Superhero: Ability & Availability

---

If you would rather read this message, the words are provided below…

---

This is Part 7 of my Superhero series. In the introduction of this series, I provided the argument that heroes are real and then I distinguished between heroes and superheroes. I also provided a list of what defines a superhero. In Part 1, we learned that superheroes recognize the absolute standard of Good and realize that evil is a mere privation of what is good. In Part 2, we learned that superheroes recognize the absolute moral standard and realize that what is wrong can only be known by the standard of what is right. In Part 3, I defined and expounded upon love because all superheroes are full of love and are compelled to act out from love. In Part 4, I explained that superheroes desire to save people from all forms of danger and/or death and this desire comes from love. In Part 5, we learned that superheroes are solution seekers. In Part 6, we saw that solution seekers are willing to sacrifice if necessary.

---

In this message (Part 7), we will see that sacrificial love steps forward and offers service. But in order to do that, we must be available. If we are able, we should also be willing. Superheroes need to be able and available.

With television shows such as American Idol, The X Factor, So You Think You Can Dance, America’s Got Talent, The Voice, etc., it’s obvious that our nation is infatuated with talent and entertainment. Even when our country went through a recession back in 2008-2009, box office sales for the movie theaters still boomed. With that said, I’m going to use the entertainment industry in order to help you better understand this message.

Actors Tom Cruise and Rob Lowe were both slated to play the lead role in the classic movie, “Footloose” (1984). The casting directors were impressed with Tom Cruise because of the famous underwear dance sequence he performed in “Risky Business” (1983); however, Tom Cruise was unavailable for the part because he was filming “All the Right Moves” (1983). Rob Lowe auditioned three times and had dancing ability and the ‘neutral teen’ look that the director wanted, but he pulled his knee; consequently, the injury rendered him unavailable and prevented him from getting the part. Kevin Bacon was offered the leading role for the Stephen King movie, “Christine” (1983) at the same time that he was asked to do a screen test for “Footloose.” The producers from “Footloose” convinced Kevin Bacon that turning down a sure role in “Christine” for a part he might not even get in “Footloose” was the wiser choice by telling him that if he did get the part for “Footloose,” the role would make him an instant star. And in just 30 seconds into the screen test reading, Kevin Bacon was offered the lead role in “Footloose.” However, it was the director of “Footloose,” who only after watching “Diner” (1982), convinced the producers to go with Kevin Bacon. And Kevin Bacon almost didn’t get the part in “Diner” because he was sick on the day of his screen test reading for the role of Fenwick. But Kevin Bacon had previously decided that his character (Fenwick) would probably be half-drunk during the entire movie anyway, so he forged ahead, auditioned, and then got the part. And because of all this, there is now what Hollywood refers to as the “six degrees of Kevin Bacon”:

Here is the same information (as above), but put into a different perspective: Kevin Bacon only got the part in “Diner” because he made himself available for the audition even though he was sick. Because he made himself available and got the part in “Diner,” the director of “Footloose” saw him in “Diner” and then had reason to push Kevin Bacon to his producers; consequently, Kevin Bacon got the lead role in “Footloose.” However, the only reason Kevin Bacon got the lead role in “Footloose” was because he turned down “Christine” and made himself available for “Footloose.” However, Kevin Bacon was only chosen after Tom Cruise and Rob Lowe had both been unavailable.

Now, the only reason I chose to use this example was because Kevin Bacon played the evil villain, Sebastian Shaw, in the 2011 movie, X-Men: First Class. Kevin Bacon is now forever a part of superhero history and because of that, he is now in my book about superheroes. So, let’s use this message of ability and availability to see how it applies to our lives according to GOD’s Word:

“One day as Jeroboam was leaving Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh met him along the way. Ahijah was wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone in a field, and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. Then he said to Jeroboam, ‘Take ten of these pieces, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten of the tribes to you! But I will leave him one tribe for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. For Solomon has abandoned me and worshiped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians; Chemosh, the god of Moab; and Molech, the god of the Ammonites. He has not followed my ways and done what is pleasing in my sight. He has not obeyed my decrees and regulations as David his father did.”‘ ”
(1Kings 11:29-33) -NLT

Solomon was David’s son. Solomon started out as an average man, became the wisest man (1Kings 3:5-12), but then ended up crashing and burning due to his sins. The irony is that Solomon was wise enough to foresee his downfall, but he blinded himself to Truth because he chose to set his focus on personal pleasure. Solomon’s story saddens me and not just because he was David’s son or that he had once been so wise, but because his story is like many Christians of today’s culture. So many Christians today have taken their focus off GOD’s will and have become distracted by the pleasures that our sinful society offers. Let’s examine what tripped Solomon up and how it relates to us today: GOD’s Word tells us that Solomon abandoned GOD and worshiped Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Molech.

Ashtoreth (Astarte, Ashtarte, Ashtaroth, Ishtar, Attar):

This deity was a mother goddess linked with fertility, love, and war. This deity was associated with carved trees or nature, as being the female deity of the moon, and also associated with sexual immorality. Sex and nature. Or as the hippies claimed, “it’s love and peace, man!” But as we learned in chapter 3, sex and love are not one and the same: sex needs love to be relevant and meaningful; love does not need sex to be relevant and meaningful. Love can survive and even thrive without sex, but sex without love is pleasure without purpose. Solomon ruined his life because he allowed sex to become his love. Ashtoreth was essentially the same ‘god’ that the hippies of the 1960’s worshiped. The goal was satisfaction for self. And so many of those misguided hippies of the 1960’s ended up being the people who influenced our politics and society; consequently, many of the dangerous indoctrinations and misguided beliefs have carried over into the present day in which we live. Nowadays, worship of Ashtoreth can be compared with the people who call themselves “ecosexuals” because they essentially worship ‘Mother Nature’ and center their lives on the pleasure of sex. The scattered remains of Ashtoreth are still evident in the entertainment and advertisement industries. If you haven’t noticed, sex sells. If you haven’t noticed, the lure of lust is the rust that causes a person’s stainless steel character to corrode and crumble.

Chemosh:

According to the Moabite Stone (the Mesha Stele), Chemosh was associated with the goddess Ashteroth. This deity was [in general] of the same nature as Baal (Baal-Hadid). The word baal means “lord.” Baal was most often associated with being the god of weather, war, or fertility. So, Baal was a god who was believed to enable the earth to produce crops and people to produce children. Nowadays, our secular society who supports scientism essentially worships themselves as the only beings capable of ensuring the growth of crops and allowing/denying human fertility. The modern version of Chemosh or Baal is most likely celebrities and scientists. Many people idolize celebrities, viewing them as superhuman; many people essentially worship scientists, viewing them as our saviors.

 

Molech (Moloch, Molek, Melek, Malik):

Children were burned to death as a sacrifice while worshiping a false god. Nowadays, Molech can be compared to Planned Parenthood and the thousands of abortions (murders) that take place every day. As of 2018, it was estimated that Americans have aborted (murdered) about 60 million babies since our sinful society demanded the ‘right’ to do so in 1973. (Click here to read my logical argument against abortion.)

Ancient Sin Is Modern Sin:

There’s nothing new about sin; Satan is subtle, evil is deliberate, and the devil’s demons haven’t changed their tactics. Even today, people are still placing their focus on false gods and idols. And if a wise man such as Solomon was able to be beguiled by physical beauty and enticed and entranced by the temptations that surrounded him, you better believe that you are susceptible to falling as well. In fact, GOD’s Word tells us that we are not exempt from falling:

“These are all warning markers—danger!—in our history books, written down so that we don’t repeat their mistakes. Our positions in the story are parallel—they at the beginning, we at the end—and we are just as capable of messing it up as they were. Don’t be so naive and self-confident. You’re not exempt. You could fall flat on your face as easily as anyone else. Forget about self-confidence; it’s useless. Cultivate God-confidence. No test or temptation that comes your way is beyond the course of what others have had to face.”
(1Corinthians 10: 11-13) -MSG

“God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.”
(1Corinthians 10:13) -NLT

“Stay alert, be in prayer, so you don’t enter the danger zone without even knowing it. Don’t be naive. Part of you is eager, ready for anything in God; but another part is as lazy as an old dog sleeping by the fire.”
(Mark 14:38) -MSG

“So be on your guard, not asleep like the others. Stay alert and be clearheaded.”
(1Thessalonians 5:6) -NLT

But referring back to 1Kings 11:29-33, Ahijah the prophet tore his cloak into 12 pieces and announced that Jeroboam was to replace Solomon as king. Even if Ahijah had not told Jeroboam what the tearing of the cloak meant, the same thing was about to happen to Solomon and to Jeroboam regardless. Most of the time, we experience only signs and symbolism in our lives without any explanations. GOD doesn’t always tell us the ‘why.’ Therefore, we need to constantly and consistently keep our focus on GOD and the ways of GOD so that we can have our eyes open, alert, and ready to see the signs that GOD gives us when they arrive in our lives. We need to pay attention, be aware of where we are and if we’re living right before GOD. We need to keep ourselves in check at all times. Indeed — check yourself before you wreck yourself! We need to constantly self-examine ourselves to ensure we’re living the right way.

