The Triune God of Scripture Lives (White vs Barker)

I would now like to introduce our moderator for the evening. Mohamed Khalil is an assistant professor in the Department of Religion here at the University of Illinois. His specialization is in Islamic studies, a topic on which he has presented papers, taught courses, and published journal articles and book chapters.

Please welcome Professor Khalil.

Good evening. First, let me say as a professor of religion that it's encouraging to see so many students here with finals just around the corner. Tonight's debate concerns the thesis, The Triune God of Scripture Lives.

Debate Format and Introductions

The format is as follows. We will begin with opening statements, followed by a cross-examination. And cross-examination simply is for the purpose of clarifying and verifying what was stated earlier.

This will be followed by a rebuttal and a second cross-examination. We will then take a brief 10-minute break. We will return, and we will repeat the process with a shorter time frame, and we will switch the order of speakers.

This will be followed by questions from the audience, and that will be it. We are honored to have with us tonight Dr. James White and Mr. Dan Barker. Dr. White, to my right, is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.

He is the author of more than 20 books, a professor, an accomplished debater, and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. To my left is Mr. Dan Barker. Mr. Barker was an evangelical minister and Christian songwriter for 19 years, but has since renounced all religion.

Today, he fights for the separation of church and state as the co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation and as a co-host of Free Thought Radio. He also plays jazz piano and lives in Madison, Wisconsin.

And with that, I'd like to turn the floor over to our first presenter, Dr. White. Please join me in welcoming Dr. White.

The Knowledge of God and the Triune Creator

Well, thank you very much for having me here this evening. It is truly an honor to be with you at the University of Illinois. I appreciate the invitation, and I thank Dan Barker for being here this evening as well.

Our subject this evening is very, very important. Dan and I were noting that this is not the first time that we have met. In fact, we met a long time ago on the Tom Likas show in Phoenix, Arizona. And one thing that we both immediately noticed is that both of us had a whole lot more hair than we do today.

And the irony, of course, of that is the fact that that indicates that time is passing. And that passage of time indicates that we debate this evening on the precipice of eternity. None of us know what tomorrow will bring.

Therefore, what we are debating should not be a mere intellectual exercise for anyone this evening. From the Christian worldview, we are speaking about the very issues of life itself. The audience tonight, those who are here in the auditorium, those who will be listening later by recording, you are the ones who cannot be neutral about the subject that we are looking at this evening.

You are the judges of the debate. And please keep in mind, even though we live in a postmodern paradigm today, postmodernism does not encourage deep, critical thought. It often confuses emotion with truth, feelings with logic.

I hope you will listen very carefully to the presentations as they are made this evening. I would like to challenge everyone in the audience to examine your own worldview this evening. Let this be a beginning, not an end for you.

Examine your worldview. Examine it for consistency. Test the debaters. Test Mr. Barker and myself as to who is consistent with their own worldview. Who will have to borrow from the other's worldview? Which worldview will accord with the reality that we find around us?

Those are some of the questions we must ask this evening. Now, the biblical teaching is that everyone listening to this debate knows that the God of Scripture lives. This knowledge may not be explicit in the sense of being able to articulate the Trinity, for example, but it is fundamental to our debate this evening to understand why a Christian believes this to be the case and why it is relevant to our encounter.

Mr. Barker has said that he knows the Christian God does not exist. He will often tell us that morality, by definition, refers to behavior that minimizes harm. Mr. Barker has a naturalistic materialist worldview that causes him to think and reason in a particular fashion.

We will examine the consistency of his ability to be able to offer such definitions later on, but for now, I must define the biblical view before we can examine it for consistency. We read in the Christian scriptures,.

For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing, present tense, the truth by means of unrighteousness. For that which is known about God is evident within them because God has made it evident to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Now please notice that men know God exists, but due to their sin and rebellion, they suppress this knowledge.

