Hitchens Challenge

Christopher Hitchens’ challenge:  ““Name me an ethical (moral) statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”

Answer:  A non-believer can neither make an ethical statement nor perform any ethical action.

Rational:  First let’s try to get our heads around some working definitions.  Since Christopher is secular, then we will go with secular sources for the key definitions.  We will take ethical to mean - of or relating to moral (concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character) principles.

Now, let’s suppose that non-believer Chris wants to do something ethical.  The first thing he needs to do is determine some wrong or bad behavior.  Let’s suppose that Chris decides that in general lying is wrong or bad.  Chris then states: “Lying is wrong or bad.”  Chris goes for 100 days and states only the truth.  On the 101^st day a situation comes up that Chris did not think about before where he determines that lying in this case is the right thing to do.  Chris modifies his ethics and now lies only in the cases where he determines lying is not bad.  This will quickly become confusing for Chris and others to follow but let’s say we can all live with this as ethical behavior; Chris’s set of principles are just complicated but he manages to live by them for another 200 days.  On the 301^st day a situation comes up where Chris is tempted to lie, let’s say for personal gain or convenience.  Now, Chris knows this is wrong.  He has had someone lie to him before because it was convenient for them and Chris did not like that one little bit; yes, it is wrong by Chris’s standards and Chris is fully aware of it.  However, there is so much personal gain or convenience at stake for Chris that he does it; he lies.  Most would say, yeah ok, Chris messed up but he is still ethical, or, more to Christopher’s point, Chris has stated and done ethical things in the past.

Wait just a minute.  This one act erodes all of the efforts Chris has made in the past and all of the efforts Chris will make in the future with respect to telling the truth.  It uncovers the true basis of his schema.  Chris does not tell the truth because lying is wrong or bad; Chris tells the truth when it is convenient and lies when it is convenient.  That is all Chris has ever done that is all he, by himself, will ever do.  Chris has not lived the past 300 days by his ethic of lying is bad.  Lying, to Chris, is only bad in theory.  In practice, it can be very convenient.

You might be now ready to beg that Chris does have an ethic:  Inconvenience is bad.  I caution you.  For if so, you have come to the description of human character summed up in Romans 3.  You might be comforted at this point by the fact that believers, of their own strength and will can neither make an ethical statement nor perform an ethical action.  We all have the same problem.  The solution?  There is one; Jesus.  John 15: 5 – 8.  So, the believer can make ethical statements and perform ethical acts by the power of the Holy Spirit in him or her.  The non-believer, at best, can only do what is convenient.

Entitlements: Parental Unit Smith and CEO Jones

Parental Unit Smith lives in the US and works at a department store and makes minimum wage getting an average of 39 hours per week and will continue there in this capacity for the foreseeable future.  This breaks out to less than $15,000 a year.  Parental Unit Smith lives in a single income home where there are two young children.  This money can’t cover the basic requirements of the household (food, shelter, transportation, healthcare).

CEO Jones lives in the US and is the Chief Executive Officer for a large reputable corporation.  CEO Jones has amassed a personal wealth that would last ten people ten lifetimes.  CEO Jones earns $10,000,000 per year.

Question:  Is Parental Unit Smith “entitled” to some of CEO Jones’ money?  We are not talking about CEO Jones giving Parental Unit Smith money out of the goodness of CEO’s heart.  We are not talking about what a good and moral society ought to do.  We are asking, “Does Parental Unit Smith have a “right” to some of CEO Jones’ money regardless of what CEO thinks and regardless of what society ought to do?  If so, how much and why?  Why isn’t CEO Jones entitled to the money?

Is it because a Smith entitlement “promotes the general welfare” of the country and a Jones entitlement does not?  I can see that a Smith entitlement might put the required basics in the hands of Smith’s family.  I can also see that a Jones entitlement might create a better job for Smith and so put the required basics in the hands of Smith’s family.  What can you see?

Best Default Position on God

Out of the gate, one must take one of three positions with respect to the existence of God.  1) Non-belief – God does not exist.  2) Ignorance – God may or may not exist.  3) Apathy – God’s existence or lack thereof is irrelevant.  4) Belief – God exists.  The most reasonable/logical default position is number 4.

Terms:

God – the supernatural being or entity (all powerful; all knowing; eternal; everywhere always present) who created, sustains, and cares for the universe.

God Dichotomy – it is either the case that the one God exists or no such God exists.

Preface:

We will examine each of the four possible defaults and their implications under each case in the God Dichotomy.  One may say: “Ignorance is the obvious default as a baby could never have been told of God and therefore must start at (2).”  We would answer: “Who told the baby to breath or be afraid of a load noise?”