“But I have taken you in hand. Rule to your heart’s content! You are to be the king of Israel. If you listen to what I tell you and live the way I show you and do what pleases me, following directions and obeying orders as my servant David did, I’ll stick with you no matter what. I’ll build you a kingdom as solid as the one I built for David. Israel will be yours!”
(1Kings 11: 37-39) -MSG

GOD declared a promise to Jeroboam while pouring out His heart and love. GOD chose Jeroboam. However, let’s be honest — GOD only chooses and works with whomever is available. Why? Because we have the great gift of free will. And if someone isn’t willing, that person would not be available. This is why GOD always promises things, but inserts special stipulations into the contract agreement. GOD can only follow through with the promise or the miracle if we do our part. This is the reason why so many people have come and gone as leaders. If there is only one choice to work with, GOD will use that person until someone better is available to use, and so on and so forth. If we are chosen as someone of great significance, as an anointed one, it’s important that we always do our best and try to continually improve. There will always be a chance that someone coming out of the shop will be better than you. A lot of people will make themselves available yet they lack ability. A lot of people have ability, but who will make themselves available? There will always be a chance that you will injure your knee at the ‘audition’ and render yourself unavailable to be chosen for the part. We don’t want to be replaced by someone because we didn’t try our best. It would be even worse if GOD replaced us with inanimate and inarticulate items such as a blue cord. We need to show up to the ‘audition’ even if we don’t feel 100%! However, if we do get replaced by someone when we do try our best, then it was simply for the best and we need to move on. But we must try our best. However, to do that we must first make ourselves available. Ability is useless without availability; if you have the ability to act yet are unavailable to act, you won’t act and thus your ability is useless.

Ponder on this: there are more chances for your replacement the higher you get up the ladder. Look at it this way: if your job is to crawl into pipes/tunnels and clean out the sewage and waste that clogged the pipes/tunnels, how many people do you think will be after your job? Not many. But if you are a celebrity with fame and fortune, how many people would want your job then? Almost everyone. The better the position you are placed in, the greater expectation of your work, and the greater the risk of being replaced if you do not meet the expectation.

“Much will be required of everyone who has been given much. And even more will be expected of the one who has been entrusted with more.”
(Luke 12:48) -HCSB

“But then Jeroboam thought, ‘It won’t be long before the kingdom is reunited under David. As soon as these people resume worship at The Temple of God in Jerusalem, they’ll start thinking of Rehoboam king of Judah as their ruler. They’ll then kill me and go back to King Rehoboam.’ So the king came up with a plan: He made two golden calves. Then he announced, ‘It’s too much trouble for you to go to Jerusalem to worship. Look at these—the gods who brought you out of Egypt!’ He put one calf in Bethel; the other he placed in Dan. This was blatant sin. Think of it—people traveling all the way to Dan to worship a calf!”
(1Kings 12:26-30) -MSG

Jeroboam replaced Solomon as king and then wrecked himself as soon as he started because he did not check himself. Jeroboam didn’t check his motives or align himself with GOD’s Word — his focus was on himself instead of doing GOD’s will. That’s why GOD needs to always be first. If we do GOD’s will, then we will be blessed in the process.

“Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need.”
(Matthew 6:33) -NLT

Unfortunately for GOD and everyone under Jeroboam’s rule, Jeroboam was the man that GOD had to work with for the time being. Can you believe that?! That guy was the best man for the job as king even though he was not suited for the position at all! (I can believe it. I can think of at least a couple presidents in our American history who weren’t suited to be president.) But out of all people who made themselves available, GOD selected Jeroboam because he was the closest thing to a leader who was available. That would be unbelievable if only it didn’t match so many other descriptions of world leaders throughout our history; Jeroboam’s story matches the accuracy of what we already know to be true throughout world history. That means that the entire lot of people GOD had to choose from were just a bunch of lukewarm, fence-sitting, selfish sinners or worse. They lost their edge. Their fire went out. 

“So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
(Revelation 3:16) -ESV

In Revelation 3, the church of Laodicea receives no praise from the Lord. GOD states that because they are neither hot nor cold and merely lukewarm, GOD is going to spit them out of His mouth. The people claimed that they needed nothing because they were wealthy, but GOD called them wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, naked, and shameful (Revelation 3:17-18). GOD proclaims His love, advises they accept His discipline, and admonishes them to repent. The insipid are intolerable; their indecisiveness leads to indigestion. Indifference leads to idleness. Fence-sitting, couch-potato, comfort-Christianity receives no praise (Hebrews 10:38; 12:4-13; Proverbs 3:11-12)! In Revelation 3:20, Jesus tells us that He stands at the door and knocks, simply waiting for someone to respond and allow Him in. And when that person allows Jesus within, He will have dinner with that person. Why is this important? In Mark 2:15-17, we see that this is how Levi — a tax collector — became Matthew, the disciple. Once we allow Jesus within and we fellowship with Him, hearing His Word in itself would be the meal we would be eating; consequently, being filled with the Bread of Life, life would exude out of our very pores and we would be on fire for Christ, thus incapable of being lukewarm. This letter to the church of Laodicea concludes with a promise to the victor that he/she will have the right to sit with Him on His throne. This promise is to say that we will be part of the family and will share in His glory.

I don’t know about you, but both the stories of Jeroboam and the church of Laodicea motivates me to act righteously. If I’m not chosen as someone of great significance, that means that there must be someone out there who is a better person than I am and that he/she was chosen for the job. GOD seeks ability, but works with who is available; therefore, we need to make ourselves available!

Are you available? Have you allowed your heart to be available to GOD? Once you make yourself available, you then put yourself in the running. If you don’t get chosen for a specific job, don’t get discouraged — that just means there is someone better suited for that particular job. No big deal. That doesn’t mean that you should drop out of the running though! You are perfect for a particular job, it’s just a matter of patience to discover where GOD needs you to be. GOD knows what you are best at, what you’re good at, what you’re alright at, and even what you’re bad at. GOD wants to use the gifts, talents, and abilities that He gave to you for how they would be used in the best way. Therefore, make yourself available. You cannot go to auditions if you don’t make yourself available for the auditions. You cannot get the part if you don’t audition. And when you audition, you should not give a halfhearted audition — you should put forth 100% effort and do your best while auditioning even if you don’t feel 100%. Every single new ‘audition’ is a new opportunity for you to prove that you are the right one to be chosen.

There are many roles in acting just like there are many roles that we Christians play in the huge ‘movie’ called Life. GOD is the writer, producer, director, script supervisor, executive producer, camera operator, the sound guy, the editor, etc… GOD is also the casting director. GOD created this ‘movie’ called Life; in addition, He knows who is best suited for what role. We need to place our trust in GOD (Proverbs 3:5-6). GOD places His trust in us just as a director places his/her trust in an actor/actress. It’s a mutual trust. The movie can’t be great without the actors — and the Director knows that. GOD still needs ‘actors’ and ‘actresses’ to fill the roles in Life. Are you available? Don’t concern yourself about when you will get chosen — it will happen. Patience… GOD has a specific role that He wants you to play, but there is a specific time in which He needs you to fill that role. Practice your ability, but be available always. Always go to your ‘auditions.’ Always try your best. Never get discouraged. Understand that it’s just a matter of time. And in the meantime, constantly try to better yourself as a person. There’s always room for improvement.

Jeroboam got cast as the part of the king, but I guarantee you that the audience was unhappy with the selection and the movie bombed. But Jeroboam got the part because he was the best one for the role who was also available to be used as that role. There were better men than Jeroboam (no doubt), but perhaps they were too far away in the world to be cast as the king for that particular place. Or perhaps those better men were already playing a role in GOD’s movie somewhere else. GOD knew that the movie wasn’t great with Jeroboam as king, but GOD had someone else in mind for the role of King, and His name was Jesus. That’s part of the storyline in this movie we call Life – GOD allowed bad kings so that we would appreciate the Good King. But GOD’s planning and timing had to be precise. So, GOD worked with who was available for the time being. Are you available? Let’s learn a lesson from the prophet Isaiah on how we should respond in life:

“Then I said, ‘It’s all over! I am doomed, for I am a sinful man. I have filthy lips, and I live among a people with filthy lips. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.’ Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal he had taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, ‘See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.’ Then I heard the Lord asking, ‘Whom should I send as a messenger to this people? Who will go for us?’ I said, ‘Here I am. Send me.’ ”
(Isaiah 6:5-8) -NLT

Isaiah’s humility helped him realize he was a sinful man. Isaiah’s recognition of his sinful nature enabled him to repent of his sins and receive forgiveness. Isaiah’s willingness to do GOD’s will made him available to be chosen for anointed and appointed ability.

