t Israel just left Egypt? It seems more likely that Yahweh would mimic the Egyptian gods rather than the gods of Ancient Ur.

2) Yes, the Mesopotamians believed that the dead, like the gods, did need to eat and drink. Thus offerings of food were ritually given to the dead (i.e. hungry ghost festival). Is the Christian concept of eating at the marriage supper of the lamb on the new earth really a parallel with this concept? Apparently not:

“Never again will they hunger;  never again will they thirst” – Rev 7:16a

Right away, the arguments collapse. Aside from the obvious fallacies (like the “genetic” fallacy used here) and the vaguely similar comparisons (mentioned above), there is an overarching narrative: That Yahweh, despite the changes from Ur to Egypt, is still a borrowed Sumerian deity. In the longer explanation following, I’ll make my case against this.

I’ll begin by summarizing the arguments in the video:

1) Yahweh, beginning at Mount Sinai, demanded to be fed.
2) The ancient gods and goddesses of Ur, as their stories tell us, also needed to be fed.
3) The gods of ancient Ur need to be fed because they had physical bodies to maintain.
4) Therefore the ancient version of Yahweh needed to be fed because he also had a physical body.

The unstated final conclusion is that Yahweh, the god of Israel, was merely an idol from ancient Sumeria.

This line of reasoning is similar to how Christians argue against the god of Islam:

Allah, the Muslim “god”, was originally the god of Muhammad’s tribe. Allah was the moon god (thus the symbol) and was part of a nearly countless pantheon of deities worshiped in the Arabian peninsula. After his military victory over Mecca, Muhammad destroyed all the other idols, leaving only the god of his tribe.

In a similar way, people imagine Abraham, as an idol worshiper along with his father, becoming deluded into believing that one of the idols was speaking to him. I can completely understand why someone would try and compare the two, especially a skeptic.

However, in order to make this line or argumentation work, one must assume that the biblical account of ancient history is totally wrong. In fact, one must reject Abraham’s account of ancient history altogether. Instead, the patriarch was merely an idol worshiper (Jos 24:2) passing on stories and legends he’d heard in Ur. For example: the Biblical flood account was spawned from Sumerian story of Atrahas.  On the other hand, if stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Atrahas and the Biblical account had a common source (actual history) then Abraham’s account could be accurate.

So here is where we return to the Bible, a proven, reliable source of historical information. According to the Bible, Noah’s son Shem outlived (or nearly outlived) Abraham. He survived both the flood and the tower of Babel. Considering how fragmented the knowledge of the ancient world must have become after Babel, it’s not surprising that myth filled in the gaps. From thunder gods to gods of the spring rain, deities arose like weeds in the spiritual knowledge gap. That said, in the memories of a few very aged men, the one true god (Elohim) was not entirely forgotten. Considering their life spans, Abraham (and anyone else for that matter) could have spoken with Shem (or earlier, Noah) directly and obtained an accurate account of the ancient world first hand.

As an example of why this is a much more plausible scenario than Abraham borrowing from legendary accounts: compare the unrealistic flood legend in the Epic of Gilgamesh (tablet XI) or story of Atuahas with the much more scientifically sound and spiritually consistent Biblical account. In the Epic, the gods become capriciously angry with man and flood the earth; Utnapishtim survives the deluge in a giant cube. Strangely, he brought gold along. Was he expected to buy something afterward? In the story of Atuahas, man is destroyed because he is just too noisy (seriously?). On the other hand, the Biblical account has Elohim condemning a world full of violence, ruled by wicked men; Noah, his family and representatives of the created animal kinds survive the flood in a giant, unsinkable barge. Considering a pre-christian era flood story survives in many cultures world-wide, I’ll let you decide if this was a local legend or a real event and which version is more plausible.

The point I’m making is this: If the knowledge of Elohim predates Sumeria and its many gods, He could not have been a Sumerian idol that Abraham heard speak. One must assume that Elohim does not predate Sumeria and deny Biblical history (flood, Babel) for the rest of the video’s argument to make any sense.

