On my travels throughout the U.S., I have encountered many ways of defending the faith. One such way is to hit the person with the law. “Have you ever told a lie?” “Have you ever stolen anything?” “Have you ever looked at another person in lust?” The intellectually honest will be forced to answer “yes” to those questions, exposing their sinfulness and need of a Savior.
Why are lying, stealing, and lusting wrong? Are these actions wrong because God arbitrarily commands them to be wrong, or does God have a reason for calling these things wrong apart from Himself? Well, those who understand the solution to Euthyphro’s Dilemma know that neither is the case. Things are “wrong,” because they are contrary to God’s unchanging character. Stealing is not wrong because God makes and arbitrary command that stealing is wrong, nor is it wrong because God has a standard outside of Himself to call it wrong. Quite simply, stealing is wrong because God is not a thief, lying is wrong, because God is totally honest, and lusting is wrong because God is perfectly faithful. We were created in the image of God, to be His imitators, (Ephesians 5:1) so when we do these things, we are lying about who God is. That’s what sin is – lying about who God is.
Rather than get deeper into the nature of what sin is, let’s explore the fact that sin is “lying about God” and examine whether or not we do this when we defend our faith.
Question:
Is God a probable God or a certain God? In church we know the answer: “The Heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 14:1) It’s not “The Heavens might declare the glory of God–if he exists, and the skies might proclaim the work of his hands–if he exists.” Could we really say that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39) if we worshipped a probable God? Of course not! In Church, we worship a certain God, yet what do we do? – We go out into the world and tell unbelievers that we could be wrong! We give them “Pascal’s Wager.”
Pascal’s Wager reduces the existence of God to a probability–a gamble–the odds on favorite. Basically it states that if you win the wager that God exists, you win, but if you lose you lose nothing. On the other hand if you wager that God does not exist and win, you win nothing, but if you lose, you lose everything. I’ve used this myself, and can still hear my pathetic admonition ringing in my ears: “If I’m wrong, I die, rot in the ground and worms eat my body, but if I’m right! Oh boy, then I get to be with God in Heaven for eternity! If you are right though, then you die, rot in the ground and worms eat your body, but if you are wrong, you spend an eternity in Hell!”
Brothers and sisters God is not a good bet, God is not even the best bet, God is the certain God that has revealed Himself to us, such that we are certain of His existence (Romans 1: 18-21). Blaise Pascal said some wonderful things, but his wager is a terrible bet.
I looked up Pascal’s Wager on a search engine, and could not find one thing written negatively about it by Christians. What are we doing?!? We worship a certain God, yet defend a probable ‘god!’ Folks, a probable “god” is not God–a probable ‘god’ does not exist.
Pascal’s wager is only the tip of the iceberg of arguments for a probable God though. This problem runs deep and it’s time we start defending our faith in the certain God of Scripture. When we defend a probable God, we are lying about who God is. That is why I am so very thankful to God for revealing to us the way to defend the faith that proclaims the certainty of His existence, and I thank God for the likes of Mike Robinson who teach and write about it. God does not give us odds, He gives us assurance.
——————————————-
Sye Ten Bruggencate ministers as a teacher and apologist around the North America and on the internet. He is an up-and-coming apologist and debater who has engaged atheists and skeptics in formal and informal debates. His innovative website is: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/multimedia.php
Sye debates the pugnacious anti-theists from Fundamentally Flawed (lots of unimpressive foul language from the anti-theists) at: http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-10-14_dustinandsye.mp3
May I make 25 copies of this to hand out to members of my Sunday school class — with appropriate attribution to you, of course?
Thank you for considering my request.
Yes. Blessings to you.
Using this type of reasoning for evangelism, while well intentioned, argues for fire insurance faith.
good point, yet most do purchase fire insurance for their homes. nonetheless it doesn’t seem to hold for a strict logical argument, nor a consistent biblical contention.
Sye, Pascal’s wager does not claim that God’s existence is probable or improbable. That is not the point. It is not an argument about whether or not God exists, or about how likely God’s existence is. It is an argument that you definitely should live as though God exists.
It is not fair to accuse it of being an argument for a “probable God,” no matter how catchy that phrase might be.