I challenge you to make yourself available! Be the most righteous person you can possibly be, be patient, and be persistent. GOD has a plan for you. To insure your availability, ensure that you are living in alignment with GOD’s Word. Live as righteous as possible. What happens when the right people aren’t available? GOD has to choose a Jeroboam or a blue cord. Be available. Don’t make GOD choose a Jeroboam because you weren’t available. Are you available? Can GOD depend on you to be chosen as the superhero who feeds that homeless person on the street? Or are you going to be in the strip club thereby rendering yourself unavailable? Can GOD depend on you to be chosen as the superhero who tells the truth when everyone else is too afraid to speak up? Or are you going to be hiding your head in the sand thereby rendering yourself unavailable? Can GOD depend on you to be chosen as the superhero to speak a miracle over someone’s life and help heal someone? Or are you going to be intoxicated at a party thereby rendering yourself unavailable? If you choose to love, desire to do GOD’s will, seek solutions, and are willing to sacrifice, you have the ability. But are you available? And will you help others be ready and available for when Christ returns?

“Always be ready! You don’t know when the Son of Man will come.”
(Matthew 24:44) -CEV

If you’re not ready and available when GOD calls you, how are you going to help others be ready and available when Christ comes? If you are able, you should also be willing. Be able. Be available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should The Bible Be Taken Literally?

Recently, I had posted an article to show why the Bible does not endorse slavery. In response, a skeptic quoted Exodus 21:20-21. He then told me he would be willing to continue to have a conversation with me and said, “But before we begin, I’d like to know if you agree with this statement: The Biblical authors meant what they wrote, and wrote what they meant. If you don’t agree with that, it will be too difficult to continue, as we should have some common ground to stand on.”

This article is my response to him, but also to many others like him who have questions. Curious questions deserve credible answers and Christians should be able to provide answers (1Peter 3:15) while speaking Truth out from love (Ephesians 4:15).

While I do agree that we should have some common ground to stand on, I believe that the common ground needs to be Truth. (What is Truth?) Did the biblical authors mean what they wrote and write what they meant? That is a great question! However, it’s the fallacy of false dilemma because this is not an either/or situation. This question tries to force an either yes or no answer; however, this question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no response. Truth is much more complex than a simple and compressed one-word response and the Truth deserves to be examined and fully explored. The authors wrote what they meant, but their meanings are often misconstrued by those who do not clearly see the Bible verse in its proper context with its chapter, the chapter in its proper context with the book, or the book in its proper context in the bigger picture of the entire Bible. We must remember that the Bible contains much figurative language, i.e., it includes figures of speech (e.g., simile, metaphor, hyperbole, parable, metonymy, synecdoche, etc.) — just like our own English language (e.g., “quit cold turkey,” “stretch my legs,” “died laughing”). But figurative language still communicates meaning that can be comprehended. Any diligent student [who seeks wisdom from GOD] can ascertain the original intent of the divinely-guided writers.

The Bible undoubtedly includes factual material, which is meant to be taken literally, such as the claim that John preached a baptism of repentance during the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1-3), or that Jesus experienced crucifixion (Mark 15). But the Bible also has poetic and metaphorical language not meant to be taken literally. For instance, Isaiah 52:10 says: “The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” The “arm” of the Lord does not refer to GOD’s physical arm and is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, it refers to His power against His enemies. If the Bible did not include figurative language, we would be required to believe that GOD has wings and feathers (Psalm 91:4), and that Jesus is made up of flour (John 6:35) and wood (John 10:9), yet is also a lamb (John 1:29,36). The Bible frequently uses a variety of literary means to express important truths. Everything the Bible affirms is literally true, but not true, literally. We cannot read the Bible in a wooden, “literal” way whenever it clearly uses figurative language.

There are at least two ways that the word literal is used.  First, literal can mean interpreting language in a way that does not allow for any symbolism or figures of speech.  If someone said, “I have traveled to the four corners of the earth,” a literalist in this sense would assume that the earth must be a flat, four-sided shape, and that I actually did travel to each corner of this geometric shape. Second, literal can mean interpreting language in the exact way it was intended by the author without unduly introducing symbolism or figurative language where it was never intended. Informed Christians recognize that the Bible is full of literary devices and figurative language such as metaphor, simile, metonymy, typology, allegory, personification, and so forth. So, did the biblical authors write what they meant and mean what they wrote? Well, we should read the Bible literally, as long as we agree on what literal means.

Let’s take a look at an example skeptics often use: Jesus was quoted as saying that if your eye causes you to sin, you should tear it out and throw it away (Matthew 5:29; 18:9; Mark 9:47).

Jesus did not literally tell us to pluck out our eye. How do I know this? We must examine what Jesus said in context and compare context to the big picture. Jesus was preaching a sermon to a crowd. Looking at Matthew 5:21-48, it is evident that Jesus is depicting how important it is to do what is righteous, and to be the best version of ourselves we can possibly be. Verse 48 ends by Jesus telling us that we should strive to be perfectly righteous. However, in Luke 18:18-27, the people who heard what Jesus demanded of everyone asked Him who could possibly be saved. Jesus responded by telling them that the things that are impossible with people are possible with GOD. How is that? Because Jesus knew that He was going to be the sacrifice that would bridge the gap between sin and salvation. In fact, the only reason Jesus was there was because humans were incapable of staying perfectly righteous and could not save themselves. In Romans 3:23, Paul asserts that everyone falls short of the glory of GOD; therefore, Jesus was absolutely necessary to redeem our inability to achieve the perfection that is required to be with GOD. Jesus knew our shortcomings and died for us out of love. Furthermore, Romans 6 explains that though we have been saved, we are still held accountable for what we do. We are to strive to live righteous lives. James 4:17 says that if we know what’s right to do yet don’t do it, it is a sin. And Hebrews 10:26 states that if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. On many occasions, Jesus had forgiven sinners, but always told the person to go and sin no more.

The context is the core and key. Jesus doesn’t desire for people to self-mutilate; Jesus did not command that we tear out our eyes. How do we know this? The entire purpose for Christ’s crucifixion was to save us from ourselves. We are all saved by GOD’s grace and mercy, not by our works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, the act of cutting out an eye or cutting off a hand in an attempt to do right, the issue had not been settled within the heart and that person would still be endeavoring to be saved by works. Tearing out an eye is an act of works and cannot save us. Jesus was merely stating the importance of living a righteous life and how important it is for us to always try to do what is best and what is right. Jesus had only emphasized the importance of the issue. Think about it: if a pedophile cut out his right eye, wouldn’t his sinful and dirty desire still be in his heart and leak out from his left eye? Changing the exterior of a person will never alter the heart. For this is the same reason why Jesus said,

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every impurity. In the same way, on the outside you seem righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
(Matthew 23:27-28) -HCSB

This is why hermeneutics and exegesis are important. This is why taking the initiative to investigate and ask clarifying questions is necessary. This is why context is the core and key. This is why grammatical historical method is necessary. And this is why rightly interpreting the Bible is imperative to accurate application.

Now let’s examine the Scripture the guy quoted in response to my article about the Bible not endorsing slavery. The guy chose to quote the NIV translation and so I’ll use that translation:

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
(Exodus 21:20-21) -NIV

Of course, this passage seems awful and unloving out of context. But the Bible does not condone slavery any more than it condones polygamy or divorce. The Bible documents what is unjust or unrighteous, but it does not condone, endorse, or otherwise promote evil activity. In many instances throughout the Bible, what is written is descriptive, not prescriptive. In this passage, it establishes humane limits for an already existing, evil system. Slavery had long been a feature of human society (as explained in my other article). It was the way of life for everyone. The Israelites were always to remember that they themselves had been the victims of this practice for an extended time (Genesis 37:28,36; Exodus 1:8-14) as slaves in Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,22). Accordingly, Israelite slave owners were to treat their slaves in a fair and charitable manner. They were to be given a day of rest every week (Exodus 20:10) and, as beings created in GOD’s image, were expected to attend religious festivals (Deuteronomy 12:12,18; 16:11). Israelites — who happened to be slaves themselves — were to be treated with special benevolence and to be released after six years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12) or in the Year of the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:40-41), whichever came first. Female slaves who became wives to their owners or owner’s sons were to be treated with all the respect and rights of a regular wife (Exodus 21:8-11). When an Israelite’s term of slavery had ended, he was to be given a gift (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). If slaves were physically abused by their owners, they were to be granted immediate freedom (Exodus 21:26-27) and, unlike animals, the killing of a slave constituted a crime (Exodus 21:20). In an ancient time when slavery was the thing to do, GOD tried to teach the Israelites a better and more loving way of handling day-to-day life. As explained in my other article, GOD initiated change slowly from the Old Testament times, to the New Testament times, up to this present day, in order to help humans integrate the absolute moral standard in such a way as to achieve that goal. Any deep sea diver will testify to the fact that immediate change of pressure creates too much shock and that is why they must rise to the surface slowly. Likewise, the Israelites lived as slaves under Pharaoh’s rule for a long time and that lifestyle was all they knew. Thus, GOD had to provide them with boundaries, which were the bare minimum of acceptable behaviors. 

