Eric the God-Eating Penguin v. God

This post is going to be a little different than my usual content.  I read an amusing analogy written by an anonymous skeptic attempting to compare the Christian God to a mythical penguin named Eric.  It went like this:

God can’t exist because of Eric, the God-Eating magic penguin.  Since Eric is god-eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat god.  So, if god exists, he automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten.

So unless you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist, god doesn’t exist.  Even if you can prove Eric doesn’t exist, that same proof will also be applicable to god.

There are only two possibilities.  Either you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist or you can’t.  In both cases, it logically follows that god doesn’t exist.

It’s an amusing argument but it suffers from a failed premise - it’s non sequitur.  It doesn’t logically follow that if Eric doesn’t exist, then God doesn’t exist.  To show the weakness of this analogy, here’s another analogy: The Joker is a supervillain who immediately destroys all police officers.  If the Joker exists, then police officers cannot exist because they would all be destroyed already.  But if you can prove the Joker doesn’t exist, then it follows that police officers do not exist!

Wow, that took only about 2 minutes to rebut.  But since the story is amusing, I thought I’d explore it a little more.  

What kind of being would Eric have to be, that would make it able to eat gods?  I mean, what sort of attributes would it possess?  Let’s think about that.

First, how would it find the gods?  There could be a god born (er… come into being? exist? IDK) on a small planet in a galaxy far away from Eric and how would Eric know he was there?  Eric would somehow have to automatically know whenever a god comes into being anywhere in the universe.  In other words, Eric would have to be omniscient.

Next, how would Eric eat a god unless it was near him?  If Eric were on Earth and there were a god on a planet 1 billion light years away, it wouldn’t be able to eat him.  What’s more, suppose there is another god on a different planet 1 billion light years in the opposite direction.  Can Eric be in both places?  That would make it omnipresent.

Another point is, if Eric can automatically know when a god is born and can instantly be there next to him, ready to devour it, how could it unless it were able to overpower the god?  A mouse couldn’t eat a lion, could it?  To be able to eat any god that could ever exist, Eric would have to be omnipotent.

Finally, is Eric confined only to this universe?  What if there were a god that transcends the natural - a god that is supernatural - would Eric be able to eat that god also?  Then Eric would have to be supernatural.

So Eric would have to be a supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being.  It’s funny that, to argue that God doesn’t exist, skeptics have to invent a being like God to rebut Him.  Now, I get it. That’s sort of what the skeptic is going for.  He’s trying to say that anyone can make up an all-powerful being and evidence against that imaginary being is also evidence against any all-powerful being.  That really doesn’t follow, does it?  I mean, Samuel Clemens (AKA Mark Twain) was a real person who, on occasion, would ride on a boat on the Mississippi River.  He made up a boy named Tom Sawyer who also rode on a boat on the Mississippi River.  So, if I can prove Tom Sawyer didn’t exist, is that evidence that Samuel Clemens doesn’t exist?  Hardly!  Like I’ve already said, the entire argument is non sequitur.  

The idea to make Eric a penguin suggests the analogy was intended to be absurd but the anonymous author was still trying to make a point.  It’s sort of like the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy.  They invent a comical, obviously imaginary creature with god-like abilities, to plant the idea that God, too, is imaginary.  These types of arguments sound clever for a moment, but they’re a mish mash of logical fallacies.  Think about other examples: because Sherlock Holmes doesn’t exist, real detectives don’t exist.  Because Rain Man (the Dustin Hoffman character) doesn’t exist, Kim Peek didn’t exist.  Because Paul Bunyan doesn’t exist, lumberjacks don’t exist.  Where does it end?

Here’s a thought: the analogy said Eric “is god-eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat god.”  So if God exists, that alone would be proof that Eric doesn’t exist since it hasn’t eaten God already!  There you go, Mr. Skeptic.  Chew on that one for a while!