That said, why did Yehwah “demand” sacrifices and offerings? In ancient Ur, idols were served meals fit for a king with music and incense; The food afterward being given to the priests and the king. The idols needed daily food, like humans, to survive. Was is because Yahweh was hungry that He demanded offerings? Did Yahweh “eat” the offerings?

Hebrews 9:22 says it best, “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.” From the beginning (Cain and Abel), a sacrifice of an animal’s life was required to cover sins. Leviticus makes this clear:

“He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.” – Leviticus 1:4

“It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD” – Leviticus 1:9b

What about the offerings? Wasn’t grain offered to the Lord as well?

“Bring the grain offering made of these things to the LORD; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar. He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire … Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings” – Leviticus 2:8-10, 13

Apparently, the burning of the offerings created a “sweet aroma” for the Lord. It also showed their subjection to their god, offering first to Him before taking for themselves. That said, He didn’t seem interested in eating at all. Apparently, the sacrifice was intended to cover sins (as it was in the beginning) and to feed the priests serving Him.

This explains the elaborate system of washing, boiling and burning. God wanted the best parts and first fruits to be offered as a reminder to Israel that Yahweh was their king; In this way, he also supplied the best food for His priests and Levitical servants (not Himself). Unlike the Sumerian deities, Yahweh has never claimed to exist in a physical body (think: Moses seeing Yahweh at mount Sinai). He has always been a non-physical deity (rejecting idols completely).

That said, from the very first sentence the author makes obviously untrue assumptions like: “God declares in the Holy Bible that his priests will daily prepare his food and drink for his consumption.” This is nowhere stated in the Bible. Here we have a clear assumption that burning on the altar as a pleasing aroma is equivalent to eating.

Take this next section as another example:

“Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees in Mesopotamia and in this region it was believed in myths that the god had made man to care for their city-gardens in the Edin of Sumer and present them daily in sacrifices at temples the harvested food for the gods to dine upon.”

Ancient Ur has been excavated. A temple to the god “Enki” was found. On the walls are stories roughly similar to Biblical accounts (creation, first man, the flood, babel, etc). The question is: did the Sumerians recast real history into stories attributed to Enki or did Abraham recast the unrealistic and often conflicting Sumerian legends to a realistic (and scientifically probably) story attributed to Yahweh? If Biblical history is real, then it was the Sumerians who, through either ignorance or purpose, altered the stories.

One must assume that Biblical history is not true in order to come to the conclusion that Abraham borrowed legends from the ancient Sumerians; This in turn proves that the Bible’s history (and Yahweh) are both false. However, you can’t assume the fact you’re trying to prove before you even begin your argument. That is called, “begging the question” and leads to storytelling.

In fact, that is all this video is: Storytelling. The author is attempting to offer an alternative explanation for the origins of Yahweh by comparing Yahweh with the ancient gods of Ur. He is not offering any rebuttal for the accuracy of the Biblical account or why it is so much more realistic than the accounts of Enki and Gligamesh. If the Biblical account of history is true, the author’s arguments are meaningless, since it was the Sumerians who legendized real history. If the Biblical account of history is false, then the arguments are still only educated assumptions and storytelling.

I’ll leave it to you to decide which is more plausible: Biblical history (proven again and again by archaeology) or Sumerian myths. Abraham did get his history from somewhere, but it wasn’t the false gods of Ur.

Originally posted by IBD Vice President Matt Coombe on mjcoombe.com

I recently received this email and thought it would profit more than the sender. Here is the email in its entirety:

“I have a very intriguing question and no one has ever given a satisfactory answer. Will you please? Are you born by own will? Not certainly. I am a Muslim because I have been born among Muslims and those who have been born among Christians, Jews, and Hindus etc. become what ever teachings and knowledge they get from their parents, teachers or society.

It is a common belief among Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus that only members of their sect will be rewarded by God and people of other religions will go to hell. When a person does not have any control on birth and adopts religion where he has been born by God, why God will punish or reward on the basis of religion?