Does the Bible teach that people should retaliate or that they should “turn the other cheek” (see Matthew 5:38-39; Luke 6:27-29)? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contrasted a popular interpretation of the law of Moses with His own teachings. In doing this He was not saying that Old Testament law was wrong, only that His adversaries’ way of applying it to situations was wrong; they had missed its true intent by emphasizing the letter of the law. The “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” passage did not require people to pay someone back for a wrong done to them. Its purpose was to establish limits for retaliation. The most one could do in response to knocking out a tooth was to knock out the other person’s tooth; a person could not be killed for injuring someone’s eye. As Jesus pointed out, a person who was wronged by another could choose not to retaliate for what had been done to him. Often such a response would be the best way to deal with the problem. In every case, turning the other cheek should be the first option considered.

So, should the Bible be taken literally? Yes and no. The Bible is true, but Truth is complex and requires dedication to investigation. The Bible cannot err, since it is GOD’s Word, and GOD cannot err. This does not mean there are no difficulties in the Bible. But the difficulties are not due to GOD’s perfect revelation being imperfect, but to our imperfect understanding of His perfection.

[ See the article: Is The Bible Full Of Contradictions?. ]

[ See the article: Are The Writings of the Bible Reliable and Accurate? ]

The truth is that the skeptics who deny the authority of GOD’s Word have arrived at their conclusion by presupposing the non-existence of GOD. I will be so bold as to say that all of those who deny GOD have done so because of pride — they do not want to align themselves with the absolute moral standard and desire to be their own gods. But there is only one GOD (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:22-24; Psalm 100:3) and Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6). Does this make me narrow-minded? Yes, but with good reason.

[ See the article: Are Christians Narrow-Minded? ]

[ For an in-depth explanation as to why I am a Christian, CLICK HERE! ]

Mastering Logical Fallacies?

Mastering Logical Fallacies: by Michael Withey;
Book review: by Trenton Gill

This is my book review of Mastering Logical Fallacies, by Dr. Michael Withey. I’ll provide a short summary and then expound upon it. Though the author made quite a few good arguments throughout the book, the book as a whole was disappointing and left me dissatisfied. This book is supposed to be about mastering logic; however, the author possesses a clear and alarming bias that leans left and he presents an anti-God agenda sprinkled throughout the entire book. Consequently, much of his “logic” comes from his own opinionated worldview. Found within the pages of this book is not education but indoctrination. Further, all of Dr. Michael Withey’s students would do well to recognize the fallacy that appeals to authority and practice rejecting the lies that Dr. Michael Withey teaches. I do not recommend this book to anyone.

The book starts off well and without bias, but by page 22 the author promotes a positive view of Barak Obama; in stark contrast, the author pushes a negative view of Donald Trump on page 40. A few times throughout the book, the author uses references to The Simpsons. At first glance, the use of The Simpsons might not seem like a big deal; however, there is a theme that obviously runs throughout this book and that theme is anti-God. The Simpsons are known for mocking Christianity. On page 29, the author uses Homer Simpson as a “real life example” to prove his point. Though Homer Simpson might be on a television show found in our normal real life experiences, Homer Simpson himself is not a real life example. The author should have chosen a better “real life example,” perhaps anything or anyone from history or current events.

By page 43, the author singles out Christianity and attempts to discredit the Bible by claiming that Isaiah 40:22 proclaims the world to be flat. The author intentionally cherry-picked the very end of that Scripture and omitted what was actually written: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth…” Page 43 is discussing the fallacy of appealing to authority. However, a few pages earlier (page 38), the author wrote, “So, if I say, ‘Black holes emit radiation,’ I can justify this by appealing to the authority of Stephen Hawking.” But can a finite and fallible being be an infallible expert? Have scientists ever been wrong? Of course they have been wrong. While the author attempts to discredit the Christian faith, the author fails to notice that he too possesses faith. The author possesses faith that other humans are correct in all their estimates; therefore, the author believes [by faith] that black holes exist and that they emit radiation. Meanwhile, back on page 44 where the author attempted to dismantle and discredit Christianity, the author wrote, “An expert’s opinion may not represent the consensus of other experts…. other experts may treat him as a crank…. the expert may have a vested interest in getting people to accept his opinions…. take such expert pronouncements with a grain of salt. After all, a group of ‘experts’ won’t necessarily achieve an absolute consensus about a topic; experts aren’t necessarily impartial.” So, who then is an expert? What makes someone an expert? Isn’t an ‘expert’ a mere human being who was simply dedicated to obtaining documentation from what could have been a biased educational institute? Would, then, an ‘expert’ be defined as someone who was committed to a cause for a specified amount of time? But should a commitment to a cause determine the ‘expert’ title? Can you think of anyone who had been committed to a cause, earned a title of ‘expert,’ yet did evil deeds? What about Dr. Josef Mengele? And that’s why it’s important not to fall for the fallacy of appealing to authority. Titles are earned when someone puts in enough time and dedication to acquiring such titles; however, possessing a title doesn’t make that person an expert on Truth — the person would merely be more knowledgeable of the desired topic to which that person was dedicated. This is also why Dr. Michael Withey’s teachings should not be accepted without first being examined critically. Michael Withey possesses a title of “Dr.”, but does that mean he speaks Truth?

On page 42, the author wrote, “should your opponent try to whip up hatred against a certain group, respond in kind by stressing the need for tolerance and understanding (good luck with that).” First off, does luck exist? Should the person who desires to teach logic use the word “luck”? And second, the author demands tolerance yet attacks Christianity on the very next page. But even if the message of tolerance is to be taken seriously, what is to be tolerated? We must remember that a tolerance to lies is an intolerance to Truth. See my argument about Truth:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/what-is-truth/

On page 58, the author discusses the appeal to desperation fallacy while putting a negative spin on the republican party. The author chose to use Medicare to illustrate the fallacy. Instead, let’s use the pro-choice argument that appeals to desperation:

P1. Unwanted pregnancy demands a serious response.

P2. Abortion sounds like a serious response.

:.  Abort.

Using the author’s own words, let’s examine the evidence: “Alternatively, even if the proposed solution would resolve the problem at hand, it doesn’t mean it should be implemented; there may be other, possibly better ways of resolving the problem. Moreover, the proposed solution may be worse than the original problem.”

So, if I had an unwanted pregnancy, one solution would be to abort the baby. However, this doesn’t mean I should abort my baby — I could, for instance, give the baby up for adoption; or I might opt to just accept responsibility for the life now within me.

On page 51, the author’s “comeback” leads to the author stating that people who use marijuana should not go to jail and that “there are better ways of dealing with this problem (e.g. drug education, harm-reduction programs).”

Is the best solution the greatest prevention? So, what’s the best solution to the abortion debate? Read my logical argument against abortion here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/abortion/

And as for the drug debate, advocating drug education implies the need for drug prevention. The need for drug prevention implies that drugs are bad/wrong. The need for harm-reduction implies that harm is bad/wrong. A claim of “better” appeals to the best. A claim of “bad” or “wrong” appeals to the absolute moral standard of right and what is best. By whose standards do we live? Without an absolute moral standard, all morals would be relative and relativism is absolutely absurd. Read my argument against moral relativism here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/moral-relativism/

On page 53, the author discusses the fallacy of appealing to emotion. The author attempts to use Proposition 8 to flip the argument in favor of same-sex marriage by asserting that those who are against same-sex marriage appeal to emotion and use the argument, “What sort of monster are you?!” In fact, this is the tactic used against those who oppose same-sex marriage. This is evident in the multiple cases where defenders of marriage are called hateful, intolerant, or even bigots. Using the author’s own words yet again, I’ll make my own case: “The mistake arises when the appeal to emotion is used in lieu of an argument…. they are still the facts, regardless of how one feels.” This is true. We must separate facts from feelings. Biology and anthropology argue in favor of heterosexual relationships and traditional view of marriage. Read my argument, “Defending Marriage” here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/defending-marriage/

On page 56, while discussing the fallacy of appealing to faith, the author wrote, “many people lack faith altogether.” But is that true? All people possess faith. Have you ever eaten something in faith believing that it wasn’t poisoned? In fact, the author already revealed his faith when he appealed to the authority of Stephen Hawking — he revealed that he possessed faith that black holes not only exist, but that they also emit radiation. The author then goes on to use the book of Leviticus to argue his anti-God worldview that Leviticus also prescribes that one shouldn’t wear mixed fibers and we do that today; therefore, when Leviticus opposes homosexuality, it should be acceptable today. But is that true? No. The author reveals his ignorance of Scripture. Mosaic ceremonial law passed away, but homosexuality is still listed as being wrong in the New Testament. The author attempts to argue the need for tolerance and love by asking, “Shouldn’t that encourage us to accept homosexuality?” Again, it is important to know what we would be tolerating. A tolerance to lies is an intolerance to Truth. And is it really true that “love is love?” As I have addressed in my argument, “Defending Marriage,” the “love is love” mantra is inaccurate and invalid. Logic proves that pluralism is a false doctrine; logic does not prove that no belief should be established, but that Truth is absolute and there exists one worldview that is true.