The revelation of God in creation, both outwardly and inwardly, is sufficient to render man accountable to God, to give thanks, and to give honor. The clarity of this revelation renders all men unapologetus, that is, without an apologetic.

This means that Mr. Barker will not be able to argue against the God who has placed clear evidence of his existence in and all around Mr. Barker. Oh, but wait, surely he will do so. Yes, he will try, but here is one of the keys to the debate.

Will Mr. Barker be able to do this without borrowing from God's existence to do so? I submit he will not. As hard as Dan has tried for over 25 years now, his suppression of the knowledge of God leads inevitably to utter futility and self-contradiction.

The biblical worldview places the triune God at the center of all things. As the creator, his purpose, his decree, his intention determines the meaning, purpose, and identity of all things, including man.

To truly know things as they are in God's created order, man cannot put himself in the center of the diagram demoting God to just one other fact of knowledge. Instead, to know truly and properly, mankind must see himself as a creature in his creator's world, and hence must know things only as they are related to God.

To have true, proper knowledge, then, I must know the creation only as I relate to the creator. When I know law, or morality, or love, or history as it is properly defined by the creator, as I see these in light of the triune God's eternal decree, then I have true and proper knowledge of these things.

When man is placed in the center, as is necessary in a naturalistic materialist worldview, all things become objects of human knowledge defined by the creature, including God. Man, by definition, has to define God in a way that fits his own role in the universe.

Further, the unity, harmony, and consistency of knowledge that comes from having the triune God at the center, his sovereign decree defying the creation, is lost, and each man or woman becomes the ultimate authority in defining reality.

Now, the thesis statement specifically refers to the triune God. Why the triune God? First and foremost, because the Trinity is biblical. I know Mr. Barker does not believe that, but I'd be happy to respond to any objections he might raise to that.

Secondly, because of the centrality of Christ to the Christian worldview. Specifically, I refer to, for example, this text from the book of Colossians. For by him all things were created, this is referring to Jesus, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Now, this is a radical claim. Certainly, it is the Christian message that the creator himself, to bring about his own glory and the salvation of an undeserving people, entered into his own creation in the person of Jesus Christ.

This means that there are no neutral facts. There is no neutral ground upon which to stand. A fact, if it is a fact, is so because God made it to be so. To pretend otherwise is to compromise the Christian faith.

That means, I insist, when Dan Barker seeks to reason logically while denying his creator, he is not only in self-denial, he has to borrow from my worldview to make it work. While Mr. Barker does not believe he has to give a justification for the laws of logic, I leave it to the listener to decide if such vital matters can be left to mere brute facts, saying, well, that's just the way that it is.

When a consistent biblical Christian presents the all-encompassing claims of Christianity in debate with most atheists, including Dan Barker, the atheist assumes that since we do not start with theistic proofs, which invite the creature to judge God, and which ignore the suppression of the knowledge of God already present in the unbeliever, that we have abandoned the use of evidence, and that we are simply presupposing the truth of Christianity.

This is simply not the case. I am saying everything that is true is because God created it. Hence, all evidence points to God, and that is why the unbeliever has to work so hard at suppressing the knowledge.

Further, I am not suggesting that you simply presuppose Christianity. The issue has to do with the presuppositions one brings to all the data, and the myth that anyone is epistemologically and morally neutral about the existence of God.

Now, a few years ago, Dan Barker made the following claim. He said, quote, However, when it comes to a particular definition of God, such as the Christian God or the Islamic God, I go further than just the negative, soft, lower-case atheism, and I make the positive claim that that particular God does not exist.

In that case, I am an uppercase atheist, especially when it comes to the gods of the revealed religions. I am convinced, and I claim to know, that those gods, the Christian God, Allah, does not exist.

It is not a belief, it is a claim of knowledge. Such a God does not exist. This means Dan is a hard atheist, a capital A atheist in our debate this evening. So how does one decide between these two positions?

