Finished Barker/Wilson Debate

The Dividing Line Opens and the Barker-Wilson Debate Continues

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. We are at the exact same time. We always are despite the fact that an hour ago. I watched all the time challenged people flooding into the channel going Where's the dividing line?

Because Half people don't understand there's between MST mountains standard time and MDT Mountain daylight time but hey It happens twice a year that all the rest of you fiddle with your clocks and we in Arizona Just don't and that's sort of how it works though.

Like I said, we end up fiddling with them because they're atomic then they're all confused and they don't know what's going on. But anyway, welcome to the dividing line. We are here on time to finish up the Barker Wilson debate today.

And then I've got some other things lined up if we get that far but I do want to make sure to finish the Barker Wilson debates, which we've been listening to for three programs now and specifically. We were in the cross-examination portion where Dan Barker was attempting to Refute the existence of God by proving that Doug Wilson is inconsistent.

Because he was on a jury and he voted for the guilt of someone without two or three witnesses IE eyewitnesses and It didn't seem to understand that well, actually we Christians actually take principles and apply them to life and that Doug had been quite consistent.

To insist on two or three independent lines of testimony that those can be witnesses as well and that obviously to force the Ancient text into a modern context in that way is just downright silly. So be that as it may we pick up with the cross-examination and I want I Really want to get to the closing statements today because I felt that they were very very useful.

The Meaning of Murder, Killing, and the Law of Moses

Look it up. The word Rostock does not mean murder in Hebrew. It means that we can and it's it's committed by animals to animals murder. It's something that happens when somebody accidentally so so it's not murder when God said thou shalt not kill.

He said thou shalt not kill in Exodus 20. In Exodus 20. God said you shall not kill and that's just 21. You're part. He requires the death penalty. For certain offenses. It sounds like you're saying the Bible is contradictory.

The Bible is contradicting now. Do you think it's contradictory between Exodus 20 and Exodus 21? Are you seriously maintaining that Moses was a pacifist. No, Moses was a bloodthirsty leader of a bloodthirsty religion.

Now when Moses came when Moses was up on the mountain and he got the ten commandments. He was looking at the tablets walking down from the mountain. Did he stop up short when he gets and got to the commandment not to kill did he say no killing at all?

Well, if he if he understood Hebrew, that's what he should have said. You think he did understand Hebrew.

It's classic that that definitely would go in the classic life. Do you think Moses maybe did understand Hebrew there and maybe a little bit better than you do? I Hadn't heard cuz I I listened to this while writing and you always have wind noise and stuff.

So I didn't hear Dan. I didn't hear Doug laughing before he said do you think you know Hebrew? Because again, I was. I was actually going downhill out of Squaw Peak Park at this particular point trying to dodge those.

You know, they've put in those. Speed those aren't speed bumps. Those are speed mountains. Okay, I mean they are. They are ripped the tailpipe off your of your car type things and when you're going downhill You know 27 miles per hour on your bike and you hit one of those things.

It's it's ugly, but it was right. Then I heard that and I I can just see someone is there going up toward their car. Here I go by cackling loudly. As the Colson made that made that comment, you know. So in other words, I can't answer this.

I don't know what I'm talking about. How dare you challenge it? How dare you force me to go any farther than just a surface-level answer? Yeah, I'm misrepresenting the context and Drat on you for copying me.

Can we extend this time a couple minutes because I really encroached on. No, no, I'm sorry about that. I was okay I entered into that freely. I would like to return to an earlier I'd like to return to an earlier point that you made when you said that I Granted that we did not need evidence for the existence of God.

Could you please state? What you meant by that when I granted that we didn't need evidence. Well, I simply Assuming and I might have been wrong in assuming that since you were not raising evidence in this debate that you were granting the point.

But I'm not putting words in your mouth. Okay, what I was what I was saying is that we had a pose the color. What I was pointing out is that before we get to the point where we discuss the evidence and I think there's a tremendous volume of evidence for The reliability of scriptures and so forth.

I I'm not embarrassed by the evidence at all. I was simply interested in pointing to the Preconditions that are necessary for evidence to be reliable. So you do have evidence. Oh, there's a lot of evidence, but before I produce the evidence.

I want now I think this is I'm not really probably the best place to stop but vitally important this is the the fundamental core of the the difference between the presuppositional list and the evidential list is the Presuppositional list recognizes the inherent impact of the rebellion of sin upon the epistemology of man.