On page 58, the author attacks GOD yet again while discussing the fallacy of appealing to fear. The author also appeals to emotion by stating that Donald Trump proposes to ban Muslims. In light of the recent news stories covering the “travel ban,” it is important to know the truth in the matter. The purpose of a temporary travel ban is to prevent unnecessary terrorist attacks. It’s not a ban on Muslims. It just so happens that the areas prone to terrorists harbor a vast majority of Muslims. Do we purify our water before drinking it? What about dross from gold? Chaff from grain? Would you want mold in your house? In life, filtering systems are necessary and good. Please read my immigration argument here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/mold-myth-or-monster/

The author states that people believe in GOD because they are afraid of Hell; in fact, Hell is merely a fallacy that appeals to fear. But is that true? Yet again, I will use the author’s own words against him: “The trick here is to show that there’s nothing to be frightened of, or that your opponent is exaggerating.” It is true that the author is exaggerating the claim that Hell is merely an appeal to fear. The author’s “comeback” is to ask, “So, if I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in hell anyway; so why worry?” Well, Truth exists whether you believe in it or not. But should we worry? Should we fear?

“So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.”

(1John 4: 16-19)-ESV

GOD is a message of hope, salvation, restoration, and celebration. The gospel means the “good news.” John 3:16-17 makes the message a mission of love. Hell is merely mentioned as a promise; it’s not a threat. Rebellion against government law produces promised consequences of prison. Do citizens live life in fear of breaking the law or do they live in the joy of freedom to live life in alignment with love? If criminals end up in prison, is that not what we call justice? If criminals find themselves in prison, was it not their choices that led them there? Is it wrong that citizens don’t want criminals in society? Is it wrong to separate sinners from saints in Hell and Heaven? If GOD is perfect love (1John 4:8) and desires for all people to be saved (1Timothy 2:4; 2Peter 3:9), is it not intellectually dishonest to claim that GOD threatens people with Hell? If GOD has commanded us to make right decisions and granted us the gift of free will to make decisions, who is to blame if we make wrong decisions? So, what is at question is not the justice of Hell, but the existence of Hell. The atheist says he/she doesn’t believe in GOD; therefore, Hell does not exist and there is not a reason to worry about facing promised judgment for immoral choices. Many criminals did not believe they would face judgment only to face judgment at a later time. Truth exists whether one believes Truth exists or not. Many people choose not to believe in GOD because they reject GOD’s absolute moral standard. But if humans are to claim anything to be right or wrong, there must be an absolute moral standard by which the wrong may be compared. To know what is crooked we must first know what is straight. See my arguments about evil and Hell:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/evil/

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/hell/

On page 62, the author argues yet again against GOD. Read my arguments as to why GOD is the most reasonable belief:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/does-a-creator-god-exist/

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/intelligent-design-1/

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/intelligent-design-2/

From pages 67-72, the author argues yet again to promote homosexuality, but this time with a faulty premise that nothing can be assumed to be natural or normal. But we know what is natural and normal and that is how we are able to identify abnormalities such as cancer or birth defects. How can something be called a defect unless we know what is normally there that would be lacking?

On page 82, the author again argues on behalf of homosexuality by stating that “society may traditionally have thought homosexuality was sinful, but this was an injury to homosexuals” But is that true? Again, we must separate feelings from facts. We must not mistake the acknowledgment of wrong action for being an attack on a person. Do we injure pedophiles by acknowledging their actions as sinful? Who is to say that pedophilia is wrong if “love is love” like the argument for gay marriage suggests? Or if the argument for gay marriage is to insinuate it as being acceptable due to adult consent, why would incest or polygamy be wrong? This is nothing more than an appeal to pity or emotion. Are hurt feelings true injuries? Would it hurt the feelings of an obese person to point out wrongful eating habits? The bottom line is that marriage matters and sex matters. I highly recommend Jonathan McKee’s book, Sex Matters:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Matters-Jonathan-McKee/dp/0764222139/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489459678&sr=1-1&keywords=mckee+sex+matters

Also, see my book review for his book. In my review, I ask dozens of important thought-provoking questions to prompt further examination:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/sex-matters-book-review/

On page 88, the author essentially argues against GOD yet again, but this time directs his argument against prayer and miracles. But if “a false positive is much more likely than an accurate result,” what does that say about the evidence accepted? The real argument is whether miracles are possible or not. The real argument is whether GOD exists or not. If GOD exists, miracles are possible. Read my argument for the possibility of miracles:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/miracles-or-myths/

On page 93, the author again uses GOD as an example.

On page 96, the author chose to discuss the fallacy of blind authority by using cult members. Although what is discussed is true of mindless  members of a cult, there seems to be an underlying effort to discredit GOD yet again.

On page 99, the author discusses the fallacy of cherry picking and uses the National Rifle Association, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the right to bear arms in an attempt to argue in favor of what seems to be an obvious liberally left aligned agenda. Again — and ironically so — I will use the author’s own words against him: “We all subconsciously seek out evidence that corroborates our beliefs, and tend to ignore evidence that contradicts them — this is a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. So we’d be well advised to be on guard against sloppiness in our own thinking as much as our opponents.” In fact, taken as a whole, this entire book is bias to the author’s liberal and anti-God worldview. Either the author is not aware of his own inclination to cherry pick arguments or he had an agenda to attack GOD and conservatism. So, the author is either an educated fool or diabolical and deceitful.

On page 119, the author discusses the fallacy of false analogy and somehow ends up promoting e-cigarettes by stating “e-cigarettes lack the harmful properties that normal cigarettes have…. they are not harmful (or, at least, there is no evidence yet for their being so).” While I agree that e-cigarettes can be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, I believe it is irresponsible for the author to have promoted e-cigarettes as not being harmful. Does the smoker inhale? Is that which is inhaled healthy to inhale? Does the substance being inhaled belong in the lungs? Do e-cigarettes deliver nicotine? Is nicotine addictive? Should anything addictive be advocated or promoted? Is it good to provide the addictive substance without restrictions? Isn’t it possible for the e-cigarette to be a gateway drug and lead to something else more harmful? And though I concede that my last point may be considered the fallacy of a slippery slope, I believe it is more important that the author considers the ramifications of his actions. Because the author possesses the ability to influence others’ decisions and guide their beliefs, he should have invested more time into finding a different example for his argument or explained the negative and harmful aspects of e-cigarettes.

Between pages 128-130, the author reveals his true identity by not only attempting to discredit GOD [again], but also essentially rejecting the Declaration of Independence by stating that the text itself “refuses to provide” an “argument by which [the authors could] establish [the] substantive conclusion” we are endowed by our Creator (GOD). Disregarding or discarding the Declaration would be to create an unacceptable new world order established by moral relativism, which is untenable. In regards to the Declaration of Independence, the authors’ argument was established by the existence of GOD. So, the real argument regarding the Declaration of Independence is whether GOD exists or not. Again, I will use Dr. Michael Withey’s own words against himself: “Don’t let your opponent bully you into silence.”

There are three basic positions one can hold:

1. GOD/gods exists.
2. I don’t know.
3. GOD/gods does not exist.

First, we must recognize that Truth is absolute and never relative. Then, we must realize that it is possible we do not know everything. Test yourself. Can you answer my questions?

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/questions/

Next, we need to admit that we do not know everything. Claiming to lack knowledge is an honest position to hold. Understand agnosticism:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/agnosticism/

And finally, a logical argument can be made that atheism is intellectually dishonest. Where’s there’s atheism, there’s moral relativism; moral relativism is self-refuting and untenable.

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/atheism/

On page 130, the author wrote, “God commands the good; but does He command it because it is good, or is it good because He commands it?” Withey goes on to state, “morality rests on a ‘just because:’ what is good is ultimately arbitrary, the result of God’s contingent will.” However, this is a false dilemma. GOD commands the good for both reasons — it is good and it is good because GOD is good. We do not have to decide one or the other. It is both. Without GOD’s absolute moral standard, all morals would be relative. However, relativism is self-refuting. Remind yourself of the Truth of this if you need to do so:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/moral-relativism/

On page 133, the author discusses the ludic fallacy and goes on to state that “real life isn’t a game — there aren’t any rules that prohibit certain outcomes from coming to pass.” This is easy enough to refute by simply examining the law of gravity; however, I decided to expound on this argument. Please dig deeper:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/mirage/

On pages 139 & 167, the author makes his naturalistic bias known by defending Darwinism. Again, I’ll use the author’s own words against him: “The reduction to the absurd only gives rise to a fallacy when the absurdity it exposes is predicated on misrepresentations of your opponent’s position.” Withey has misrepresented the Creator and thus misrepresented himself (the creation). Attempting to reduce mind, morality, and meaning to mere materialism and naturalism is absurd. What about immaterial consciousness? What is a thought? If it is mere matter in motion, what does it matter? All morals would be relative. Evolution demands that only the strongest survive. If that is accepted, then rape cannot be determined to be wrong since it is the strongest male ensuring the continuation of his line. Also, how could it be determined to be wrong for a homeless person to murder a rich citizen? If only the strongest survive, the homeless person is doing right to ensure the necessity of his surviving and thriving. Also, life’s meaning and purpose would ultimately be relative and even nihilistic. If your child determined that the meaning of his life was to be the best burglar or most famous serial killer, you would have no right to force your own relative morals on him. The position is clearly untenable. The author wrote, “go back far enough and you will find a common ancestor that both we and they descend from.” The problem is that there is a big difference between micro and macro evolution. The evidence for human evolution is insufficient:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/evolution/