Kindly guide me. Thanks.”

This is a great question. In a world where post modern thought has pervaded every level, this question is an excellent example of the conflict between post modernism and traditional theism. According to post modernists, all truth is relative and subjective. One culture has their truth and another has an equally valid truth that is true for them. This question approaches the same subject: If each person adopts the “truth” of their culture, why does God condemn one and not another? Wasn’t it God who caused them to be born there?

We are, after all, not born of our own will. Can we control the environment we’re born into? Are we supposed to somehow see beyond the culture we were raised in; The culture that compels us to act, live and think in certain ways? How can a Muslim, Hindu or Christian be condemned by God when they are only acting in accordance with their own environment? It all seems so unfair.

For example, some environmentalists hate the loss of even a single tree, yet is the Beaver condemned by God for destroying a stand of trees to make its home? Does the Raven stand in judgment for feeding on the robins’ young? Should the Lion feel guilt because he has feasted on a fawn? Of course not, in these examples each animal is acting in accordance with their nature. The beaver in his beaver nature, raven in raven and lion in lion. Are humans any different?

Let’s suppose that you knew absolutely nothing about me. If you looked at my house, saw my clothes and peered in the windows of my car,  you could discover alot about me just from the outside; Police do it all the time. You could see the DVD’s I own and determine what type of movies I like. You could see my small and fairly modest library and probably draw some firm conclusions about what I believe. And each new thing you learned would reveal a little more about me; At the same time, the culture I come from would also be revealed, since I am, after all, a product of it.

That said, the question remains: Is man defined by his environment and merely a product of it, or do humans, unlike animals, posses the ability to make decisions despite their culture? I believe it is the latter. The culture I was born into had a definite Christian slant. The Christian religion was always nearby to influence my decisions, thoughts and actions. Does this mean that the only possible choice for me was a Christian one? Of course not. Differing from the raven or lion who act on instinct, in accordance with their nature, I can choose to shun my own culture and turn against it. It happens all the time.

However, if the premise of the question is true, then being born into a culture that follows one particular religion will always lead to the children following that same religion. As a result, those who follow the religion of their culture can not be condemned; They had no real ability to choose anything else. God placed them there and thus their fate was determined.

Nonsense! Take the acorn for example. Depending on the environment, an acorn has two options: It will either rot away or grow into an oak tree. Certainly the tree may be a different size or shape than the ones around it, but there is no doubt, no wavering, an acorn that grows will always produce an oak tree. If for whatever reason the acorn does not produce an oak, it is not considered normal. That is how an acorn works.

Is a human an acorn? If he is left to grow in the same environment, will he produce the same results every time? If the premise of the question is true, namely that each person born into a religion, then they have no option other than to embrace that religion. This leads to at least two conclusions:

1. Man is like an acorn . Despite any intervening situations, he will become what his environment demands.
2. If the first premise is true, then there can be no counter examples. A counter example would be a person who is born into a religion and, for whatever reason, did not embrace that religion.

In the case of the email’s author, consider Muhammad. Was he merely a product of his environment? Did he blindly follow the religion of his father and those before him? What about Jesus? Was he not mocked and beaten because the religious leaders of his day thought he was acting contradictory to the religion of his father? And these are just two examples. There are many counter examples to the premise.  A human need not always become merely the product of his environment.

Even in my own experience, I can think of people born into atheist homes who became Christians, Christians that became atheists, Muslims who became Christian and Christians who became Mormon. Humans are inherently religious. Humans also have a tendency to fall in line with their own culture, becoming indoctrinated at the earliest of ages. Many have never known any other culture. That said, at any time, any man can make any decision; This is called Free Will.

So, although a man is born into a culture and is indoctrinated thoroughly, it is the duty of all men to seek the truth. The ability to reason and to know is one of the greatest gifts given to man. So although God does place each man into a culture, He also gives every man the ability to examine, reason and to think for himself. Man is free to embrace or to reject his environment and culture.

