In Defense of God & Christendom

Approx. 9/27/2007

--(1/1/2015) Preface: This article was originally titled Rock God question but that title
was a bit clumsy in the first place, and this writing has since expanded to include a more
diverse discussion and so has received a superior and more accommodating retitling.
--I find the "Is god so powerful even he could create a rock so heavy he could not
lift" to be a useless quote that holds no grounds. Why it's continually echoed I don't
know, it seems redundant. It's like if I asked "Is god so powerful he can spell the word
'dog' without using the letter 'o'?"
Let's use an equation for understanding. God can create a rock of X weight, he
can lift a rock of Y weight. X=Y, but X and Y can represent any number. Basically
saying, the perfect being should be able to manipulate any object in any way he wants. If
X>Y, then he can create but not manipulate. If Y>X then he can manipulate more than he
can create. If he is the perfect being than his creation power should be in a 1:1 ratio with
his manipulation ability correct?
Far more interesting questions would be: "Can god kill himself?", "Can god lie?",
"Can god split himself into two equally powerful beings?" Why aren't questions like that
answered instead of stupid religious rhetoric?
-Greg dratsab Huffman
(1/19/2014) Thought:
This is known as the Omnipotence paradox on Wikipedia, and I notice that the
argument really seems to be about what the definition of omnipotence is rather than any
form of argument against the idea of God. It never argues that it is impossible for God to
have maximum power, rather it seems to be all about establishing what those maximum
limits are.
(6/22/2014) Devils Advocate
I think I may expand this philosophical page to post all my other defenses of
Christianity or religion or deism as well to consolidate space. So, one more thing I have
to pick a bone with is when Penn Jillette asks (and I believe hes quoting someone, but
Im not sure who) something like If God came to you and asked you to murder your
child, if you say no you are probably an atheist, and if you say yes please reconsider.
Im not convinced by this argument for a few reasons. One reason I dont think it is a
good argument, is that just because you dont listen to God doesnt mean you dont think
he exists. If anything, you would just become a maltheist. I mean, if you answered his
question, then by default you have accepted his existence, but maybe not his advice.
Second, a religious defender (depending on their stance regarding the Euthyphro

Dilemma) might argue that the God they believe in would never order such an immoral
command. Just like fans of a certain individual (say, a celebrity) might say that that
person would never engage in a certain unscrupulous activity, but if they did that they
might stop being fans of them then.
On a similar note, Penn Jillette also put forth an argument saying that if Christians
truly believed in an after-life, then why do they cry when they go to a funeral? Why
arent they happy instead? Well, when a friend moves to a new state, do we not
sometimes weep for them? Yet, we know we will probably still see them again, and that
they arent gone forever, and arguably also that they are now in a better place. So, neither
of these arguments I think hold up very well under scrutiny. With that said, Im still an
atheist.
(12/31/2014) A Whole Lot of Nothing Coming Our Way
I was watching another Christopher Hitchens debate last night (and am currently
reading his book god is not Great) and he likes to mention the poor design of the universe
by saying that a whole lot of nothing is coming our way. The sun will one day become a
super-giant and eat us all. The Andromeda galaxy will collide into us. Some Design!
he is (or was) fond of saying.
But isnt this what Christians (and other religious groups) want? Hasnt Hitchens
even made the argument that believers look forward to death more than life? This
design fits them quite well, I believe. This is their revelation. Ive personally met
people that would drone on about how we are living in the days of Revelation! with
glee. To their credit, at least they believe in an after-life rather than just wishing ill on
everyone. Well, except for the people who they look forward to seeing tortured in hell.
But, I dont really see how this design choice conflicts with the Armageddon lovers in
religion.
I also hear anecdotal tales of former believers losing their faith after someone in
their family dies. This seems to me something different than being mad at god. If you
are mad at god for temporarily taking away a family member, then that is something I can
understand. But to say that you stopped believing simply because of an inexplicable and
unjust death seems to me to show that you really didnt believe in the first place. For if
you truly believed, you would be happy that your family member has moved on towards
a better place. Why then be shaken in your faith when the person you have been praying
for passes on (as the euphemism goes)? You knew before-hand that prayer was just a slotmachine that didnt always pay out. And you believed that death was an illusion anyway.
So, what am I missing here?
(8/14/2015) Living in Sin: Homosexuality
Another thing I can defend, looking at it from the point of view of the religious, is
their criticism of homosexuality as a sin. Some people will compare it with something
like adultery, and say that since a certain Christian had an affair, that they are just as

guilty as the homosexual. However, there is a difference. When a person has an affair,
many times it is a onetime occurrence that the perpetrator feels guilty about. When they
say that homosexuality is living in sin, they are saying that this is an ongoing lifestyle
that the person is shameless about.