On pages 142-143, the author discusses the fallacy of moving the goalposts. The author’s entire argument seems to be based on the work of Lawrence Krauss in order to reject the existence of GOD [yet again]. The problem with Lawrence Krauss’s work is that he actually used something and called it nothing in order to prove that something can come from nothing. But that is merely stealing from GOD and is a failure at hitting the mark. True nothing is absolutely nothing and something never comes from nothing unless a transcendent Someone provides that something. In response to Krauss being told he essentially cheated by calling something nothing, Krauss had said, “I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that.” Krauss’s argument is revealing. We simply cannot call something nothing because we desire it to be nothing. I highly recommend you read Frank Turek’s book, Stealing From GOD:

https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-God-Atheists-Need-Their/dp/1612917011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489579129&sr=8-1&keywords=stealing+from+god

On page 143, the author, promoting an “effective comeback” wrote, “Feel free to call your opponent a jerk, an SOB, or a villain, depending on your mood.” Does this sound like someone who has mastered logic? Mr. Withey, your failure to meet the absolute standard does not warrant name calling. Is it ever acceptable to call your opponent names? Should everyone resort to some sort of ad hominem fallacious argument? Should any logical decision be dependent upon your mood? Or should we always separate feelings from facts? Shame on you. Because you are in a position to influence others’ beliefs and direction in life, you should desire to make a conscious effort to critically examine everything you write before you publish it. And by the way, in the last sentence of the first paragraph of ‘the comeback’ section on page 18, the word should be “by” and not “be.” In addition, the first word of the second sentence of ‘the mistake’ section on page 79 should be “your” and not “you.” Isn’t it ironic that you made a mistake in the section that apparently calls out the mistake?

On page 150, the author discusses the naturalistic fallacy and makes a claim that goodness is a non-natural property, but he provides no evidence for the claim. He then goes on to state, “a homophobe’s declaration that homosexuality is wrong, because it is unnatural…”. I’ve already refuted this fallacy in my argument, “Defending Marriage,” but the author’s incessant demand that homosexuality is natural, normal, or right goes against the very fallacies he ascribes himself as being able to teach to others. The author is inconsistent and simply wrong. Is it truly a phobia? Is someone a homophobe because he/she simply states a biological fact that is also evident in anthropology throughout history? What exactly is Mr. Withey appealing to in his argument? In ‘the mistake’ section on page 152, the author wrote, “how can any of [the homosexual’s] activities be unnatural?” Again, it is ironic that I will have to point out his mistake in the section he attempted to point out another’s mistake. Unnatural cannot be known unless the natural is known. If a human is naturally able to invent or create, this implies creation; creation implies a creator. If human is creation, who or what created the human? Are we truly to believe that the universe and all life simply came from nothing as Lawrence Krauss would have us believe? Did life originate from non-life? If humans are so evidently superior in their natural abilities, can the origin of humanism honestly appeal to naturalism or materialism? The claim that no human activity is unnatural is to say that all human activities are natural. Is a human living and breathing under water natural? Is it natural for a human to eat his/her own feces? Likewise, wrong cannot be known unless right is known. Not all human activities are right. The author bases his arguments from relativism yet appeals to the absolute standard.

In ‘the comeback’ section of page 152, the author wrote, “So, it’s hard to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, if animals also engage in it…. What’s natural isn’t ipso facto good.” First, the author makes a claim that animals engage in homosexual activity without providing any evidence for the claim. Second, even if some homosexual activity has been observed in the wild animal kingdom, was it consensual? Also, is it common? Even if it is common, that doesn’t mean it is normal. Cancer is common, but it is not normal; it’s not the Design. Birth defects are common, but not normal; it’s not the Design. In addition, should humans be compared to wild animals? Should animals be held to the absolute moral standard to which humans are held? Should humans be held to a higher standard than wild animals? Why or why not? Moreover, the argument of “what’s natural” presupposes the existence of something being natural. The author would either need to prove homosexual activity to be normal or prove why the unnatural act is to be considered right.

On page 154, the author discusses the nirvana fallacy and argues the need for contraceptives. While it is true that contraceptives have a high success rate at preventing unwanted pregnancy, abstinence is still the best answer. (re-read discussion for page 82). Sex matters. Contraceptives is to sex as Moses and divorce is to marriage (Matthew 19: 3-9). Divorce was only permitted due to hardness of hearts and rebellion to the Design. Contraceptives are only permitted due to people refusing the Design. Can contraceptives prevent emotional investments or protect purity? Is a condom a barrier that blocks broken hearts? The author wrote, “If you aim at perfection, you will frequently fail to do anything good at all.” That is false. You might fail to be perfect, but you’ll most likely accomplish something good. Examine the author’s claim for his book: “The definitive guide to flawless rhetoric and bulletproof logic.” The author aimed at perfection and failed. But did he accomplish some good? Though I reject his agenda, I would say that the author has at least accomplished some good. In his “comeback” section on page 155, the author wrote, “You need only point out that your aim was never to make things perfect, only to improve things a bit (unless you did promise perfection, in which case you asked for it!).” That statement is the reason for this lengthy review — the author claimed perfection; consequently, he asked for this.

Still on page 155, I’ll use the author’s own words against him [yet again]: “If the opponent’s proposal not only solves the problems that yours does, but also solves some problems that yours doesn’t, then his solution should be preferred.” The author should then admit that my proposal should be preferred. Abstinence has 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy and protecting purity. Abstinence also prevents abortions and protects people from emotional entanglements. In regards to abstinence, the author seems to think that “the bar is set too high: unless the proposal can bring about heaven on earth, it should be rejected.” The bar is not to be considered “too high” simply because someone desires to set sin as the standard. The proposal of living in alignment with the absolute moral standard can literally bring about Heaven-like quality of life here on Earth.

On page 159, the author discusses the fallacy of proving non-existence and makes it his goal [yet again] to discredit the existence of GOD. Refer to the discussion from pages 128-130.

There are three basic positions one can hold:

1. GOD/gods exists.
2. I don’t know.
3. GOD/gods does not exist.

The agnostic claims to be without knowledge; the agnostic has nothing to prove. The theist claims that GOD exists; the theist must present the available evidence to prove that GOD is the most reasonable belief. The atheist claims that GOD/gods does not exist; the atheist must prove non-existence and would seemingly have to do so with lack of evidence.

On page 161, the author wrote, “If your opponent offers no evidence supporting the belief that his favored entity exists, and instead challenges you to show that it doesn’t exist, then you can challenge him back.” This is a false dilemma. Both beliefs are required to provide evidence for their claim. To believe (possess a belief) that something does not exist simply because you lack knowledge of its existence is a premature conclusion of a closed-minded individual. To say that GOD does not exist due to lack of knowledge is to admit to a premature belief. It’s intellectually dishonest. The author also wrote, “It’s generally the job of the believer to give reasons to believe that something exists. Of course, if he can do so, he has legitimately shifted the burden of proof: we should believe that P exists as he asserts, unless we can prove otherwise.” Mr. Withey is correct is what he wrote. And the fact is that evidence for GOD has been provided in multiple areas with the following arguments:

• Cosmological
• Teleological
• Moral
• Axiological
• Ontological
• Anthropological
• Miracles

There is more than enough reason to believe that an intelligent Creator GOD exists. The best someone can do is to admit to being without knowledge and remain an agnostic in the first sense that the existence of GOD or gods is unknown. But to ever hold the position of an atheist who claims GOD does not exist is intellectually dishonest and refuses to heed the overwhelming evidence that lends credibility to the possibility of GOD.

On page 173, the author discusses the fallacy of shoehorning and uses Jesus as an example:

“Let me tell you about my views on Jesus. Jesus is my personal savior…”

“But we were discussing farming!”

On page 174, the author wrote, “He may dearly love to discuss Jesus with you, but since your topic is farming, his contribution is quite beside the point.” The author is claiming that Jesus is irrelevant to the discussion of farming; however, this presupposes either that Jesus didn’t exist or wasn’t who He said He was. So, without being intellectually dishonest and closed-minded, one should should ask why Jesus is relevant and allow an explanation. Furthermore, Jesus is actually relevant when discussing farming due to the entire 13th chapter of the book of Matthew. The parables of the sower, wheat and the weeds, and the mustard seed and the yeast are all relevant to farming and thus relevant in the discussion about farming. If you believe yourself to be a farmer, you should know what you’re truly harvesting. You will reap what you sow. It is important to know what you are sowing and where you are sowing. Do you know what you are sowing or where you are sowing? Also, are you aware of what has been sown that you yourself did not sow but are able to reap? Where are the seeds? Along the path to get snatched? On rocky ground and without roots? In the thorns to get choked out? What will you harvest? Are you a weed or a seed? Will you grow roots and grow tall or wither to nothing at all? A lack of understanding as to why Jesus would be relevant doesn’t mean Jesus is not relevant. It simply means you don’t understand why Jesus is relevant. I assure you — Jesus is always relevant.