Well, there's a good question. First of all, I would suggest through the demonstration of the consistency of one's own worldview. One must demonstrate the consistency of one's own worldview. One must ground logic, reason, etc., etc., in one's own worldview.

Secondly, by providing an internal critique of competing worldviews. Providing an internal critique of competing worldviews. And finally, through the demonstration of the explanatory power of one's worldview in light of known reality.

Now I refer to this as secondary evidence. It is not primary evidence, but it is relevant to the topic that we have this evening. So you see, the reason we must approach this issue presuppositionally can be seen by recognizing the impossibility of demonstrating God's existence to a dogmatic materialist like Dan Barker.

From a Christian perspective, Dan has no right to climb up upon the seat of judgment, wrap the robes of the cosmic jurist around himself, and act as judge. For when anyone brings evidence before Judge Barker of the existence of anything outside the materialistic realm, he simply bangs the gavel and says, evidence dismissed.

So we are left with the impossible task of demonstrating the existence of a non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material being, while being limited only to spatial, temporal, and material evidence. The impossibility of the task, and the circularity of the position, is obvious.

Furthermore, Mr. Barker sits as judge, as a materialist, and as a functionalist, who denies the existence of the laws of logic as abstract and universal entities reflecting the order of the creation. He can only offer us, as his ultimate authority, his own cognitive processes, his own mind.

I would like to argue that Mr. Barker lost the debate tonight by walking in the room. His expectation that we can engage in logic-based, rational dialogue in a random world, where the laws of logic are no more than the result of the action of the sodium-potassium pumps inside layers of phospholipids inside the bony structure that comprises Mr. Barker's head, makes no sense, given his naturalistic materialism.

Indeed, Mr. Barker assures us that the laws of logic are no more universal or abstract than digestion in the stomach, a confusion of categories that is truly stunning. But Mr. Barker's functionalism must be his final authority, so he cannot give us any higher justification for any answer he may give us than this.

The neurons in his brain say so, for now anyway. Atoms bang around, electrical impulses and axons, nothing more. In fact, in a debate with Paul Monada, Dan admitted that, in the cosmic perspective, humans are no more important than broccoli, resulting in a fascinating discussion of cosmic broccoli.

The point, of course, is that the debate we are having this evening is really absurd from a materialistic perspective. One piece of cosmic broccoli, arguing with another when there is no transcendent reality, no laws of logic binding upon both, no truths that remain valid and important long after the cosmic broccoli has become part of the cosmic salad, is the ultimate example of futility.

The fact that we all sit here this evening, expecting rational discourse that follows the laws of logic, is to be expected on Christian grounds. It is as silly as the invasion of the cosmic broccoli from the materialist perspective.

Now, let's look at solid, strong evidence of the existence of the triune God, not as a neutral fact from which I suggest we reason to God, but as a fact of reality that can only make sense in light of God's existence, and as a fact that will illustrate the materialist unwillingness to allow for conclusions that challenge their worldview.

What you see on the screen right now is here we have what is called F1-ATPase. It is a structure found in living cells in the mitochondria. It is a vital structure in cellular respiration, for by it ADP, adenosine diphosphate, is converted back into ATP, adenosine triphosphate, the universal power source of most bodily systems.

Through an ingenious system, it uses ionic flow to create mechanical power, very similar to the turbines we use to generate hydroelectric power. As the mechanism turns, powered by proton movement across a gradient, it moves highly specific protein molecules, molecules that have to have a very specific ordered shape, that due to their motion, attach a phosphate molecule to ADP, reconstituting ATP, which is then utilized by the body.

Not only is the complexity beautiful, but it is so plainly purposeful, so plainly designed, that no one can possibly see this as a mere result of the movement of atoms over time. Remember, this is just one of the many cellular organelles that are basic to life itself.

We can't hope for natural selection to explain how something this grand came into existence. It is far beyond the technology found, for example, in my Blackberry Storm over on my table over there, or the cell phone that you have with you, and far beyond anything that we can do, even with our most advanced technology today.