Epistemology big word simply means how we know what we know and I For years. I've been emphasizing to people that if you have someone who's sitting upon the throne of the universe as Dan Barker thinks he can he is a little creature that has crawled up upon the creators throne and now dares to say I'm gonna stay here and I dare you to show me evidence that I shouldn't be here and Whenever you bring evidence forward he says dismissed out of out of line out of I just miss out of court, it's it's it's out of order and You can so you can bring all the evidence you want.

But the guy is already sitting there on a throne that's ten thousand times bigger than he is. He already knows he's not supposed to be there. You know, he already knows He's a usurper and so if you don't address those foundational issues first You're just gonna sit there spinning in circles forever and ever.

I was listening to two evidentialist apologists on a ride this week or last week and It was a debate on the resurrection and two evidentialist apologist versus sort of a atheist host and then a pretty wild-eyed atheist scholar and It never got anywhere it was horribly boring it never accomplished anything because they were both evidentialists and You just spin around spin around spin around and it's it's your scholar versus my scholar in your opinion versus my opinion did you read so-and-so who said such-and-such and it just accomplishes absolutely positively nothing whatsoever and We've all heard those kinds of situations develop and so It's it's vitally important to understand that when the atheist says well you haven't offered any evidence.

What you're saying is the very fact that we are debating is the evidence. You cannot explain how we can even reason logically without Borrowing from my worldview. That is the best evidence there is there's all this other evidence.

But you're just gonna dismiss it because you're starting in the wrong foot. That is really the essence of I think what really the value of this particular debate and illustrating that over and over again to have.

Evidence that evidence was reliable. Yeah, but I want to. I want to know where's the beef. That's what I want to know. Where. Where is your evidence for your God all these presuppositional things? You know who cares.

I mean how many of you came to Jesus because of a presuppositional argument. If I didn't know who cares now.

No, no argumentum ad populum. He turns the audience. And notice the shift there how many of you came to Jesus by presuppositional arguments, that's not what the debate is is it. The debate is over the existence of God with an atheist Who denies the existence of God who as a creature is denying that there is any evidence of God's existence at all?

He has heard every single possible argument. There is and has dismissed every single one and he just wants to continue to do that. He doesn't want to have it pointed out that he is a creature has no right to be doing what he's doing.

But then he shifts the ground and he changes it there to how many of you came to Jesus by presuppositional arguments? Doug's not gonna say at this point That's that's a misrepresentation of his position.

It's It's it's nice to be able to go through debates like this to be able to point out all these errors. Because in essence in a debate you have to trust that people are going to be doing what we're doing on this program and unfortunately People aren't taught to do this anymore.

They're not taught to do it in churches. Unfortunately, and they're not certainly not taught to do it in schooling, especially public schooling. And so it's got to be done someplace else it's really pretty much common sense, but It's it's so unusual in our society.

That's you got to model it everyone's.

If I proceeded immediately. Thank you for those testimonies.

If I proceeded. Evidently, there's a bunch of people who are shooting their hands up in the audience. That's how I can interpret the laughter and and applause.

What I would be doing is I would be granting your autonomous and unbelieving assumptions. I don't want to stand on your stage. It's happy is it's fine with me that you stand on the stage where we both assume that reason order.

Rationality and ethics are coherent and are binding on us. I'm simply pointing out that when I stand on that stage What I say is consistent with what I'm standing on. Now what you are doing is you are standing on the same stage?

But then you're saying I'm just a bunch of Adams banging around and there's no reason for listening to what I say and you better listen to what I say. My response to that is what is wrong with the bunch of Adams banging around?

Why are you attaching a pejorative to it?

What is wrong with the with death? Oh, come on. That is so obvious. Notice again the the not-so-subtle shift what Doug has said is Adams banging around have no Foundational meaning in of themselves.

He didn't he wasn't saying but he didn't say anything pejorative. He was saying that if you're gonna say you need to listen to what I'm saying, but you're nothing but Adams banging around. No transcend no transcendent Transcendental purpose no meaning beyond just random actions.

Then how on earth can you leap from that that randomness to enough order for your? reasoning to exist and for there to be some meaning to your words and Dan just won't go there. And so what he does is as you know, Dan Barker Jerry Madetik, so there's a whole group of people we go through from almost every religious perspective of debated and don't ever Ignore the fact Dan Barker's is religious as anybody ever debated.