On page 174, the author concludes his discussion of the shoehorning fallacy by stating the following about those who talk about Jesus: “Such people are best avoided, as they tend to be bores.” Understanding the author’s agenda that runs throughout his entire book, it seems likely that the author is truly saying something like this: “Avoid Christians; they talk about an irrelevant Jesus; they are boring. Avoiding Christians is justifiable because they are shoehorners and I am logical. I am better than the illogical fantasy-filled fools who believe fallacies. I do not need to associate with such people.” But to the author, I would like to give a word of warning: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)-ESV

On page 177, the author discusses the slippery slope fallacy by advocating for homosexuality and gay marriage by calling such decisions “innocuous.” Where is the proof that such decisions are harmless? In fact, the opposite can be proven.

The author wrote, “For example, if he argues that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing incestuous or inter-species marriage, you might respond that it doesn’t have to: even if gay marriage is legalized, these further expansions of marriage would be ruled out, because of the prohibitions on incest and beastiality.” However, to that my response is to say that gay marriage didn’t “have to” be, but it did in fact become. Gay marriage was prohibited; now it’s legal. If “love is love,” prohibiting two consenting adults from marriage would be an act of discrimination — even if the consenting adults are related. It can be comparable to Fair Housing laws. If we do for one, we must do for all. The issue is deep and deserves to be dealt with in depth. Again, see my argument for “Defending Marriage” for an in-depth explanation:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/defending-marriage/

Also, see my argument, “Subtle” for an in-depth explanation as to why the slippery slope argument is valid and not fallacious:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/subtle/

The author wrote, “In reality, we can usually stop the chain of consequences at any juncture…. why, when we take the first step, can we not simply stop there?” While it is true that the chain of consequences can be stopped (that’s called repentance), it is untrue that humans have done so. In reality, have we stopped? An examination of history reveals that humans have not stopped; in fact, humans have continued to push the line between right and wrong, altering Truth to accommodate sin. In reality, a junkie says he/she can stop at any time. But has he/she? The fact that it can be stopped does not warrant that it should continue, let alone begin. Do you need to take the first step at all? Show me evidence in human history where we have stopped after the first step. So-called “progressives” need to advance in order for “progress” to be claimed. So yet again, I shall use the author’s own words against him: “Once you’re at the top of a slippery slope, it’s very hard not to slide down, all the way to the bottom; the best thing, then, is not to get on the slope at all.” The author also recommend that his opponent should “spell out exactly how the first step will lead to all the others.” And I have done so in both my arguments “Defending Marriage” and “Subtle.”

On page 180, the author actually makes good points while discussing the fallacy of special pleading. As I am accustomed of doing, I shall again use the author’s own words against him. The author wrote, “What you cannot do, however, is accept the law in general and yet refuse to apply it to a particular case. To do so is essentially self-contradictory. Worse, once you go down that route, there’s no reason why other people shouldn’t also be allowed to make ad hoc exceptions.”

Male and female exist and are not one and the same. Chromosomes reveal Truth. XY = male; XX = female. Abnormalities are simply that — abnormal; they are the exception and not the rule. People who claim that gender identity can be chosen are either ignorant to the rule or are special pleading an exception. Biology is reality, not bigotry. A male cannot be a female simply because he feels like a female. To proclaim gender identity as a choice is to reject biology and absolute Truth. And in regards to gay marriage, once gay marriage is allowed because “love is love” between consenting adults, “love” and consent would qualify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny and even incest.

The author wrote, “You need to impress on your opponent the virtue of consistency. If your opponent is committed to a rule, he must be committed to it without exceptions. If he believes there are exceptions, he’s not committed to the rule…. This is an instance where invoking the Slippery Slope (see p. 175) becomes a legitimate countermove.”

From pages 186-188, the author discusses the fallacy of sunk cost and again makes good points: “Past losses are therefore irrelevant to the decision at hand: the only relevant consideration is whether it would be worth investing any additional capital in the venture…. This fallacy isn’t so much a problem of logic, as of psychology and economics…. This sometimes comes about because we are scared of losing face: to cut your losses and run would be to admit that you’ve made a mistake. But such misguided pride has grave consequences…. in order to not give up fighting an unwinnable war.”

Misguided pride does have grave consequences; in fact, it is pride that fuels the fire of desire to wage the “unwinnable war” against GOD. Questioning the evidence against a belief is one thing, but when this reluctance to admit to making a bad investment into a belief rises to the level of denying or refusing to heed the evidence, then what we have is not critical thinking but wishful thinking. Many people are reluctant to release lies and false beliefs because of the amount of time and energy they invested into those lies and false beliefs. For if GOD is true, pride must be broken. For if GOD is real, you are not a god and all your actions will be held accountable according to the absolute standard as defined by GOD. The bad and unprofitable investment is pride itself.

Christianity

Estimated at a little over 2 billion adherents, Christianity is the religion that is the most widespread and has the largest number of adherents. It is represented (at least nominally) in virtually all countries of the world. As far as statistics are concerned, Christianity is the number one religion.

Christianity has four main symbols associated with the religion:

1. The cross: Jesus was crucified as a cross; therefore, the cross (or crucifix) is a reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice and GOD’s love for everyone.
2. The lamb: This represents Jesus Christ as the sacrificial lamb.
3. The dove: This represents the Holy Spirit.
4. The fish: This is based on the Greek word for “fish” (ichthys), which is an acronym for Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter (“Jesus Christ, GOD’s Son, Savior”)

The name of Christianity is derived from the fact that the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth were called Christians, which means literally “little Christs.” The word Christ is based on the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah, the “anointed one.” Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in Palestine, estimated around 4 BC. The woman who gave birth to Jesus – Mary – was a virgin who became pregnant miraculously through GOD’s power. Virtually nothing is known about Jesus’ life until he was approximately 30 years old. At the age of 30, Jesus launched his public ministry, which lasted about three and a half years. The teachings of Christ emphasized the point that GOD expects people to serve Him and other people out of unreserved love, not out of a legalistic obligation. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah as well as the Son of GOD, and He gained fame as a miracle worker and an exorcist. The religious establishment felt threatened by Jesus and considered his popularity to constitute a risk of change they weren’t willing to undergo; therefore, the Pharisees eventually conjured a plan to have Jesus put on trial and executed. Jesus was crucified, buried in a guarded and sealed tomb, yet He rose from the dead three days later and spent another 40 days showing Himself alive to His disciples on various occasions. At the end of this time period, Jesus ascended physically to Heaven (and Christians expect Him to return physically to Earth at the end of the age). After Christ’s ascension, many different books were written by His disciples – these compiled texts are what Christians now consider to be the New Testament.

The books that were considered inspired by the Jews at the time of Jesus are the Holy Scriptures which Christians began to call the Old Testament. The books written by or on behalf of the apostles became known as the New Testament. Christians believe that the Old Testament and the New Testament are conjoined and belong together; in fact, Christians believe that everything in the Old Testament points to Christ and validates the need for the New Testament. However, the New Testament is only significant because of the Old Testament. In other words, the Old Testament needed the New Testament to be fulfilled and the New Testament would not exist if it had not grown from the Old Testament.

Because Judaism is a historical religion, Christianity is a historical religion as well. That is to say, it is founded not on abstract principles but in concrete events, actual historical happenings. On historical grounds, Jesus was a real person and it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist. Jesus stood in a tradition that stretched back to the beginnings of Hebrew history. Christianity and modern Judaism share a common heritage. The earliest Christians saw themselves as being in complete continuity with their Jewish religion. Christianity is to be considered as partner or concluding part of Judaism.

Christianity emphasizes correct belief. The salvation of individual persons is the central concern; however, the only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Faith excludes earning salvation by good works alone. There is One single and personal GOD who created the entire universe and everything within it. GOD is distinct from the world yet is present and active in it. Jesus Christ is GOD, the second person of the Trinity. Jesus was fully divine yet fully human. GOD brought His divine nature to a human nature (the incarnation) and Jesus willingly became the sacrifice that was necessary to bridge the gap between sin and salvation. GOD did for us what we could not do for ourselves. Sin exists because humans violated GOD’s standard for the world He created. Christ will return to Earth someday in the same manner in which He ascended and will preside a final judgment of all human beings. Those who have believed and accepted Christ will be be united with Him in eternal bliss; however, those who rejected Him will be eternally separated from Him.

Until AD 313, the Christian church had many struggles, endured opposition, and survived much persecution. The position of the church in the world changed dramatically as the Roman emperor Constantine decreed in AD 313 that Christianity was to be considered a legal religion. Eventually, the Roman empire was split into Eastern and Western halves. The church also developed tensions along that line, with the East becoming known as the Orthodox Church and the West as the Catholic Church. The division between East and West was followed by yet another split in the West. The Protestant Reformation, which began in the sixteenth century under Martin Luther and John Calvin, opposed the corruption they witnessed. The Reformers argued that the church didn’t possess the power to dispense salvation, but that an individual’s salvation is contingent upon his/her faith in Christ alone. The Reformers also argued that the ultimate authority for Christians is the Bible alone and that the Christian’s life is to be a life of gratitude to GOD for salvation, not a means of earning it. The history of the Christian church has much corruption and division and even bloodshed associated with it; however, all corruption, division, and bloodshed originated from selfish human agenda which was never aligned with the origin of the religion itself. One of the challenges that Christianity faces is the many divisions and denominations associated within the one religion.