Here we have a tremendously simplified graphic of protein synthesis in the cell, using DNA, RNA polymerase, messenger RNA, transfer RNA, ribosomes, etc. Again, the complexity of this mechanism is mind-boggling.

This is not, as Mr. Barker has erroneously claimed in the past, similar to complex crystals or wind-shaped sand dunes. No, this is specific informational complexity on a level that rivals our best computers, and on a physical scale so infinitesimal, we are left in awestruck wonder every time we look into our own selves.

Amazingly, Mr. Barker can look at this clear informational complexity, and tell us that this is not evidence of an intelligent, wise designer. This is nothing more than the report one would make after a storm has passed through.

What can explain such a willingness to reject such obvious evidence of purposeful, intentional, and intelligent design? There have been recent developments. One recent book that came out last year that is quite fascinating is entitled, Why Us? by James Le Fanu.

He addresses what has happened since the decade of the brain and the human genome project. I thought this was very relevant to our debate this evening. He wrote,. He continues by saying,. Something of immense importance is missing that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world, and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.

What might that missing element be? One of the tragedies of modern Western academia has been the institutional establishment of a religious dogma that brooks no dissent, that being Neo-Darwinian naturalistic materialism.

These vital questions cannot even be asked by the dogmatic materialist. The answer must be in the genes. There can't be something different about mankind that gives rise to the mind. We have to be just like a tapeworm or like broccoli.

Our religion says so. Long ago, Blaise Pascal, the brilliant mathematician and philosopher, said,. And reflecting those same thoughts, the Puritan John Flavel said,. Now, I want to be very, very clear on one thing this evening.

While our debate places you, the audience, in the position of judging, I would be remiss in a most severe way if I did not reject in the strongest possible terms the idea that we as creatures have the right to judge the existence of our Creator.

The verdict of this debate was given when God said,. Let there be light. The issue tonight is whether we will live in accord with that verdict or not. So what is the reality in our closing moments of this opening statement?

If your worldview cannot give a justification for why we are here tonight, laws of logic, reason, transcendent meaning, it should be rejected. If your worldview cannot accord with the reality of the world and human existence, it should be rejected.

The Triune God, as the timeless, unchanging Creator of all things, gives meaning through His eternal decree to all things in space and time. We as creatures find our truest selves only when we are in the proper relationship to our Creator, so that our intellectual pursuits are undertaken under His Lordship where we as creatures have the tremendous privilege of thinking God's thoughts after Him.

This is the great irony of those who promote what they call free thought. Creatures who rebel against their own nature and who embrace dogmatic materialism are not free at all. They are bound to self-deception and as such are condemned to anything but free thought.

Their worldview precludes a true, holistic, harmonious knowledge of God's creation around them. The Christian, however, is seeing himself or herself for what we are in reality, the creatures of a personal, eternal sovereign can, from the peace that comes through faith in Jesus Christ, experience the fullness of our humanity as God intended us to, all to His glory.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. White. And just as we are honored to have with us Dr. White, so too are we honored to have Mr. Dan Barker. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Barker.

Atheism, the God of the Gaps, and the Problem of Evil

Thank you, Muhammad. And thank you, AAF. And thank you, Navigators. Oh, by the way, I hate to break the news to you, but now that there's GPS, we don't need the Navigators anymore. And thank you, James.

I think it was 23 years ago. Do you think we would have recognized each other on the street today? I've kept up with you, so yes. Oh, okay. You would have recognized. You've been watching the intelligent design of the airline.

All good men come out on top. We have a national radio show, a free thought radio that airs on Air America every week. And the joke that I told two weeks ago, the ship was sinking. The captain was nervous and he yelled out, Does anybody on board know how to pray?

And this one guy raised his hand and he said, I do. And the captain said, Great, because we're one life jacket short. Usually when I do these debates, they are general. Does God exist? Is a general God?