I would have to agree with you Glenno, you have given good justifications for your position. Oddly enough, many atheists (of the Dawkins, Harris camp) and other non-Christian theists would insist on your use of Pascal’s Wager. It is merely the logical outcome of an attack on Mike’s incorrect reasoning. Doesn’t that let the sauce come out of the bottle too early!
//”It is an argument that you definitely should live as though God exists.”//
Which is a terrible argument, since we know for certain that He does.
//”It is not fair to accuse it of being an argument for a “probable God,” no matter how catchy that phrase might be.”//
It’s called a wager for a reason Glenn. One does not wager on certainties.
“since we know for certain that He does.”
The argument is designed for people who don’t have that knowledge (whether or not it is true.) It’s not designed for “we”, but for “them”.
“One does not wager on certainties.”
Yes, one does. One is then called a “winner” and the other party to the wager (if it’s that sort of wager) a “sucker”.
To Mike Robinson:
Actually, there’s been several debates with Sye and Alex, as is seen and discussed here:
http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/thoughts-on-debates-with-sye-et-al.html
And what does bad language and rudeness have to do with anything? It’s not like non-xians are the only ones who use it, not by a long shot. There are the people who write these:
http://richarddawkins.net/letters/ugly
Besides, when you have people like William Lane Craig defending genocide and expressing sympathy for those who carried it out, (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/wait_i_thought_they_believed_i.php) then you really have no right to complain because atheists use “bad language”!
And before anyone brings out the “those babies would have grown up to corrupt the Isrealites, may I remind you of the case when god said that virgin Midiante women could be taken in by the Isrealite soldiers, while everything else had to be killed. After all, they’d have a greater chance of being able to corrupt them than any baby would, now would they?
(Wish I’d remembered that point a while ago! –>http://tinyurl.com/chkfh9m)
This presup stuff has been dealt with (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/search/label/Presuppositional%20Gimmickry) over and over again by people like Dawson Bethrick, (http://katholon.com/Critique_of_STB_Proof.htm), Stephen Law (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22), etc.
As for that “god has revealed things such that we can be certain of them” stuff, if one considers the bible to be part of this “revelation” that is supposed to make everyone somehow “be certain” that this god exists, then there are problems:
In archeology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869128/skepticsannotate), internal consistency (Mark 14:3 vs John 12:3 -), promises, etc.
Promises like:
Mark 16:17-18
Matthew 17:20
That kind of stuff
You noted: Actually, there’s been several debates with Sye and Alex, as is seen and discussed here:
http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/thoughts-on-debates-with-sye-et-al.html
—–
Yes. and thanks for posting this info.
—————————————————–
And what does bad language and rudeness have to do with anything? It’s not like non-xians are the only ones who use it, not by a long shot. There are the people who write these:
http://richarddawkins.net/letters/ugly
—–
it has to do with bad language and rudeness. Moreover some readers may not want to listen to foul words.
——————————————–
Besides, when you have people like William Lane Craig defending genocide and expressing sympathy for those who carried it out, (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/wait_i_thought_they_believed_i.php) then you really have no right to complain because atheists use “bad language”!
And before anyone brings out the “those babies would have grown up to corrupt the Isrealites, may I remind you of the case when god said that virgin Midiante women could be taken in by the Isrealite soldiers, while everything else had to be killed. After all, they’d have a greater chance of being able to corrupt them than any baby would, now would they?
—
On what basis does atheism, which is built upon epistemic ground that is in constant flux, offer immutable moral truths required to judge anything as evil?
(Wish I’d remembered that point a while ago! –>http://tinyurl.com/chkfh9m)
————————————————-
This presup stuff has been dealt with (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/search/label/Presuppositional%20Gimmickry) over and over again by people like Dawson Bethrick, (http://katholon.com/Critique_of_STB_Proof.htm), Stephen Law (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22), etc.
Nope. There has not been a Walmart-style shopping rush out of Presup since atheists have responded to presup. – only atheists losing debate after debate.
——
As for that “god has revealed things such that we can be certain of them” stuff, if one considers the bible to be part of this “revelation” that is supposed to make everyone somehow “be certain” that this god exists, then there are problems:
In archeology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869128/skepticsannotate), internal consistency (Mark 14:3 vs John 12:3 -), promises, etc.