Popular misconceptions about the Nativity

As is a tradition in the Bentley household, I’ve set up my nativity set.  Every Christmas, the nativity is really the only decoration I look forward to setting up - perhaps even more than the tree.  I believe it’s because the Nativity is the most stark reminder of why we celebrate Christmas.  But even though I enjoy setting a good nativity, I know the traditional scenes that decorate lawns and tabletops all over the world aren’t very accurate depictions of the actual nativity. 

Let’s start with the trip to Bethlehem.  The Christmas card image of Joseph walking through the desert at night, while leading Mary who is riding a donkey isn’t found anywhere in the Scriptures.  Since the purpose of the journey was a census/tax, then all of Mary’s and Joseph’s family would have probably been traveling together.  They would have all been of the same house and lineage, afterall.  Furthermore, they would have likely been together when the Baby was born.  Did neither Mary nor Joseph have any living parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, or siblings?  Where are they in the nativities?

Next, the couple didn’t necessarily arrive in Bethlehem the very night of Jesus’ birth, as if often depicted in films.  The Bible merely says that she delivered Jesus, “while they were there” (Luke 2:6).  More precisely, the verse says, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered,” strongly suggesting that she spent that remaining part of her pregnancy in Bethlehem.  They could have been there for days, weeks, or even months!  

My next point is probably the most controversial and puts me at odds with most Christians but I don’t believe Jesus was born in a stable.  The word translated as inn in the KJV (Strong’s 2646, kataluma, καταλύμα) is the same word used in Mark 14:14 to refer to the room where Jesus had the Last Supper.  In Mark, the word is translated as guestchamber and suggests it was just an area in a residence available for guests.  Typical Jewish homes in the 1st century weren’t spacious buildings with many bedrooms.  Instead, they were smaller buildings built upward with a second floor.   Mundane living, cooking, and family gathering was done on the 1st floor during the day.  At night, the animals (typically some goats or maybe a donkey) were brought inside, and the family slept on the 2nd floor.  As already discussed, Mary and Joseph would have had family in Bethlehem and they likely would have been staying with them.  Because of the census, many members of the same family were probably staying in the same house, making the normal sleeping areas overcrowded.  This, combined with Mary nearing delivery and so would have had difficulty climbing to the 2nd floor, means Mary and Joseph may have been sleeping on the 1st floor where the animals were kept.  This is the type of situation Jesus likely was born into - a poor, overcrowded home - not a stable.

The final misconception many people have about the Nativity is that the wisemen weren’t there!  This point really isn’t debateable.  The coming of the wise men discussed in Matthew 2 happened when Jesus was nearing 2 years old.  Matthew 2:16 says that Herod ordered the murder of all children up to two years old “according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”  In other words, the wise men had seen the “star” as long as two years earlier and had just then arrived to worship the Savior.  I should probably do a separate post about the Star and the wise men.  

When I point out these little details, some people despair.  I’m not sure why.  I guess it’s because it upsets the scene of that night they have always pictured in their minds but there’s no need to lament.  The most important details about Jesus’ birth have been recorded correctly.  It’s the message given by the angel to the shepherds in Luke 2:8-14:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.   And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Wow, that is good news!!

Science versus reality

There is a video series on YouTube titled, The Arrogance of Creationism (I’ve linked to video 4 here).  It’s hosted by a belligerent evolutionist who posts under the name, King Crocoduck.  By the way, for the sake of brevity, I’m going to be referring to King Crocoduck as KC.  

For those who might not be familiar with the term, a crocoduck is an imaginary creature made popular by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to highlight evolution’s glaring shortage of transitional forms.  It’s a hypothetical critter that is ½ crocodile and ½ duck.  I’m fairly certain the word was made in half-jest but evolutionists have seized upon it and now tout it as an example of creationists’ supposed lack of understanding of evolution.  But I’m not really going to talk about Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or even King Crocoduck for that matter.  Instead, I’m going to talk about a point KC made in his series, namely that science is the best tool for examining reality.

KC begins the video with this thought: You know, the most remarkable thing about science is that it works.  It consistently produces reliable results that have revolutionized our species in a way that no other way of thinking ever has.  