And I argue, probably not. Did any of you see the bus signs that were in the UK? There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life, right? And that's what we have to do when we discuss the general concept of a God.

Because there's probably an infinite number of definitions of a God, so you can't disprove them all. And so I'm not going to be discussing, in fact, tonight's debate doesn't have to depend on atheism or theism.

There could be a Jew standing here debating the existence of the triune God. Or a Muslim could be standing here where I am. Or a Unitarian or some other religion, a Hindu. And so we're not arguing atheism tonight, we're arguing a specific God which has a specific definition.

But let me just briefly touch on the general reasons why I'm an atheist because they are somewhat relevant. First of all, there is no evidence for a God. What you saw tonight is not evidence for a God.

What you saw tonight is evidence for a current gap in our understanding. It's what Richard Dawkins calls the argument from incredulity. I can't believe how that would be. Well, years ago, what day of the week is it today?

Thursday. What does Thursday mean? Thor. We have a day of the week named after Thor. But we don't have one named after the triune God of the Bible. Millions of people believed in this God, Thor, and Zeus, and others.

And when there was this noise in the sky, and this rumbling, and this light, and this rain came, they didn't know what caused this thing. So they had a big gap in their understanding. And so they called it, they thought it was an animal thing, being, parent, God, whatever.

They called it Thor. Millions of people were born into this religion, they believed it, and they died believing that religion. We have a day of the week, at least in English, named after that. And yet, as we learn about electricity and the weather, that gap closed, and what happened to that God?

Poof! Disappeared. Yes, there are gaps in our understanding. It is wonderful, and you are right. When we look at the thing like those molecules and those proteins, we are awestruck with wonder. It is amazing.

In fact, that is what drives science. Not knowing is what drives science. And I am suspecting from what James said tonight, that he is proposing that we have reached the end of science. We will never, again, we will never ever know what causes that protein to fold in that way, and for that function to work like that.

He might even be proposing that the pagans should have stopped science back in their day, and just said, well, I don't have the answer, but God did it. If there were evidence for a God, think about this.

If there really were evidence for a God, by now, somebody should have won the Nobel Prize for pointing that out to us, shouldn't they? If there really is evidence for a God, then why are there atheists?

Why are we even having a debate? Bring forth the evidence, not for a gap in our understanding. I could do that too. Bring forth the evidence positive for the existence of a God. The second reason why I am an atheist is that there is no coherent definition of a God.

There are thousands of definitions, even within Christianity. A third reason is that there is no good argument for a God. We've heard over the years the ontological, we're going to talk later about the design, and during my rebuttal, I will rebut James' design and functional complexity arguments.

They're all bad arguments. They basically boil down to, most of them, to the God of the gaps. Fourth, there is no good reply to the positive arguments against the existence of a God. For example, the problem of evil.

All you have to do is walk into a children's hospital, and you know there is no God. At least there's no good God. Maybe there's a God who is an evil monster, like the God of the Old Testament seemed to be, something of a brutal monster.

Maybe that God exists and likes to torture people and commit genocide and likes to see children suffer. But in that hospital, parents are desperately praying for their children. They're praying for them to get better, and they die.

The problem of evil is probably the biggest thorn in the side of theologians and apologists. Another reason is there's no agreement among believers about the nature of this God or its moral principles.

You talk to two different types of Christians. Here we have a presuppositionalist, a Reformed type of Christian. You talk to another type of Christian who has a different theology, and they fight 30 years' wars with each other over their differences.

There is no agreement, and we atheists, I think, are justified in folding our arms and waiting for you guys to get your act together first before you start arguing for the existence of your deity. Another good reason is that the statement that God exists has never been falsified, never been falsifiable.

I would challenge James to provide us with an example of a statement tonight, which, if true, would prove your hypothesis false. Because anytime you make a true statement, there must exist other statements which, if true, would falsify your statement, at least in principle.