His religion is himself. His religion is his atheism. He's still he is still just as much of a fundamentalist as he ever was. That's the important thing to keep in mind. But these folks are excellent at taking a point and when they don't want to respond to the point they just rephrase it into a new argument that isn't the argument you made and think they've responded to at that point and Rarely in a debate you have time to even point all that stuff out, but you just saw Dan Barker doing that pollution.

Producing out of out of simplicity arising into complexity. And producing what we have become right and what is wrong with being a bunch of Adams do you act like that is something? I'm not objecting to Adam's banging around because I think it's icky.

I'm I'm simply pointing out that Adams banging around don't think how do you know? How can you prove that I'm Adams banging around and I'm thinking yes, look what you're standing on Adams that are banging around that's what I'm doing.

So what's the difference between these Adams and these? These are organized in a complex and functional way. Those are not these are organized complex. Yeah, but not quite as complex as the human mind.

Well, yeah. Yeah, so come the more complex it is the more you should listen to it. Yeah, obviously if there's an increase in functional complexity of an organism like a brain I'm not pretending to be omniscient obviously or omnipotent, but there is there is a certain level of Functionality within our thoughts and our reasoning in our mind.

It is something that since we are humans and we relate to it. We can call it beautiful. It's not beautiful in the cosmos. The cosmos doesn't care. It's empty. There's no meaning out there. If there's going to be any meaning it's got to come from right here.

And so if there's no meaning out there, how can there be meaning in here? Because I choose to give meaning here. I have a mind and I like this life that I have I assign assign meaning To myself into the human race because I think the human race and humanity is beautiful and worthy of respect.

So what that means then of course is That at the last moment of Dan Barker's life all of that self-assigned meaning becomes absolutely worthless worthless empty nothing. Now he would say yep, you're right and It's not an argument to just admit that the world is a random violent horrible place That is in that inexorably moving toward heat death.

You know, that's just the way it is. Just live with it. That's that's the atheist response and He doesn't seem to realize that his Assigning meaning is not the same thing as giving a rational reason for that meaning.

He just doesn't doesn't catch it now. His closing statement Is not fun to listen to. He really gives vent to his true atheism because even though he won't defend his True atheism where he says God does not exist.

You know, he only wants to defend. I lack a belief in God. Here it comes out in its in its full Venomous state, so I just warn you ahead of time be be prepared for what you're gonna hear.

Please turn the cassette over at this time.

Please turn the cassette over at this time. Yeah, I was recorded. Time.

Dan Barker's Closing Statement and the Meaning of Death

Well Doug Said there's evidence for God and he didn't offer it in his opening statements. And it's too bad. We couldn't have grappled with some of that evidence. For a God the Bible turns out not to be very useful.

No Christians can agree on what the Bible says on most important moral social issues. The arguments for a God we haven't touched on. I don't know if he agrees with the design arguments or not. Either here nor there he did not make either of those points tonight.

He tried to address some of the points that I raised about the coherency of God. The free will argument and I suppose this is equivocating again. If you can define God as not having free will and yet And not having a free choice and yet being a person then.

Perhaps if you define God as being something less than a person perhaps that God does make some kind of coherence. But I think most of you think God is a person.

Again, we point this out before Dan is attempting to force God into human categories refusing to recognize that as Doug has rightly said he's defying the Christian view of God. Therefore. You have to deal with the Christian view of God, which is Fundamentally asserting that not only is God personal but that our personhood is derivative from his but ours is limited his is not and therefore to try to limit his based on the creature is.

Backwards the person has to make decisions, right to be able to make a decision. You have to reason you have to think should I go this way or that way? Should I take this course or should I not take this course?

That's part of being a person, but if you don't have that option. Of a future uncertainty if you can't make if you don't have that option and you can't make any decisions at all. And you can't make any decisions.

You're not a person. God might exist, but he's not a person. And some of the other arguments that I raised about the incoherency of the God concept he didn't address but this is a short debate. But really think about it.

If there really is a God, why are we having this debate? We all know there's gravity right. I'm gonna make a prediction this this pen is going to go down to the floor. Okay, we know that I Made a prophecy that came true.

The Bible never did that by the way. By the way, the Bible never did that. But that's another debate. I used to preach this stuff. You know, I know it inside. I used to stand up and preach that the Bible was fulfilled the prophecies and that Jesus changed his lives and I used to pray that Jesus come into my heart all that thing.