Suppose that God does not exist.  In this case, (1) would be the correct position.  They would have spent their lives on earth free from all the oppressive demands of an imaginary deity.  If some pool of lesser gods exists, they may or may not have had a better chance of communing with them, but, I think not, as their default seems more inclined to ignore such a pool.  As for group (2), again, individuals may have found a ‘better’ path, but, the group as a whole is clueless to any supernatural goings on and therefore no better or worse off than (1).  Group (3) also turns out to have been just as well off as (1).  God was irrelevant and the group was free to do as they saw fit all along, as expected.  As for group (4), what a bunch of saps, right?  They wasted so much of their time praying to, talking to, and living for their imaginary friend.  They could have been having much more fun having it their way and, in this case, are to be most pitied.  However, you can’t really make a claim that they are any worse prepared for whatever may or may not follow death.  After all, in the end, their karma or mojo or whatever you call it will be based on what they decided was right here on earth just like the members of the other groups.  So it was based on what was written in some book; that can’t be said of the other groups?  No, in this case, whatever happens after death will be unaffected by which of the four defaults you took.

Suppose that God does exist.  In this case, (1) is problematic.  If God wants you to find Him, then you will not because you won’t even look.  If God wants to reveal Himself, the standard of proof will be set by you, the one who does not believe.  This is not the best set up for success.  If you are in this situation, then you better hope God forces His standard of proof on your hard heart.  Otherwise, if he has consequences for your disbelief, then you will be sorry.  Group (2) is slightly better off.  If God exists as defined, then it is most likely you will be informed of it at some point.  At this point, having no predisposition against, you will be more inclined to accept the truth of God.  Group (3) is likely the worst off in this case.  These hardy souls are entrenched in their own self-sufficiency.  The cost that God’s existence exacts on their paradigm is enormous; catastrophic to their ego.  It is surly easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than to move a soul from (3).  Group (4) is in the zone.  They are to God as kids are to their parents when the parent arrives home.  They are not a shoe-in however.  Believing God exists and knowing the one true living God are two different things.  The demons also believe and tremble.  But, of the four defaults, in this case, (4) is far superior because there must be advantage to knowing this God.  And, you can’t know Him without believing that He exists.  And if you believe by default he exists, then you have already cleared the three difficult hurdles of stubbornness, stupidity, and self-righteousness.  The only one left is submission to the one true living God – Jesus Christ – as your LORD and savior.

Therefore, number (4) is the most reasonable/logical default position.  If you are wrong the penalty is small.  If you are right the reward is close at hand.  None of the other three can make this claim.

Unpack of Humanist Manifesto III

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

Humanist Manifesto III (HM3): WARNING #1 – The opening statement could not be any more offensive to the God of the Bible than it is already.  The phrase “without supernaturalism” clearly defines any god as, worse than non-existent, completely irrelevant (see Romans 1 for Biblical consequences).  What is more, it is incongruent with the empirical data.  No human has ever accomplished the set of feats described.
 

“The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience— encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.”

HM3: WARNING #2 – The water is starting to get deep here.  For example, suppose, being subject to change, the present value of reason is greatly diminished and the ideal of compassion is severely eroded.  The lifestance of Humanism is then washed away by its own decree.  In other words, you can’t have it both ways.  If you want relativism, then you can’t have any secure place to hang your hat.  You can’t take a stance at all, and as the adage goes .. you will fall for anything.

“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.  Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.”

HM3: WARNING #3 – I point out here that:  “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” – Proverbs 1: 7
 

“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.”

 

HM3: WARNING #4 – Most manifestos come to a place where logic breaks down completely.  It must be part of the curriculum in Manifesto Writing 101.  We have come to that place in HM3.  Does the humanist know everything?  By their own manifesto; the answer is NO.  Does the humanist know half of everything?  I would guess they would say NO.  Let’s assume the humanist knows half of everything.  Is it possible that God is in the half of everything that the humanist does not know?  The answer is YES.  So, when the humanist deliberately and repeatedly ignores things like billions of individual experiences of supernatural influence, empirical evidences of guided or designed processes, and probabilistic analysis of intelligent first cause; yet, claims they are “distinguishing things as they are from things as they might wish or imagine them to be” and claims they “are drawn to and are undaunted by the yet to be known”  it is hard to take them seriously.

“Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.”