—
Incorrect. Countless Christian scholars have delivered powerful arguments against the above.
//On what basis does atheism, which is built upon epistemic ground that is in constant flux, offer immutable moral truths required to judge anything as evil?//
“Immutable moral truths”??
Your own god allows or commands pretty much any action that we in a civilized society have outlawed. Slavery, (http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/fundamentally-flawed-extra-dustin.html?showComment=1321154557134#c5714649074442876746), rape (see the reference to the Midianite women again, as well as the OT law that required the woman to to marry her rapist!), genocide (the reasons for which fall apart when one looks at the exception made for the Midianite virgin females), etc.
What right do xians have to judge anything as evil since your god has commanded or allowed pretty much all of the above at different times in your own bible?
At least atheists take into consideration things like: empathy (which even certain higher monkeys have), consequences for others, the health of society in which we and our children, families, and friends have to live in, etc.
“Moral truths” are rather more flexible than theists like to admit; and that’s a good thing. Otherwise, all those OT laws and values would still be in effect.
If theists on the other hand only claim that their belief in god is the only reason for a system of morality, then that means that they’ve tacitly admitted that they don’t care about any of the above reasons I’ve given above.
In doing so, it’s the theists lack of morality that’s exposed, not ours.
—
As for atheists continually “losing” to presuppers in debate, well that’s a matter of opinion; those who read the links I gave can make up their own minds. Though I admit it’s hard to argue with someone who’s conclusion is built right into their premises!
Not much room left to talk about evidence, is there? Especially when people like Sye say things like Christ is the basis of evidence in the first place!
As for the bible and archeology, again….let the readers decide.
//On what basis does atheism, which is built upon epistemic ground that is in constant flux, offer immutable moral truths required to judge anything as evil?//
“Immutable moral truths”??
Your own god allows or commands pretty much any action that we in a civilized society have outlawed. Slavery, (http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/fundamentally-flawed-extra-dustin.html?showComment=1321154557134#c5714649074442876746), rape (see the reference to the Midianite women again, as well as the OT law that required the woman to to marry her rapist!), genocide (the reasons for which fall apart when one looks at the exception made for the Midianite virgin females), etc.
What right do xians have to judge anything as evil since your god has commanded or allowed pretty much all of the above at different times in your own bible?
At least atheists take into consideration things like: empathy (which even certain higher monkeys have), consequences for others, the health of society in which we and our children, families, and friends have to live in, etc.
“Moral truths” are rather more flexible than theists like to admit; and that’s a good thing. Otherwise, all those OT laws and values would still be in effect.
If theists on the other hand only claim that their belief in god is the only reason for a system of morality, then that means that they’ve tacitly admitted that they don’t care about any of the above reasons I’ve given above.
In doing so, it’s the theists lack of morality that’s exposed, not ours.
——-
Incorrect. Theism provides immutable moral values; atheism cannot. W/o such, one cannot know, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil. Therefore, ultimately, atheism cannot rightly reject anyone’s moral values, including theists.
———————————–
As for atheists continually “losing” to presuppers in debate, well that’s a matter of opinion; those who read the links I gave can make up their own minds. Though I admit it’s hard to argue with someone who’s conclusion is built right into their premises!
Not much room left to talk about evidence, is there? Especially when people like Sye say things like Christ is the basis of evidence in the first place!
—–
Without God as the foundation one fails to provide an epistemic accounting for the rational pre-essentials necessary for the examination and analyzing of any evidence regarding anything.
———————————
As for the bible and archeology, again….let the readers decide.
—
They have. And there are 2.5 Billion Christians and 100 million atheists/agnostics.
“Incorrect. Theism provides immutable moral values; atheism cannot. W/o such, one cannot know, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil. Therefore, ultimately, atheism cannot rightly reject anyone’s moral values, including theists.:
Your argument seems to be.
1. Theism provides immutable moral values.
2. Atheism cannot.
3. Without immutable moral truths one cannot make a moral decision.
4. Therefore atheism cannot make a moral judgement on others moral judgements.
Is this correct?
Nope.
Atheists can and do make moral decisions, nonetheless they cannot account for Objective Moral Values or immutable Moral Values.