In my case, if the culture a man is born into denies the God of Biblical Christianity, then that environment and culture should be rejected. Of course, some cultures make this is much harder to do than others. As a man who has studied the pertinent historical and biblical accounts, and spent years seeking the truth, I believe I’ve found it.

It is my prayer, then, that all people seek the truth and make it their goal, for then they will understand the words of Christ who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but through me.”

In the last installment of his Nature of Reality series, IBD Vice President Matt Coombe looks to summarize and build upon the last 4 weeks of study. Here he looks at truth vs reality and comes to common sense conclusions many of us know instinctively but could never vocalize. More than that, he looks what is and what isn’t certain about reality and how that impacts what we can know.

Roll up your sleeves. IBD Vice President Matt Coombe presents the long-awaited “Truth” segment of the Nature of Reality Series. He looks at what truth is, how much can we know and what parts we can be certain of. Facts and truths are compared; How can you tell the difference? Is there a difference? It’s a little shorter than the others but no less interesting and informative.

In the third installment of his “Reality” series, IBD Vice President Matt Coombe looks at two major assumptions of reality. Each in turn yet in relation: Empiricism and differing personal realities.

First, empiricism, the idea that only what we can detect with our physical senses is real, is placed in its proper context. Next, the concept that realities can differ on a personal level is shown as a false claim. These two claim are more related than you think.

Listen to find out:

Originally posted by IBD Vice President Matt Coombe on mjcoombe.com

Excerpt of email received from Stephen F Roberts:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Throughout the last few months I have come across this quotation, or a variation of it, several times; I would like to respond to it here. Usually this quotation is accompanied by a laundry list of assorted Mythological gods that both Christians and atheists agree don’t exist. These include: pagan spirit beings, Norse, Greek and Roman gods, mythological demi-gods and modern non-christian deities. I completely agree with the list … until the very end; Apparently, the “one less” that stands between me and pure atheism is “Yahweh.”

Zeus on ancient Pottery

At first, this atheist quotation seems like a powerful case against the existence of any deity. Especially when partnered with a list of make believe gods, goddesses and spirit beings. Seeing this human penchant for creating false gods, the argument seems like a powerful case against theism. Afterall, we Christians do readily dismiss the existence of Thor, Apollo, Shiva, and a myriad of other contrived beings. Yet at the same time, Christians are willing to devote their lives to one specific deity. This creates the obvious question: With all the make-believe deities in the world, what makes Yahweh so special?

When I come across people who say: “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” In response, rather than making a plea to faith, I begin with the evidence. I dismiss the plethora of non-Christian deities because none of them have solid evidence for their existence. On the other hand, there is historical, personal, ontological, teleological, cosmological, and axiological evidence that is extended to Yahweh and Yahweh alone; No other deity or spirit being can make such a claim.

The God of Christianity is the only being that meets each and every area of evidence I just listed. So, Mr. Roberts, I cannot dismiss Yahweh for the same reasons I dismiss other so-called gods; The evidence is far too compelling in favor of God’s existence. Yahweh truly is, as the Bible says, the King of Kings and LORD of LORDS. He is the only being worthy of worship.

In the first part of this response, I mentioned a few of the arguments atheists use to discredit theists; For the most part, their contentions lack evidence and their convictions are just as religious as any Sunday morning Christian. We are not fooled.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, let’s ask the question the article brings up: Did the scientists  indeed create life in the laboratory;  Was this a precursor to artificial intelligence? I know this may seem surprising, considering the way the article words it, but the answer to both of these questions is no.

First of all, the idea of a true AI has already been demonstrated to be untenable. John Searle demonstrates this with his famous thought experiment: Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese. He’s locked in a room full of boxes. Each is covered with Chinese symbols (a data base of sorts). At his disposal is a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (a program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols, which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (input). Now imagine that by following the instructions in the program, the man in the room is able to arrange and pass out Chinese symbols which happen to be correct answers to the questions sent in (the output). The program does enable the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese. However, he still doesn’t understand a word of Chinese.