HM3: WARNING #5 – Might just as well have said; Humanists ground values in shifting sand.  Let’s be clear.  The humanist is now saying that since the dawn of the first human, who was brought about through an unguided process from nothing, each and every one of them had the permanent characteristic attributes of ‘worth’ and ‘dignity’ and this is pronounced by the authority of the Humanists a small sect of homo sapien sapiens (wise wise man) or humans themselves.  The only trouble is, some of the humans disagree.  In fact, most of the 10 to 15 billion humans throughout history would probably disagree.  At the very least they would demand that the humans had varying degrees of ‘worth’ and ‘dignity’.  Why should we believe the humanists?  Oh yea, they found it out by the gods of Science and Reason which may prove to be bogus once our future understanding is refined.

"Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty."

HM3: WARNING #6 – “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” – Psalm 14: 6  But what kind of fool says it does not matter?  “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’   This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”” – Matthew 22:37-40

“Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.”

HM3: WARNING #7 – This sounds great and I agree 100%.  Just remember:  Jesus said, ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” – John 15:5.

“Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”

HM3: WARNING #8 - “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.” – Romans 12:3

“Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.”

HM3: WARNING #9 – Ok, I wonder how the following would play out if the humanist was in charge.  We have a six year old boy misbehaving in Walmart.  His parents verbally correct the youth to no effect.  The boy’s father comes over gives the boy three quick sharp smacks on the back end.  The boy cries convincingly for two whole minutes and discontinues the bad behavior.  The father is swiftly reported to the humanist authorities.  What happens next?

“Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”

HM3: WARNING #10 – Man had some high ideals at the Tower of Babel.  Our ways are not His ways.  I would recommend the humanist read Romans 3.  And yes we are responsible for our actions.  That is why each and every one of us needs a savior.  JESUS saves!

 

Get an Education!

It's little Jimmy's first day of 1st grade.  He is setting out on a journey that is supposed to, among other things,  prepare him intellectually for a professional workplace some 12 to 20 years in the future.  What will the workplace look like in 2025?  Chances are it will not look like the workplace of 1985.  Unfortunately the educational system in place now is preparing young people like Jimmy for a workplace that  now exists only in history books.  This is the premise of my post today.  I am not trying to convince you of this fact, I am going to suggest some things we might do about it.

At the outset, we should make an objective attempt to characterize what the workplace will look like in 2025.  Given the current trajectory and no major calamity between now and then, it will contain six main elements:  {mobility, technology, collaboration, speed, information, skill}.  So, Jimmy chained to his desk, without his computer/cell phone/calculator, in silence, and with only his memory as a resource will leave him out of the professional workplace in 2025.  The idea of a good education must be turned completely on its head.

Jimmy must be able to access, process, analyze, communicate, and store (APACS) an enormous amount of information to be a professional.  Therefore, he will not even be able to begin to function without a computer and a fast internet connection.  What is more, mastering this one device will be the key to unlock his entire professional existence.  He will only be able to APACS at a snail's pace without it.  He will need to have access/skill with the computer at every moment in his professional life.  It will be his phone, his clock, his library, his secretary, his calculator, his post office, etc…

It will not, however, be his brain.  Operating a computer effectively, even today, is a monumental undertaking.  Whatever the professional task may be, not only is it true: "There is an app for that.", there are YouTube videos on how to install, set up, and make basic use of that app.  Also, there exist online documentations and at least a half dozen forums, per app, where more advanced information can be digested concerning the app in a collaborative way.  Some of these resources are better than others and updates to all, apps, videos, docs, and forums are constantly being posted.  What can be known is increasing exponentially.  How it can be accessed is also growing at a staggering rate.

Therefore, young people need to be taught, wait, strike that, must be schooled to mastery in all aspects of APACS via the computer.  APACS = {world wide web, cloud, databases, application software, networking, etc…}.  Students, by the time they reach the seventh grade should already know (at least):  A) How to access information on the world wide web via search engines and be able to set up an automated feed system which can be set to search any desired set of target topics; P) How to process information using software such as MS Excell or MS Access;  A)  How to analyze processed information using rudimentary macros, functions, or routines they have developed on any one of a number of analysis platforms such as Maple;  C)  Publish results via internet using blogs/forums/wikkis/web pages;  S)  Store information via databases or word processing platforms such as MS One Note.  Yes, by the time they reach seventh grade.