Hmm.  I will grant that science has made great contributions to our way of life - obviously - and science benefits us in different ways than things like theology or philosophy benefit us.  But does he mean science is the best way to understand reality?  Why, yes!  That’s exactly what he means.  He says it overtly later when he says, Theology and philosophy simply cannot compete with science if the goal is to construct accurate models of reality.  I literally laughed out loud about 58 seconds into the video when KC says, Science works. Hate the method for being so rigorous – hate the conclusions for not conforming to your expectations – but do NOT deny its power!  He sounds like a supervillain.  

KC exhibits a trait common among evolutionists; it’s the flaw of scientism. PBS.org defines scientism this way:

“Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc [sic] worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”

I’m sure evolutionists would reject themselves being compared to religious fundamentalists but if the shoe fits….  Frankly, I find it hilarious that zealous evolutionists can’t see the religious nature of their faith-like science.  As a world-view, scientism suffers from many flaws.  I can’t touch on all of them in a single post but I will touch on some of the most obvious difficulties.  

Let’s start with morality.  Is there really such a thing as morality? Certainly the universe doesn't care what we do. Science can only describe what happens but can't say if a thing is right or wrong. What some might call “murder” is just one animal killing another. It happens all the time in nature and it's no more wrong than an apple falling from a tree. Theology and philosophy are far better tools for examining the reality of good and evil.

Also, does something like beauty exist?  Science can study how a person responds to things we say are beautiful but - again - is anything objectively beautiful?  A fiery sunset, a snow-capped mountain, or a starry sky are all just things that animals likely don’t even notice.  Yet we look at these things and see they are sublime.  Why?  To even begin to answer, we must resort to philosophy or - dare I say -  regard the Creator!

Science is also limited when examining history.  Pick any person from history and try to prove – scientifically – that he really lived.  Is there scientific evidence, for example, of Washington crossing the Delaware?  The best evidence we have for people or events of antiquity is what has been written down about them. The evidence we have for the life, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus is the same type of evidence we have for Columbus having sailed to the Americas.

Speaking of miracles, scientism is also at a disadvantage when examining miracles. At about 6:27 in the video, KC says, “The bottom line is this: scientists don't interpret evidence in a manner that fits an a priori conclusion.” KC is wrong. Secular scientists do have a bias – an a priori commitment to naturalism.  Here’s a quote I’ve cited many times before:

“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002

Now, there is no scientific reason to believe every phenomenon must have a natural cause. It's an assumption – a tenet that cannot be observed anywhere in the universe. So, if a miracle has occurred in reality, evolutionists would have to deny it happened on no grounds other than a religious-like faith in scientism.

The worst thing about scientism, though, is that it retards critical thinking. Skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of scientific inquiry. Once a majority of scientists accept any particular conclusion, it becomes, “settled science.” Any expression of doubt about the conclusion is met with ridicule, insults, and the label of being a “science denier.”  In the Bible, when Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, he sought to end their engagement (Matthew 1:18-19).  He did this because he understood how a woman gets pregnant.  If he had stubbornly clung to that belief after the appearance of the angel, he would not have been denying science - he would have been denying reality!!

KC is talking about using science to construct accurate models of “reality.” That's a pretty tall order because reality includes EVERYTHING including morality, history, beauty, emotions, and miracles. If Jesus walked on water, fed the multitude, healed the sick, and rose from the dead, that's reality even if we can't study it scientifically.  I'm less interested in studying things scientifically and more interested in learning what is true!

You can’t observe age!

Evolution is a failed theory being propped up with half-truths, deceptions, and outright lies.  And since evolution requires a large amount of time to even be plausible as a theory, one of the things often lied about is the age of the earth.  Evolutionists are sometimes forced to concede some point of their theory when the evidence overwhelmingly refutes it, but they will never consider a young earth to be the correct interpretation of any scientific discovery.  Never!

In order to appear more confident in their long age interpretations, skeptics will often conflate things we can observe with things we conclude.  Let me give you an example.  In an appearance on Larry King Now, Bill Nye made the following comment:

My concern has always been, you can't use tax dollars intended for science education to teach something akin to the earth is 10,000 years old. To... 'cause that's just wrong. It's very much analogous to saying the earth is flat. I mean, you can show the earth is not flat; you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old.