And number seven, there's no need for a God. Millions of good people live happy, moral, meaningful, productive, loving lives without this belief. The Bible and belief in God turns out to be irrelevant.

The Bible is an ancient book. It is not a book to base any truth on or any morality on. We've risen above those primitive days. We are kinder than Jesus. We are smarter than the God of the Bible. We are smarter than those people who wrote that book, and we don't need it.

And millions of us know that. And statistically, our lives are just as good, if not better, than the lives of those who claim to believe in the triune God of Scripture. Now, those are just general things about a God.

I would argue that the probability that God does not exist is so high that we can round it off and informally say, there's no God. But if you push me against the wall, it would be like asking you, or it would be like asking James, do leprechauns exist?

What would you say? Do leprechauns exist? Can you prove it? Can you prove that? Well, then how can you say no? Shouldn't you say there's a high probability because they might be hiding, you know? Have you ever eaten a box of Lucky Charms?

There's a picture, right? We have evidence for leprechauns. Yet most of you feel justified in saying, wait a minute. You know, there's people who believe in them, right? But where's the beef? Or where's the Cheerios?

Or whatever it is. But when it comes to a specific God, James is exactly right. That quote that he put up on the screen is exactly right. The specific gods can be defined in such a way, if they are defined in such a way that they are mutually contradictory, then they do not exist.

For example, does a married bachelor exist? Should we even ask, does it exist? Shouldn't we ask, can it exist? By definition, it cancels itself out. It cannot exist. The triune God of Scripture is defined in such ways that it's like a married bachelor.

There are so many contradictory characteristics of this God that we can safely say with 100 certainty that that God, like a married bachelor, does not exist. In Malachi, God said, I am the Lord, I change not.

In Ezekiel, I the Lord have spoken it, I will not go back, neither will I repent. The God of the Bible, the triune God of Scripture, does not change His mind. And yet, we find many examples of the God of Scripture changing His mind.

Exodus 32, the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do. Genesis 6, it repented the Lord that He had made man, and He changed His mind. In Jonah 3, God repented of the evil that He said He would do, and so on.

The triune God of Scripture does change His mind. The triune God of Scripture does not change His mind. Like the married bachelor, He does not exist. Does God punish people for their parents' sins? In Exodus 20, I the Lord thy God visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

We find many verses where the children are punished for the sins of their parents. But yet, we find other verses in the Bible, the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Deuteronomy 24, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers.

Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. The God of the Bible punishes children for their parents' sins. The God of the Bible does not punish children for their parents' sins. He does not exist.

Is God good or evil? Psalm 145, the Lord is good to all. Deuteronomy 32, He is a God of truth without iniquity. He is just and right. However, Isaiah 45 .7, God said, I make peace and I create evil. Lamentations 3, Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good.

Jeremiah 18, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I frame evil against you. Ezekiel 20, I gave them statutes that were not good and judgments by which they should not live. And there are many examples of both of these.

The God of the Bible is good. The God of the Bible is evil. He does not exist. Does God tempt people? In James 1, Let no man say, I am tempted of God. God cannot be tempted, neither tempts He any man.

God does not tempt any man. Exodus 20, excuse me, Genesis 22, It came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham. The God of the Bible does not tempt. The God of the Bible does tempt. He does not exist.

Should we kill? The Ten Commandments say, Thou shalt not kill. Leviticus 24, with a different word, says, He that kills any man shall surely be put to death. And on and on. We find verses, Don't kill.

Yet in Exodus 32, God said, Pick up your sword and kill every man his brother, companion, neighbor. And the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with the great slaughter. If you go through the Bible, you can make a list that takes ten pages just to list all the times God either committed, commanded, or condoned killing.

The triune God of Scripture says, Do not kill. The triune God of Scripture says, Kill, kill, kill. He does not exist. Should we own slaves? There are many verses that endorse slavery in the Bible. Leviticus, Moreover of the children of strangers that do live among you, you shall buy them, they shall be your possession, they shall be your slaves forever.