So your statement “W/o such, one cannot know, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil.” is incorrect?
Because, if one cannot know in principle if an action is good or evil, which is the basis of judging the morality of a given decision, then one could not make a moral judgement.
So you are stating
1. Theism provides immutable moral values.
2. Atheism cannot.
3. Without immutable moral truths one is still able to make a moral decision.
4. By which follows that one can know, without such objective or immutable Moral Values, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil.
?
Correct inasmuch as Non-theism lacks the ontic capacity to account for IMVs.
If one can know, without objective or immutable moral values, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil.
then
1. It is possible to know, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil.
2. If the moral worth of an action is determinable then moral judgements can be made.
3. Therefore morality can be determined without respect to objective or immutable moral values.
This does away with any need for arguments for or against theism or atheism having or not having objective or immutable moral values. They at this point become irrelevant.
Saying non-theism lacks the ontic capacity to account for IMVs though, is a accurate & as useful as saying Human Biology lacks the ontic capactity to account for linguistic structures.
Theism also lacks the ontic capacity to account for IMVs. Both theism & non-theism can account for the derivation of such but neither has the potentia to express the being of a moral value and therefore cannot even describe the immutability of such let alone account for their immutability.
Mike:
//Incorrect. Theism provides immutable moral values; atheism cannot. W/o such, one cannot know, in principle, if an action at any given moment is good or evil. Therefore, ultimately, atheism cannot rightly reject anyone’s moral values, including theists.//
All you’ve done is repeat the same assertion: So, again, if your god acts so morally inconsistent as he does, theists have no right to claim “moral immutablity”. If genocide is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not, you do not have moral immutability.
When you say that this “immutable moral values” lets you know “if an action at any given moment is good or evil” that should tell you right there that you don’t have “immutable moral values”. If an action like genocide is evil, it’s always evil, is it not? Apparently not in xian apologetics….or Islamic either apparently.
I always figured that morality should be based on the point of view of the victim, not by who orders the actions done.
Mike:
//Without God as the foundation one fails to provide an epistemic accounting for the rational pre-essentials necessary for the examination and analyzing of any evidence regarding anything.//
I would LOVE to see examples of this kind of thinking that you’ve just described in action, Mike. Do they constantly bring up Christ being the foundation for when they talk about physical evidence in courtrooms or something? How’s about mathematical theorems??
Various pre-xian cultures seem to have done well in devising theorems and using “evidence” without any knowledge of your god. Besides, what’s to stop an Islamic or any other monotheistic belief system’s believer from claiming the same thing?
The nice thing about presupposition: Never having to give any evidence! Just claim that your deity is somehow (without showing how!) a necessary requirement for the concept of evidence in the first place!
Mike:
//They have. And there are 2.5 Billion Christians and 100 million atheists/agnostics.//
Hmmm…fallacy of popularity? Just how many of those “christians” have done all the research that your “scholars” have? And how many of those two and a half billion christians are more than “cultural christians? Do you include every single denomination in that number?
One has to wonder then about that bible verse that says that the road to heaven in narrow while the road to hell is wide. Is this an admission that part of the bible is wrong?
(Matthew 7:13-14)
When you say that this “immutable moral values” lets you know “if an action at any given moment is good or evil” that should tell you right there that you don’t have “immutable moral values”. If an action like genocide is evil, it’s always evil, is it not? Apparently not in xian apologetics….or Islamic either apparently.
I always figured that morality should be based on the point of view of the victim, not by who orders the actions done.
—
if it’s “based on” a mutable human “point of view” it is not immutable.
———————————–
Mike:
//Without God as the foundation one fails to provide an epistemic accounting for the rational pre-essentials necessary for the examination and analyzing of any evidence regarding anything.//
I would LOVE to see examples of this kind of thinking that you’ve just described in action, Mike. Do they constantly bring up Christ being the foundation for when they talk about physical evidence in courtrooms or something? How’s about mathematical theorems??
—-
Courtrooms are usually not philosophical forums that demand a proper epistemic status.
———————————
Various pre-xian cultures seem to have done well in devising theorems and using “evidence” without any knowledge of your god. Besides, what’s to stop an Islamic or any other monotheistic belief system’s believer from claiming the same thing?