Perhaps what Nye means to say is that he can show us things like the decay rate of radioisotopes and explain how scientists use this to estimate the age of the earth. But that's not what he is saying. What he's saying is that he can show us the age of the earth just like he can show us its shape and I'm saying no he can't. We can observe the shape of the earth from space. We can watch it rotate in real time. We can sail, fly, and for the most part even drive around the entire earth and see it has no edges anywhere. We can observe many features about the earth but we cannot observe its age. No way. No how. “Age” is simply not a substance you can hold against a ruler, put under a microscope, or weigh on a scale.

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, holds that there are two types of science: observational science and historical science. His point is simply that there are things we can observe in the here and now and there are some things that happened in the past that can't be observed. It's not a hard concept to grasp, really, although I wouldn't necessarily use the terms myself.  Yet even though I may disagree with Ham on his use of the terms “observational” and “historical” science, I disagree even more with critics like Nye who would have us believe we can observe the age of the earth in a similar way that we can observe the earth is round.

Science is only ever conducted in the present. Always! Something like a fossil may have been created in the past but we can only study it in the present. We can measure it, x-ray it, compare it to the bones of living animals, compare it to other fossils we've found, and subject it to a wide battery of tests. All the things that we can do to learn more about the fossil can only be done in the present. We cannot go back into the past and “observe” the suspect animal. I can repeat the tests done on the fossil in the present. I cannot repeat the animal and nor can I repeat the alleged “millions of years” the fossil has been buried. The idea that science is only conducted in the present seems to me to be self-evident.

In the famous Ham v. Nye debate, Nye adamantly rejected any distinction between things we can observe in the present and conclusions we draw about the past.  He went so far as to say this during the debate:

So here tonight we are going to have two stories, and we can compare Mr. Ham's story to the story from the outside, what I call mainstream science. The question here tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable? So let me ask you, what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? You'd be home watching CSI TV show, CSI-Petersburg. I think that's coming. And on CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here.”

The distinction between seeing something happen and concluding something happened should be obvious.  But because evolutionists go out of their way to ignore this simple concept, they claim that the earth is billions of years old with the same vigor as they say the earth is a globe.

“Age” simply cannot be seen. When we see an “old” person, we aren't really seeing his age but are seeing things like wrinkles, a stooped posture, and gray hair. We have seen these similar characteristics in people whose ages we know and so when we see these features on a stranger, we can estimate his age.  Of course, we can be wrong about our estimates.  Have you ever heard someone say things like, “Wow, You don’t look 60” or “I thought you were older than 20”?  Maybe it’s the color of their hair.  Because gray hair is usually associated with age, if a 60 year old person hasn’t begun to gray, he may be mistaken for being younger.  If a 20 year old person begins to gray prematurely, he may be mistaken for being older.  

Now don’t get me wrong, simply because we cannot repeat the past does not mean we cannot draw conclusions – even correct conclusions – about events we did not see.  It’s easy to understand how we can be mistaken about certain characteristics we associate with certain ages. We see many older people with gray hair so it isn’t unreasonable to suppose a person who is gray is older.  Here, we're talking about the age of the earth. I know what an 80 year old man typically looks like but we don't know what a 4 billion year old earth is supposed to look like.  We've never seen a 4 billion year old earth.

This is why the debate around a young earth is substantially different from the debate around a flat earth. I'm really tired of arguing with evolutionists about this. I can understand reaching different conclusions about the same evidence but believing we can literally see the past is ridiculous. It also frustrates rational discussion since many evolutionists cannot see the circular nature of their view. When we look at a fossil, we are not looking at the past: if a person believes he sees “millions of years” when he looks at a fossil, he is assuming something about the fossil that he should be seeking to discover. How did the fossil come to be? When did the fossil come to be? We can use science to explore these questions but we can only explore them in the present.  We see a fossil - we don’t see age.  We never see age.  You can’t observe age!!

