is a graduate student in Christian Apologetics at Biola University . His interests include philosophy of religion; particularly the existence of God, astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.

With the exception of his taste in novels, we appear to share similar interests, but the one that I wish to discuss here today approaches his thoughts on the philosophy of religion. In particular, his post on ' The morality of God: Christ at the centre '.

As an introduction to counter-apologetics for beginners, his argument in this post serves as a shining example of the weakness of the great many Christian apologists that litter the Interwebz.

So let's take a quick look at his argument.





The man premise of his argument is that "

so-called New Atheists (who bring nothing new to the table). They accuse the God of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) of being an evil, sadistic being (to put it nicely). They defame God’s name and delight in calling Him unjust."

He continues, "

In all of this, however, they betray their complete lack of knowledge about Scripture, God, and the universe."

To the meat;

1) [Atheists] forget that if God does indeed exist, then they are in no position to judge God 2) [Atheists] ignore Christology, which is of utmost importance in any discussion of God

Just before outlining his argument, Wartick proffers, "In the first place, those who attack God’s morality seem to be forgetting a rather obvious point: if God exists, then we are certainly in no position whatsoever to judge whether God is moral or not".





This is an important statement that should be borne in mind throughout this post.





Now Wartick provides us with the following argument;

P1. If the God of classical theism exists, then He is sovereign (i.e. the ultimate authority in the universe) P2. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the God of classical theism exists C. Therefore, God is the ultimate authority in the universe.

Question: Can you see any problems with this argument?





Answer: Well, yes. But why?





For the purposes of this counter, I shall defer to the excellent Debunking Christianity website, on this occasion an article written by ' A is for Atheist '. (Wartick's words are

Times fonted

, A is for Atheist is in

blue

and I shall add notes in my normal text.)

I will call this argument the "Wartick Might Makes Right Argument," or the "WMMRA."

Wartick also claimed that:

"Now those who raise this objection somehow think that they are capable of judging the actions of the ultimate authority in the universe. This is not only irrational, but it is an ultimate show of egoism and haughtiness. There is no such thing as a good argument for humans being able to judge the Supreme Being, if such a Being exists."

According to Wartick, if God exists, then we are not able to judge God.

Assume what Wartick stated is true:

"If God does indeed exist, then humans are in no position to judge God and there is no such thing as a good argument for humans being able to judge the Supreme Being, if such a Being exists."

If we are in no position to judge God, then NO ONE, INCLUDING WARTICK, can know that Christology is of utmost importance in any discussion of God. This shows that Wartick has no justification for P2.

Worst yet, throughout the article, Wartick expounds on what he knows about God which requires judgements about God!

Wartick states:

"Here we have a perfect example of the truth of God’s Word: “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.” Romans 8:6-8. Indeed, when man is in sin, he is hostile to God. He doesn’t simply misunderstand or misinterpret God, but he is hostile to God."

For Wartick to claim, "Here we have a perfect example of the truth of God’s Word," requires that he has made a judgement about God, for how else does he know we have a perfect example of the truth of God's word, when he is in no position to judge God at all? If he is in no position to judge God, then he is in no position to judge the word of God! He is therefore, in no position to judge the truth or falsity of God's words, or even if the words came from a God at all! Based on Wartick's statements above, he is in no position to judge whether anyone misunderstands or misinterprets God, or whether anyone is hostile to God.

Wartick's claim that, "If the God of classical theism exists, then He is sovereign (i.e. the ultimate authority in the universe)" is also ruled out because to say God is sovereign requires the judgement, that, well, God is sovereign-- when Wartick claims that we are not in a position to judge God!

Wartick also claims that, "Christ is to be understood as the interpretive principle for all of Scripture. Every verse should be understood in light of Christ, who is to be at the center of all theology." Now, what Wartick claims about Christ requires several judgements about God. One judgement is that God has made Jesus interpretive principle for all of Scripture and the center of all theology. The majority of Jews however, have judged of God that he NEVER made Jesus interpretive principle for all of Scripture and the center of all theology. (And the OT is first and foremost a religious text written by, and for, the Jews.) According to Wartick, if humans are in no position to judge God, then no one, including Wartick, can judge that Jesus is the interpretive principle for all of Scripture and the center of all theology.