—
all men employ and analyze evidence but only theism accounts for the rational tools required to discern and analyze evidence.
———————————–
The nice thing about presupposition: Never having to give any evidence! Just claim that your deity is somehow (without showing how!) a necessary requirement for the concept of evidence in the first place!
—
Incorrect.
There is evidence everywhere. but before one interprets evidence one has to supply the ontic foundation that can account for evidence. Atheism lacks such.
——————————————–
Mike:
//They have. And there are 2.5 Billion Christians and 100 million atheists/agnostics.//
Hmmm…fallacy of popularity? Just how many of those “christians” have done all the research that your “scholars” have? And how many of those two and a half billion christians are more than “cultural christians? Do you include every single denomination in that number?
—-
That was not an deductive argument. It was a response to an assertion you made – “Let the readers decide.”
—————————-
One has to wonder then about that bible verse that says that the road to heaven in narrow while the road to hell is wide. Is this an admission that part of the bible is wrong?
(Matthew 7:13-14)
——
God is the judge. Since He is Holy you need to have your sins expiated – repent and trust Christ.
“all men employ and analyze evidence but only theism accounts for the rational tools required to discern and analyze evidence.”
– Just to be clear; which theism? Or are we referring to any theism that provides an infallible external observer?
And does that “observer” need to be a sentient entity?
Reynold:
Do you affirm certain truth?
Do you affirm unchanging truth?
Do you affirm that the laws of thought are universal?
Do you affirm that you have sinned and that you have displeased God?
Can you provide a deductive argument that proves God does not exist?
Can you provide a deductive argument that supplies the fixed reason one OUGHT to avoid logical fallacies?
Morally and absolutely OUGHT mathematics be viewed through a religious lens or an atheist lens?
Is the ultimate locus for mathematics the rational mind of man?
Where does the truth of math reside?
Name the place:______
Not answering *for* Reynold, but answering the questions:
1) Depends on your definition. However, given the existence of the solipsistic and simulacrum problems, I’d have to say “No.”
Now that’s a tricky one. 
I don’t happen to be an idealist on this point; but I can see an idealist’s point of view.
2) No.
3) What’s a “law of thought”? Do you mean logical principles?
4) No.
5) No.
6) “Ought” really isn’t a concept that belongs to logic. I can provide an argument that supplies a fixed reason why it’s a bad idea if your goal is to prove any specific point, but that’s not quite the same thing.
7) Mathematics should be viewed through a mathematical lens.
9) Outside of logical proof, as Gödel has demonstrated.
10) Within the constraints of the particular logical/mathematical formalism in which it operates.
Mike on morality:
//if it’s “based on” a mutable human “point of view” it is not immutable.//
So what? I never said that morality was immutable, did I?? At least with humanity, we’re trying to make things better for ourselves and each other: For instance the god-ordained genocides and slavery in the OT are illegal now.
I just said that your gods inconsistent actions show that even if one were to bas morality on him, that their system of morality is not immutable either. ( and not particularly civilized, given the things that your god did, with apologists like William Lane Craig defends!)
Mike:
//Courtrooms are usually not philosophical forums that demand a proper epistemic status.//
In courtrooms, one has to present EVIDENCE for one’s claims, and deal with a proper cross-examination. I asked for examples of your claim that God-belief is necessary to provide the tools for being able to use evidence. All you did was mention that statement (which I quoted above), and then basically repeat your original statement again without giving any examples, or justifications:
//all men employ and analyze evidence but only theism accounts for the rational tools required to discern and analyze evidence.//
So, I’ll try again: How’s about listing those “rational tools” of yours?
By the way, if it’s philosophy you want, may I recommend a real philosopher’s blog:
Stephen Law. He’s dealt with you presupper types before:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22
Mike:
//Incorrect.
There is evidence everywhere. but before one interprets evidence one has to supply the ontic foundation that can account for evidence. Atheism lacks such.//
How so? How’s about you show that theism DOES account for the concept of evidence? Evidence is a religiously neutral concept. If on the other hand, you’re making the claim that theism is necessary to justify the concept of evidence, how’s about showing it?