Searle goes on to explain that the man in the room is similar to a computer. While computers can process information at an incredible rate, they don’t have the capacity to think about what they process. True “Artificial life” shouldn’t just produce inputs and outputs. In order for it to be what most consider real, it must have independent thoughts about those inputs and outputs; Or more precisely, this AI must participate in a function found only in humans: the use of second order mental states.

Second order mental states are essentially thoughts about thoughts; It would be impossible for a machine to do this. A machine can evaluate evidence and determine probabilities concerning various outcomes. That, however, is hardly a second order mental state. Now, in time, machines, androids, or some other type of AI could become so anthropomorphized that they are barely distinguishable from humans. Once again, this is not a true artificial intelligence, but rather the result of very clever and careful programming.

Back to the article. While there are some very intriguing uses for the molecular science mentioned in the article, this is in no way creating life. Essentially, this is more like the photocopying of a cell. In a nutshell, the process includes: Taking existing DNA, sequencing it, rebuilding and programing it, and  placing the DNA into an existing live cell and watching it grow. It isn’t anything new and it only acts according to how it was programmed. Now, it’s not my intention to diminish this fascinating work, but in no way does this article describe creating life; After all the hype is stripped, it merely describes how scientists can rearrange existing life.

Originally posted by IBD Vice President Matt Coombe on mjcoombe.com

I recently read about this article on an atheist forum. It is provocatively titled: “Scientists create life. We are God.” I’m not sure if their intention was to mock theists or to disprove God (or both). Either way, I have every intention of dismantling not only the title but the evidence presented in the article as well. Before I can do that, however, we need to understand where these arguments come from. We should first take a look at current trends in atheist argumentation.

There are many trends in atheist thought today. That said, there appear to be two getting the most media attention. These are the incoherent claim: “Look at this amazing scientific breakthrough! God surely does not exist!” and the ever popular: “Look at these religious cooks! They’re part of some obscure cult! It’s obvious that all religious people are mentally deficient … and God surely does not exist.”

The first argument, the science disproves God claim, is usually spouted by atheists without any thought given to the actual evidence; I’m convinced most don’t even realize they’re using the argument. It forces me to respond with comments like: “Why is this subject being discussed under the guise of atheism?” Of course, I usually await atheist responses in vain.

As for the article (linked above), my response was: “Why is this article being discussed on an atheist forum?” Not that atheists aren’t free to discuss whatever they wish; Don’t get me wrong. I was just wondering why such an obviously religious article, as its title makes clear, is so popular among a group that abhors religion … unless, of course, they are engaging in the religious practice of apologetics.

At times it seems like atheists are similar to those “religious” people who claim to see miracles everywhere (i.e. “I found my car keys, it’s a miracle!”).  In the same way, an atheist claims: “Science did something really cool, therefore God does not exist!’” It’s beyond the scope of this essay to argue this point further, but science and theism are in no way fundamentally contradictory.

As for the second popular argument, where religious people are viewed as deficient, I always tell my students: “If you want to refute something, you must refute it at its best. If you had the choice to refute a ‘moral’ atheist who loves his wife, provides for his family, and gives to the poor, or refute an atheist who is a murdering rapist, we should choose to refute the better example of atheism.” When I first ask my students which of the two we should  refute, they usually miss the mark (atleast at first) and assert the immoral atheist should be refuted. But I remind the student, Christianity can measure up to and overcome any other worldview at its best; After all, the most superior being in all of existence should bestow a superior worldview or lifestyle.

Atheists like to point out pedophile priests or suicide bombers, but such claims are informal fallacies, stemming from (but not limited to): The “red herring”, “poisoning the well”, and “straw man” arguments; None address the fundamental evidence for theism. Atheists (and at times Christians too) think that if they were to sink another’s boat it would entail that their own boat is floating. But this is not the case. Poking holes in the Christian worldview will in no way seal the holes of atheism (or vice versa). While lifestyle or actions should play somewhat of a role in determining the relative superiority of a worldview, the debate should come down to evidence. Who is more justified in believing what they believe?