According to WMMRA, since God is the ultimate authority in the universe, then it is God who judges what is right and wrong--not us.

Consider this analogy. The head of Ford is the ultimate authority over Ford. He judges that the Ford Pinto is a good car even though he knows that the gas tank is susceptible to catching on fire from low speed rear end collisions. He also knows that this will lead to a significant number of deaths, but judges that the loss of life is more cost effective than doing a call back and installing rubber bladders in a Pinto fuel tanks. Well now, this must be right for Ford, because the ultimate authority over Ford judges this to be right. Well, it turns out that it was not right for Ford--they lost money! Ah, I sense an objection coming. That's because the head of Ford is the head of Ford and not the head of the U.S., or the universe. But if he was, then it would be right that so many people, most of which were children, burned to death in the back of Ford Pintos because the ultimate authority said it was right. How absurd! Also, in this case we would have no standard for claiming God is right, or that God is good.

The statement that God is 'good' is a meaningless tautology when we consider that the only reason God is 'good', is because that is how Christian apologists define 'good'. It is a circular argument that tells us nothing about the nature of what it means to be 'good' beyond that is what God is, and if this is how you define God's nature, a quick look at the OT will confirm that God is clearly anything but 'good' as we understand it today.

For a full breakdown on the bankruptcy of Christian morality, I heartily recommend checking out TheoreticalBullshit's Youtube video, 'Treatise on morality' at the end of this post.

At any rate, remember that Wartick is in no position to judge that God is the ultimate authority in the universe, nor is he in a position to judge God's judgement of what is right and wrong.--worse yet, he has no way of even judging that it is God's judgement, or Moses' judgement, or Manu's judgement, and so on!

Below, I have paraphrased Wartick's argument to prove how silly it is, and how it begs the question, for if it does not, then below, I have proved Brahma is god, and Christology and Christianity is false!

Wartick's paraphrased argument:

Let's assume that the Hindu conception of god is right. Now, given the Hindu conception of god, we KNOW and therefore have proved that Christology and the Christian conception of god is false! See how that goes. Since humans, including Wartick, are not in a position to judge Brahma, then Christians, in particular Wartick, betray their complete lack of knowledge about the Upanishads/Bhagavad Gita, Brahma, and the universe.

I believe that there are (among many others) two primary ways that Christians are in error when they attack Brahma in such a way. These two ways are:

1) They forget that if Brahma does indeed exist, then they are in no position to judge Brahma.

2) They ignore the Upanishads/Bhagavad Gita-ology, which is of utmost importance in any discussion of Brahma.

LOL

Furthermore, In the first place, those who attack Brahma's morality seem to be forgetting a rather obvious point: if Brahma exists, then we are certainly in no position whatsoever to judge whether Brahma is moral or not.

Let us assume for a moment that Brahma of classical Hinduism exists (i.e. omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent/necessary/sovereign/etc.). If this God exists, then it seems blatantly obvious that it is Brahma who judges what is right and wrong, not us. It’s honestly baffling that anyone could miss this point, but I’ll try to make it more clear.

1. If Brahma of classical Hinduism exists, then He is sovereign (i.e. the ultimate authority in the universe)

2. Assume for the sake of argument, that the Brahma of classical Hinduism exists

3. Therefore, Brahma is the ultimate authority in the universe.

Before I had read the entire post, I was mulling over my own version of this counter. Instead of Brahma, I inserted the half used onion sitting in the top drawer of my refrigerator. A is for Atheist's use of Brahma - whilst perfectly valid - does not, I feel, convey the absurdity of Wartick's argument. My own perspective on it, though, has the benefit of being evidentially catalogued.

You may be tempted towards scepticism regarding the actual location of this half-onion deity - after all, you only have my own personal revelation that the half onion deity exists in my refrigerator - but is it reasonable to suggest that anyone who may be in my neighbourhood would doubt the evidence if they were to visit the shrine that is my refrigerator and witness the remarkable 'goodness' of the half-onion deity for themselves?

Now, those who raise this objection somehow think that they are capable of judging the actions of Brahma, the ultimate authority in the universe. This is not only irrational, but it is an ultimate show of egoism and haughtiness. There is no such thing as a good argument for humans being able to judge Brahma, the Supreme Being, if such a Being exists.



For someone that has studied Christian apologetics, one has to wonder what grades he received.