Atheists are the champion spin doctors

I strive to be a good writer. Like any skill, writing improves with practice, and over my many years of blogging, I believe I’ve made progress. Some posts I've made are better than others, but I feel I’m able to string a few sentences together to make a good point. That being said, I have to doff my hat to atheists.  When it comes to verbosity and word-crafting, there are few people who can compete with them.

Consider how most people understand evolution to be the transformation of species, such as dinosaurs into birds or apes into humans. They might define evolution as “the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms throughout Earth's history.”  However, if you use this definition when debating an evolutionist, stand back lest their frothing at the mouth should splash on you.  To an evolutionist, evolution is precisely defined: any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (TalkOrigins). So if a population of mice is 50% gray in one generation, then 55% gray in the next generation, then the mice have evolved!   Evolved into what remains unclear, but evolutionists insist on this vague definition.

They apply their wordsmithery to many terms. Science is no longer simply a quest for knowledge; it now seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms (Scientific American).  Notice the shift: science is framed not as a pursuit of truth but as an exploration of the natural.

Skeptics even seek to redefine Christian concepts.  In the Bible, faith means “believe.”  The two words are literally the same word in the Greek (pistis, πίστις, Strong’s word 4102).  It’s where we get the English word epistemology.  I believe in God and the Bible for the same reasons I believe anything - I’m convinced of the truth of it.  In contrast, atheists want to define faith as “belief without evidence,” suggesting that when Christians assert faith, they are admitting a lack of evidence.

Perhaps the most notable redefinition is that of “atheist.”  Many people understand an atheist as someone who denies the existence of God. However, atheists typically assert that atheism simply means lacking belief in a god. This distinction, while subtle, is significant: denying there's a god versus not believing in one.

Atheists may be ignorant, but they’re not stupid (maybe some are).  They recognize the challenges of claiming there is no god, as this asserts a universal negative. Instead, they prefer to identify as lacking belief, allowing them to act as if there is no god without actually having to prove there’s no god.

However, this definition has issues. First, it lacks rigor. If atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then a rock can technically be considered an atheist, right?  Consider this, if a vegetarian is defined as “someone who doesn’t eat meat,” then rocks also qualify as vegetarians. Perhaps a more accurate definition of vegetarian should be “a person who chooses not to eat meat” which would now exclude rocks since rocks don't decide to not eat meat. I don’t think, though, that atheists would be happy if we changed their definition to, “a person who decides not to believe in God.”  When you equivocate on the meaning of words to prop up your argument, you’re opening a can of worms.

Second, a term already exists for those uncertain about God’s existence: agnosticism. I suspect that atheists avoid this label because it allows for the possibility of a god, which they want to stubbornly reject.  Atheists want to pretend they’re open minded.  It’s been my experience that atheists aren’t open-minded at all.  They want to put the burden of proving God on Christians, while they sit cross-armed and scoff.  It doesn’t matter what evidence they are shown, they will always say it’s not enough.

Finally, those who embrace this vague definition of atheism seldom live by it.  They might say they merely lack a belief in god, but if you debate with them long enough, most will usually admit to believing there is no god.  They rarely recant their definition, instead revealing their stance through statements like, “If there were a god, why is there so much suffering?” When an atheist says something like this, he tacitly admits he thinks there’s no god because of the suffering in the world. Sometimes, though, they make more overt statements like “there is no invisible sky daddy” which removes all doubt about what they truly believe.

Let me ask a question: if an atheist simply lacks a belief in God, what is the word that describes a person who actually believes there is no god?  Words have meanings but unbelievers want to continuously muddy the waters.  The reasons atheists foist their meaningless definitions on the rest of are many:  they want to create a red herring to derail conversations with Christians; they want to excuse themselves from having to justify their disbelief; and they want to present themselves as enlightened thinkers who are only withholding their opinion until they see the evidence for God.  //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

To all the skeptics out there, if you are sincerely open-minded, then you’re agnostic.  If you believe there is no god, then you’re atheists.  Stop playing word games.  You’re not seekers of truth, you're spin doctors!