It seems at best strange for an atheist to make the assertion, “We are God.” As people that openly voice their hated of religion, they certainly do seem to make alot of religious claims. For example, I hear atheists refer to their conversion to atheism or make large, sweeping metaphysical pronouncements. Despite the very similar terminology and subject matter, atheists still vehemently maintain: “Atheism is no religion.” Really?

I recently read a popular atheist argument that goes like this: “Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Okay, I understand the statement. However, I disagree; Atheism is more than merely a lack of participation. Consider the example presented and imagine it this way: Atheism is like a man confronting a stamp collector and saying, “Why do you collect stamps? That’s a child’s hobby! Who even collects stamps, anyways?” As soon as someone is willing to fight for a belief, whether in a verbal or physical way, the belief begins to enter into the realm of religion.

In fact, whatever belief is most important to a person, if it shapes their worldview and guides their actions, that belief is for all practical purposes their religion. It isn’t just having a belief in one or many supernatural beings that necessitates a religion; In fact, many traditional Buddhists are atheists. Buddha himself was an agnostic; To him, the existence of God wasn’t even an important question. Even so, who would claim that devout monks, spending hours in meditation each day while secluded in cloistered monasteries are not religious people? Clearly, atheists can be highly religious people.

However, are all atheists religious? Maybe it’s just the vocal minority. Maybe it’s not. Many people aren’t aware of this, but the original humanist manifesto clearly referred to secular humanism as a religion. Mankind’s salvation would be found through reason and technology. Since the atheists making the “We are God” claims are obviously secular humanists, it appears that they are denying the very definition of their own beliefs. As Ravi Zacharias once said, “It’s not me you have a problem with. It’s reality.”

So even if an atheist isn’t an activist, they still espouse a religious worldview. As Dr. Fernandes has questioned, “If the statement, ‘There is a God’ is a religious statement, then why is the statement, ‘There is no God’ not a religious statement?” Well said. After all,  aren’t both statements making judgments about the same metaphysical truth?

Anyways, since I spent so much space on tangents here, I’ll have respond the article tomorrow.

After a month-long hiatus to care for his new baby daughter, your friendly Webmaster has returned to duty. Many thanks to the Institute staff for their patience while I endured both the sleepless nights and endless diaper changes. It is truly amazing how the miracle of life, given from the Lord, changes your perspective on everything; The only thing of yours that will follow you into eternity are your own children. I pray that, through His power, I will raise my children the knowledge and fear of the Lord.

That said, during my time off, IBD Vice President Matt Coombe has been a busy man. He has finished the “Nature of Reality” series. In the latest upload, part 2, Mr. Coombe starts with the basics of reality and moves to the two philosophies behind modern Christian thought.

He starts with this statement: “Where do we begin: Truth or Reality?” Can we use truth to determine reality or does reality determine truth? Through this examination of the search itself, Matt examines the philosophy of famous doubter Renee Descartes and the earliest philosophies of Aristotle and Plato.

You should begin to see the foundation of Christian and solid philosophical thought as you listen.

The Institute of Biblical Defense, by popular demand, is bringing back the “Certificate Program“. After several requests, Dr. Fernandes, Matt Coombe and the rest of the IBD staff are ready to mentor new students. Already exceedingly popular with pastors worldwide, these courses are usually taken as supplements to existing degrees (i.e. A pastor desperately in need of apologetics training for his congregation). However, all that is about to change.

Are you a student looking for the philosophical background for the doctrine you believe? Are you a pastor confronted to defend his faith in an atheist world? Are you a lay teacher wondering why you believe what you believe and where the beliefs came from? If you’re any of these are just someone seriously seeking the truth, these courses are for you.

Very, very affordable, each course includes a certificate from the Institute and, best of all, personal mentoring by a member of the IBD staff. The qualifications are a sincere faith, a desire to truly know the truth and a solid  to learn.