Christianity is divided into many subgroups and sub-subgroups; however, differences in practice are often minimal. The most important subgroups are as follows: The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Protestant Churches. A major cause for division among Christian groups is how they view baptism and Communion. But even more important than the physical methods used in baptism and Communion is the meaning given to these rites by different Christians. In sacramental churches, baptism and Communion are thought to be means of conveying GOD’s grace, whereas for nonsacramental churches, the ordinances are simply reminders of what GOD has done.

Other than a general expectation of modesty, which will largely depend on one’s home culture, Christianity has no requirements for special clothing or insignia. It is an important teaching of Christianity that there is no such thing as unclean food. Still, Christians are supposed to avoid substances that do harm to their bodies, and many Christian groups disparage alcohol and tobacco. The two most important Christian holidays are Christmas and Easter, which extol the birth of Christ and the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Christianity’s main points are grace, mercy, faith, hope, and love. The Christian religion focuses on how Christ sacrificed Himself for all humanity.

My Final Thoughts:

Christianity reveals the importance of every single soul. Jesus ministered to the down-and-out, the dejected and rejected; Christ mostly ministered to those who were considered to be the least. Christianity is appealing and truly is the religion of grace, mercy, faith, hope, and love. But is it Truth? If Christianity is to affirm Judaism, Christianity would need to be able to reveal how it fits into Judaism yet at the same time be completely unique and amplify Judaism. Does Christianity meet this requirement? Before I am able to form a conclusive decision regarding Christianity, certain areas need to be investigated:

• Does the New Testament compliment or contradict the Old Testament (Judaism’s Tanakh)?
• Is the Bible reliable?
• Is the Bible inspired by GOD?
• Even if the New Testament and the Old Testament unite as one inspired book of writings, is the teaching of creation accurate?
• Are we to believe that all miracles found in the Bible actually occurred?
• What’s with all the prophecies and what’s the point?
• Did Jesus actually die the way it is written?
• Is the resurrection of Jesus authentic and reliable?
• Did Jesus ever claim to be GOD and is there evidence for this claim?
• How can the doctrine of the Trinity be true?
• Doesn’t Islam also claim monotheism? How does Judaism, Christianity, and Islam compare?
• What about Jehovah’s Witness or Mormonism? Don’t they also claim Christ?

Is Belief In An Intelligent Creator Reasonable?

---

If you would rather read this message, the words are provided below:

---

Teleological Argument:

1. All complex design implies a designer.
2. There is complex design for the universe and within the universe.
3. The universe had a cause; therefore, there must be a Designer of the universe.

If one found a watch in an empty field, one would rightly conclude that it had a watchmaker because of its obvious complex design. Anytime we have a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; and paintings imply artists. The greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like the Golden Gate Bridge. A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters for millions of years would never produce Hamlet by accident. Yet Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it. We all know that the faces on Mount Rushmore were formed by an intelligent cause. It is not just that the natural causes never produce the kind of specified information shown on Mount Rushmore. It is also known by repeated observation that intelligent causes do produce this kind of specificity. Specified complexity points to an intelligent cause. But is there anything more complex than what humans create? Yes. The human body.

Dr. Antony Flew was a leading spokesperson for atheism and was active in many debates. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.”

What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, a DNA code is three billion letters long! To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night.

Coded messages imply an intelligent sender. In all of nature, only living cells have complex messages known as specified complexity. DNA. Even militant atheist Stephen Hawkings admitted that the genetic information in a single-cell animal would fill a thousand sets of an encyclopedia! If the genetic information in a one-cell animal exceeds that in a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the information in the human brain is greater than that in the Library of Congress.  Agnostic astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “The brain is a very big place in a very small space…. the neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.”

R.L. Wysong wrote, “The human brain weighs about three pounds, contains ten billion neurons with approximately 25,000 synapses (connections) per neuron. Each neuron is made up of 10,000,000,000 macromolecules. The human mind can store almost limitless amounts of information, (a potential millions of times greater than the 1015 bits of information gathered in a lifetime—I. Asimov), compare facts, weigh information against memory, judgment and conscience and formulate a decision in a fraction of a second.”

Michael Denton, senior fellow in human molecular genetics at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, wrote, “Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the brain.”

The mind or intelligence that explains anticipatory adaptations cannot be explained as a result of evolution. The human mind cannot be explained by survival of the fit or adaptation, for there is no reason these adjustments should produce foresight, and the human mind does not adapt to the environment but transforms it. Only an intelligent Being could have caused the specified complexity found in the DNA code in living things and in the expanse of the mind.

What about the eye? Even evolutionist Charles Darwin was dumbfounded by the eye when he wrote, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense.”

John Blanchard wrote, “The human eye is a truly amazing phenomenon. Although accounting for just one four-thousandth of an adult’s weight, it is the medium which processes some 80% of the information received by its owner from the outside world. The tiny retina contains about 130 million rod-shaped cells, which detect light intensity and transmit impulses to the visual cortex of the brain by means of some one million nerve fibres, while nearly six million cone-shaped cells do the same job, but respond specifically to colour variation. The eyes can handle 500,000 messages simultaneously, and are kept clear by ducts producing just the right amount of fluid with which the lids clean both eyes simultaneously in one five-thousandth of a second.”

Alan L. Gillen wrote, “The most amazing component of the eye is the ‘film,’ which is the retina. This light-sensitive layer at the back of the eyeball is thinner than a sheet of plastic wrap and is more sensitive to light than any man-made film. The best camera film can handle a ratio of 1000-to-1 photons in terms of light intensity. By comparison, human retinal cells can handle a ratio of 10 billion-to-1 over the dynamic range of light wavelengths of 380 to 750 nanometers.”

And if the eye is such an amazing design, consider the human body as a whole. The human body is truly a definition of specified complexity; it is an elaborate communication system. There are 206 bones in the human body, several ligaments, tendons, cartilage, veins, a very complex digestive system, and even skin to act as a covering. Even the skin by itself proclaims intelligent design. Everyone has unique fingerprints consisting of either arches, loops, or whorls. Even identical twins don’t have the same ridges, valleys, or swirls. Identical twins are monozygotic, which means that they develop when a single fertilized egg splits in two, leading to two embryos. As they both came from the combination of the same egg and sperm, these twins have virtually indistinguishable DNA; however, they do not have the same fingerprints.

Is there anything more complex than the human body? Yes. Earth. Is there anything more complex than Earth? Yes. The galaxy. Is there anything more complex than the galaxy? Yes. The universe. What could be greater than the universe? The Creator of the universe.

My Final Thoughts:

A summary for a Creator and intelligent design:

#1: Why anything exists at all

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal Being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal Being (from 2, 4).

#2: The origin of the universe

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

#3: The applicability of mathematics to the physical world

1. If an intelligent Creator does not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be a mere happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not a mere happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, a Creator exists; intelligent design exists.

#4: The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. The fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design.

#5: The intentional states of consciousness in the world

1. If an intelligent Creator does not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
2. Intentional states of consciousness do exist.
3. Therefore, a Creator exists.

#6: Objective moral values and duties in the world

1. If a Creator does not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, a Creator exists.

#7: Miracles and personal experiences

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator does not exist, the supernatural miracles could not exist in a natural, detailed, organized, and mathematical and scientific world of which everything always happens for a logical reason.
2. The supernatural has been experienced, witnessed, and documented in the scientific field; miracles have occurred which defied logic and reasoning within a natural and predictable environment.
3. Therefore, a Creator exists.

Conclusion: 

It is contrary to the universal scientific experience that life ever arises from nonlife. Just as nonbeing cannot produce being, nonlife cannot produce life. The evidence shows that nonintelligent natural laws do not have the ability to bring life or new life-forms into existence, to say nothing of human beings. Chance is not a rational explanation since a rational person should posit as a cause only that which is constantly conjoined to the effect. But the only cause constantly conjoined to specified complexity (such as is found in living things) is intelligence. Hence, only intelligence (not chance) should be posited as the cause of life. Rational or scientific thinking is not based on chance occurrences but on constant conjunction. Hence, to posit a nonintelligent natural force as a cause of specified complexity, one must show how it constantly conjoined to a purely natural nonintelligent cause. This has not been done. Since intelligence is the only cause constantly joined with design, then intelligence is the most reasonable cause to postulate for nature that manifests this same kind of design. An intelligent Creator/Designer is the most reasonable cause for the entire universe and all life within it. It was logically concluded that this Being would need to be one and not many; therefore, we can call this Being “GOD.”

Unless the atheist can successfully tear down the presented arguments for GOD and construct in its place a sound argument to prove that GOD does not exist, belief in GOD is the most reasonable belief. Since I have provided an argument, the burden of proof is now on the atheist to prove that belief in GOD is unreasonable. If the atheist cannot prove that belief in GOD is unreasonable, then the atheist needs to stay silent while they seek answers beyond their limited knowledge.