Forget reading, writing, and arithmetic.  They have been, yes past tense, by surfing, posting, and apping.  What about the art of taking a piece of paper and exquisitely recording your thoughts with a beautifully developed cursive  pen.  Gone I say.  You can read about it in the history book along side of how they used to chisel out script in the face of a flat stone.  The modern  work station is composed of a pc or laptop with one or two external monitors so that the user can have 5, 10, 15, or more different screens open at the same time.  It is equipped with email access as well as some flavor of instant communicator.  Ten to twenty percent of the workday is spent on google or some other search engine researching the job.  In other words, professional development is an everyday event.  If you don't know how to use a search engine  , then you will not be long on the job.

This all means that for virtually all course activities students be required to engage in computing.  Are the taking notes?  Use One Note.  Are they making a presentation?  Use PowerPoint.  Are they doing research?  Use google.  Are they producing a report?  Use a wikki.  In fact, a personal wikki is a great place to organize their whole effort.  Are they processing and analyzing data?  Use Excel.  When I think of all the things you can do with Excel, so much I get exhausted.  It would take two years of intense study just to become proficient in all the functions that Excel offers.

The professional workplace will require of its force; a comfort producing from portable work stations, seamless proficiency in multiple technologies, group efforts across halls and across oceans,  incredible speed, continuous multitasking open access points to a variety of data sources, persistent proficiency in specific duties.  Let's give Jimmy a fighting chance.

Role of Randomness?

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'random' as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." This concept of randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination."

I lifted the above from Wikipedia.

So, if randomness were to have a role, then that role would be non-intelligible.  Truly this is enough said.  However, I will add a bit of practical explanation to bring the point home.

Every element in the event space of the universe has a cause.  How do I know?  Well, the Bible tells me so.  Ok, what about the cloud that is blown together in the shape of an elephant (“Fooled by Randomness” – Taleb)?  I say, what about it?  Am I being asked to believe that clouds form due to un-intelligible causes?  I don’t think so.  I think everyone accepts that there exists a set of deterministic forces that working together form clouds.  Am I being asked a purpose for the shape?  That it has a shape is a necessary condition for it being blown together.  No shape, no together.  That its shape evolves is a physical property of the fluid in which it is blown together.  None of the shapes it takes on in its life are the result of randomness.  Each is a result of the fluid dynamic present at the time the shape is formed.  The elephant shape fit the dynamic of the moment.  The elephant was not selected at random from a deck of shapes.  It was the only shape that fit the present dynamic.  There is nothing random here.  If we could grasp all the deterministic forces at play and know all the values of all the variables involved, then we could know exactly when, where, and why the shape of the elephant appeared.

And there you have it.  We use the term random if and only if we do not understand the dynamic of the forces involved.  It is another way to say:  “I don’t know how that happened.”  Used to be folks gave unashamed praise, honor, and glory to God Almighty for things not understood.  Now, we give it up for randomness.  Chance is the cause of things not understood.  As R.C. Sproul said:  “Not a chance!”

Again from Wikipedia:  "According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random. That is, in an experiment where all causally relevant parameters are controlled, there will still be some aspects of the outcome which vary randomly. An example of such an experiment is placing a single unstable atom in a controlled environment; it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay; only the probability of decay within a given time can be calculated."

In other words; we don’t understand the dynamic.  If the physicists are suggesting that randomness IS the cause then they might just as well claim the Great Spaghetti Monster is pulling the strings.  Probability distributions have no power  They are an imaginary construct used as a proxy for true understanding.

Cheater Cheater Pants on Fire!

So I see this article (http://education-portal.com/articles/75_to_98_Percent_of_College_Students_Have_Cheated.html).

Well, if this is the case, then we have two basic options as I see it.

First, change the meaning of the word.  This would be done realizing the strong reliance on collaboration in today’s world.  Problems are two big to solve on your own and time is two short not to take advantage of the internet and other readily available resources.  You could group students differently throughout the semester on various assignments and the individual student would get the average of the grades for the groups on which he served.

Second, you would have to make, at each school, a central repository for assessments.  That is, professors must be lumped into the dough of those who can’t be trusted.  All work would be completed at the testing center under close scrutiny, cameras would be involved.

I suppose a third option exists.  Combine the two methods.  Have a midterm and final scheduled at the repository and complete all other assignments in groups.

"You've got to ask yourself one question..."

Does the phenomenon of luck exist? Before we can determine our answer we must agree on what it means to be lucky or unlucky. According to a conglomerate of definitions it seems that luck is taken to be a set of forces beyond our control that influence the fortune of the individual.

There exists a strong thread in these definitions that claims these forces are random, accidental, and unintended in their actions on the fortunes of men. Another thread reports that these forces operate for good or ill and therefore a purposeful intent behind the forces is implied.