Mike:
//That was not an deductive argument. It was a response to an assertion you made – “Let the readers decide.”//
Ok…Mike. You totally missed the point here. You were going on about how many xians there were in the world; much more than there were atheists; I was pointing out that besides using a fallacy; your holy book itself says that there will be FEW people making it to this “heaven” of yours, thus showing that you had just disproved one teaching of your own book by pointing out how MANY of you there were.
You replied to that with this little non-sequitor:
//God is the judge. Since He is Holy you need to have your sins expiated – repent and trust Christ.//
Not even addressing the point.
You go on to say:
//Morally and absolutely OUGHT mathematics be viewed through a religious lens or an atheist lens?
Is the ultimate locus for mathematics the rational mind of man?
Where does the truth of math reside?
Name the place:______//
As far as I know, Steven S has answered this one well: “Outside of logical proof, as Gödel has demonstrated.”
He has also answered your last question well: “10) Within the constraints of the particular logical/mathematical formalism in which it operates.”
Are you going to claim that the god whose “holy book” can’t even do mathematics right (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html#sum) and (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html#count)
I simply asked you to show that your god is needed to account for evidence and the laws of mathematics, etc. I asked you to show me this. You respond with bafflegab. Back up your claim, please. Mathematics and logic, etc are religiously neutral concepts.
Whoops. Missed a few words in my last reply: Reposting….feel free to disregard my last post:
======
Mike on morality:
//if it’s “based on” a mutable human “point of view” it is not immutable.//
So what? I never said that morality was immutable, did I?? At least with humanity, we’re trying to make things better for ourselves and each other: For instance the god-ordained genocides and slavery in the OT are illegal now.
I just said that your gods inconsistent actions show that even if one were to base one’s morality on him, that their system of morality is not immutable either. ( and not particularly civilized, given the things that your god did, with apologists like William Lane Craig defends!)
Mike:
//Courtrooms are usually not philosophical forums that demand a proper epistemic status.//
In courtrooms, one has to present EVIDENCE for one’s claims, and deal with a proper cross-examination. I asked for examples of your claim that God-belief is necessary to provide the tools for being able to use evidence. All you did was mention that statement (which I quoted above), and then basically repeat your original statement again without giving any examples, or justifications:
//all men employ and analyze evidence but only theism accounts for the rational tools required to discern and analyze evidence.//
So, I’ll try again: How’s about listing those “rational tools” of yours?
By the way, if it’s philosophy you want, may I recommend a real philosopher’s blog:
Stephen Law. He’s dealt with you presupper types before:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22
Mike:
//Incorrect.
There is evidence everywhere. but before one interprets evidence one has to supply the ontic foundation that can account for evidence. Atheism lacks such.//
How so? How’s about you show that theism DOES account for the concept of evidence? Evidence is a religiously neutral concept. If on the other hand, you’re making the claim that theism is necessary to justify the concept of evidence, how’s about showing it?
Mike:
//That was not an deductive argument. It was a response to an assertion you made – “Let the readers decide.”//
Ok…Mike. You totally missed the point here. You were going on about how many xians there were in the world; much more than there were atheists; I was pointing out that besides using a fallacy; your holy book itself says that there will be FEW people making it to this “heaven” of yours, thus showing that you had just disproved one teaching of your own book by pointing out how MANY of you there were.
You replied to that with this little non-sequitor:
//God is the judge. Since He is Holy you need to have your sins expiated – repent and trust Christ.//
Not even addressing the point.
You go on to say:
//Morally and absolutely OUGHT mathematics be viewed through a religious lens or an atheist lens?
Is the ultimate locus for mathematics the rational mind of man?
Where does the truth of math reside?
Name the place:______//
As far as I know, Steven S has answered this one well: “Outside of logical proof, as Gödel has demonstrated.”
He has also answered your last question well: “10) Within the constraints of the particular logical/mathematical formalism in which it operates.”
Are you going to claim that the god whose “holy book” can’t even do mathematics right (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html#sum) and (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html#count) is somehow the basis for mathematics now??
I simply asked you to show that your god is needed to account for evidence and the laws of mathematics, etc. I asked you to show me this. You respond with bafflegab. Back up your claim, please. Mathematics and logic, etc are religiously neutral concepts.