And there are many verses like that. I'll skip them all because you know they're there. In the New Testament, Slaves, doulos, obey in all things your masters. And yet, in Isaiah 58, Let the oppressed go free, break every yoke.

Matthew 23, Don't be called masters, for one is your master. The God of the Bible is pro-slavery. The God of the Bible is anti-slavery. He does not exist. In Romans 15, we see God described as the God of peace.

And yet, in Exodus 15, the Lord is described as a man of war. The God of the Bible is peaceful. The God of the Bible is not peaceful. He does not exist. A man of war is not. A God of war is not a God of peace.

Was Jesus peaceable? He said, My peace I leave with you. And when he was born, on earth, peace, goodwill toward men. And yet, Jesus himself said, if you believe he lived and even said these things, Jesus said, Think not that I've come to send peace on earth.

I came not to send peace, but a sword to separate families, to separate fathers and daughters and mothers. And then he told his disciples, If you don't have a sword, go out and buy one. He wanted them to have swords.

Was Jesus trustworthy? In John 8, he said, Though I bear record of myself, my record is true. And yet, in John 5, he said, If I bear record of myself, my record is not true. The God of the Bible is reliable.

The God of the Bible is not reliable. He does not exist. Can you see God? We're trying to define what this God is like. Can you see the triune God of Scripture? John 1 .8, Nobody has seen God at any time.

Exodus 33, God said, You cannot see my face. Nobody shall see me and live. John 6, Not that any man hath seen the Father except Jesus. 1 John 4, Nobody has seen God at any time. That rules out visual evidence for God, doesn't it?

And yet, in Genesis 32, For I have seen God face to face. Exodus 30, The Lord spake to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend. And on and on. So, the God of the Bible can be seen. The God of the Bible cannot be seen.

He's a married bachelor. He does not exist. Is God omnipotent? Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for me? And Jesus said, With God, all things are possible. And yet, in Judges 1 .19, listen to this.

The Lord was with Judah. And he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain. But, he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron. The Lord was with Judah but he wasn't strong enough to drive out chariots of iron.

The God of the Bible is all powerful. The God of the Bible cannot fight chariots of iron. He does not exist. Does God live in light? Thank you. Perfect timing. Does God live in light? 1 Timothy said, God dwells in the light which no man can approach.

James says he's the father of lights. And there are many verses that say that God lives in light. And yet, there are many other verses that say he does not. The Lord said he would dwell in the thick darkness in 1 King.

2 Samuel, he made darkness pavilions about him. Dark waters and thick clouds. Psalm 18, he made darkness his secret place. In Psalm 97, clouds and darkness are around about him. The God of the Bible lives in light.

The God of the Bible lives in darkness. The God of the Bible does not exist. Does the God of the Bible accept human sacrifice? Yes. There are many places where the God of the Bible actually asked for and accepted human sacrifice.

It didn't go through it with Abraham and Isaac but it was part of his plan. And of course you all know the story of Jephthah who actually made a vow unto God that if he won this war, he would sacrifice the first thing that came out and of course it was his daughter.

She was burned to death as a sacrifice acceptable unto God. The God of the Bible accepts human sacrifice. The God of the Bible rejects human sacrifice. He does not exist. Does God know the future? Isaiah 46, God said, I make known the end from the beginning.

From ancient times what is still to come. And yet when God was talking to Abraham there when he asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, he said finally, lay not your hand upon the boy, don't do anything to him for now I know that you fear God seeing that you have not withheld your son.

When God said now I know, what does that mean? He didn't know before. He wouldn't have had to do that. He might have said maybe Abraham now you know, but God said now I know. The God of the Bible knows the future.

The God of the Bible does not know the future. He does not exist. According to Christian theology, the God of the Bible is a personal being with freedom to make decisions. And yet he's also a being who knows the future.