If one refers to luck as in the second thread, forces operated with intent for good or ill, then I am inclined to accept its existence (although I would not use the term luck). On the other hand, if the forces of luck are supposed un-deliberate salvoes having marked but chance effect, then I must withhold my endorsement.

-Mel

Why?

Let’s suppose, for a moment, that there is no God. Let’s suppose that the universe came to be on its own and unintentionally so. Let’s suppose accidental abiogenesis in a soup of chemicals. Let’s suppose millions of years of random mutation are selected out in a dog-eat-dog game of survival and produce the kinds of life present on today’s earth. Suppose there exists a man, call him Edward, who is a member of what is undoubtedly the fittest species of them all. He, of course, is not the product of any intentional act of supernatural creation and there exists no specific plan for his life. He is not subject to any absolute law of truth. His survival and the survival of his genes in the gene pool depend solely on his fitness.

Suppose now that Edward, a striking figure himself, sets his sights on Mary. She is a beautiful young woman; fit indeed. Edward begins his advances only to find that Mary is engaged to William. William is small in stature but has a rather large brain. He is industrious, honorable, and brings home a large paycheck. Mary is in love and resolved to marry William.

Edward is undaunted. He reasons with the very brain given to him by the miracle of natural selection that the only solution is to remove William from the picture. Edward sneaks into William’s apartment and bludgeons him over the head a dozen times with a lead pipe. He steals his wallet and leaves behind a handkerchief of the color of the local gang. The police mistakenly arrest a boy who delivers pizzas in the neighborhood. The boy is convicted and Edward gets off scot free.

Mary is heart broken but Edward is there to console her. It is not long before they are on their honeymoon securing Edward’s place in the gene pool. Mary ends up having five kids with Edward before she finds out that he has had countless affairs almost from the start. Nobody is sure exactly how many kids Edward has fathered. Most of them inherit Edward’s cunning and good looks. Therefore they go on to lead similar lives and procure equally prominent positions in the gene pool. By the way, the pizza delivery boy who never had anything to do with the gang and was only trying to work his way through college was knifed in prison and died without ever fathering a child.

Of course this story is not true; but, if it were, then I would like to know something from any atheist, materialist, or humanist.

From the perspective of the natural world and in the light of our supposed evolution, is there any injustice in the above story? If so, then why?

-Mel

The Sorcerer's Plight

I have made an online acquaintance. His name is Ray. And Ray has got himself into quite the predicament. He seems to have convinced himself that even the idea of Almighty God is incoherent and internally contradictory. He reports his findings here.

I have invited him to this blog. I have offered him a venue for friendly discussion. I aim to clear some if not all of the confusion from his mind. I understand that this will not be easy. He has invested a great deal of honest thought and effort into the construction of his line of reasoning. In fact I fear that he has gone over it so thoroughly in his mind that unintentional ruts may have been carved. While comfortable and perceived as safe these engraved lines of thinking may prove insurmountable obstacles to the truth; God forbid.

When we read Ray’s list of Assumptions we see Ray trying to paint God into a corner of contradiction. He seems to be saying “God, if you CAN make a perfect universe, then why did you NOT?” Well the answer might be that Ray’s idea of a perfect universe and God’s idea of a perfect universe are different.

What if the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, Ray referred to, wanted to create special beings that love Him? Well, He could create them so they have to love Him. But, that is weird. I mean love is a decision. It is not a character trait. For these creatures to be able to actually love God, they would have to have the real option to reject God. Hence, the possibility of Evil is a necessity for a universe that meets God’s standards. He would have to sow a universe where Evil is allowed in order to reap a universe that fits His standards.

One problem; God will not tolerate Evil. He separates Himself from the smallest of sins as He does from the gravest of sins. God must then devise a universe in which His special creatures can choose Evil time and again yet be always near a path to reconciliation. And what of the sin; God can’t just overlook it. All seems lost; the perfect universe unattainable.

But wait. What if God intervenes? What if God enters His creation fully as one of His creatures and fully as Himself? He then having committed no sin would be legally qualified to pay the sin debt for each of the special creatures. They in turn, sins accounted for, would have a continually new opportunity to choose to love God.

Is this the perfect universe; with God separated from Himself? Don’t forget; He is the All Mighty! He has power over death. He, with the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled and raised from the dead, lives and rains as God for all those special creatures who decided to love Him and worship Him. Those special creatures loved by God but choosing time and again to reject God to the end; live eternal separated from Him in torment. Again, this is a necessary consequence in order to reap the universe fit to standard.

Ray, and others, does this presentation clear up in the mind “The Problem of Evil?”

In the love of Christ,

-Mel