I preached it for many many years, but now I know that it's false.

Now notice he said now I don't have that belief. He's a hard atheist now. I know it's false. He knows God doesn't exist. It's false, but he in his openings. Now I'd be fascinated to drag him through some sections of Daniel or Isaiah in regards to prophecies are filled in Christ or the Psalter or whatever else it might be.

But it'd be interesting to see how he gets around those. But that was not the topic of the debate. He just threw it out there for the fun.

They might debate some of the theories. But scientists don't. Suppose a group of scientists was to get together on Sunday morning and join hands and get in a circle and start bowing their heads and Going.

Oh, yes. Gravity is real. I know in my heart that gravity is real. What goes up up up must come down down down. I will have faith. I will be strong. Wouldn't you think they were pretty insecure about the concepts if they were doing that?

And yet that's what every one of the Christians in the world does they have to bolster their faith. We know this.

You know in your heart of hearts what what possible logical basis does he have. This is pure rhetoric it's not debate. This is pure rhetoric, you know, they talk about how reasonable and rational they are but then why is this kind of form of argumentation the essence of.

Of their presentation. But faith is a cop-out. Faith is irresponsible. Anytime you accept an assertion by faith you're admitting that that assertion cannot be accepted on its own merits. You're admitting there's something wrong with the assertion.

If faith is valid and anything goes anybody's religion can go because it's by faith. I could stand up here. I would never do such a thing. But I could stand up here and say if you want to be a true atheist you have to have faith that there's no God.

Are you strong enough? Do you have the courage and honesty? Can you do it in spite of the world? It's mostly religious. Can you finally think when do you laugh me out of this room? If I were to talk like that.

Now, you know some of this may just come from his background. I mean his background was hardly, you know. He he likes to say I used to teach exactly what you taught. It's just not true. He knows that it's not true.

He knows that he did not present positions that for example, Doug Wilson would present. He was shocked at some of Doug's responses. He was not Reformed in any way and he clearly was not soundly biblical in any way.

But the the convert syndrome man, how many times have we heard it? Think about how many times? Jerry Matta took so I used to say I used to believe you know and then The the Muslims, you know, I was a Christian and then they can't even begin to recognize what in the world They're they're talking about and here are the atheists.

It doesn't matter. The convert syndrome is the same because remember like I said Dan Barker's just as religious as he ever was. By the way faith is not a valid tool of knowledge unless there is revelation of a sphere outside.

That of the natural realm and of course if you assume that there isn't from the start then there you go. But of course he's defining faith in an unbiblical fashion as a blind leap. Not an acceptance of the promises of God not a biblical definition at all.

Elisha, the Bears, and the Prophets of Judgment

Here's one of the things that the God of Scripture did. Elisha was walking to Bethel and as he was going by the way that came forth little children out of the city and they mocked him. He's a prophet of God right.

And he said go up now bald head. Go up now bald head. And Elisha turned back and looked on them and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. This is out of the Bible now. See if you believe this. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tear 42 children of them.

Was that good? That was good. 42 little children who were having a kids will be kids right? Forty two little children.

Talking to bears now. Did you catch that? Kids will be kids. See he ignores the actual context which is rebelling against God's prophet. These are individuals remember the law said you you strike your parents here to be stoned the city gate.

There was a very high standard for how the society was supposed to function under the law of God and these individuals clearly. Are when it says kids they assume they're little, you know, six-year-old kids or something like that.

Just playing around blah blah blah. They knew who he was. They're probably youths who would be rebellious against God's order amongst people of Israel and It is not Elisha who's being some mean guy. It's God who chose chooses the way of punishment and he ignores all of that.

You don't you don't want any context or anything like that. You don't want anything about The the the order of God in a society. No, no, no. No, no. We want to ignore all that and just throw it out there.

And make it sound like Elisha's big bad meaning God's big bad meaning about a bunch of little kids who were just playing marbles and they're innocent and blah blah blah blah and Of course, there is no such thing as an innocent child to begin with.

When it comes to the judgment of God and if you don't believe that then you need to start wrestling with such things as what.

Are called natural disasters and things like that chase down 42 little children. One mother can hardly be three, but still. You know Elisha got his feelings hurt because some children were mocking him.

What if what if some kids were mocking you came up to your church? Is it? Oh dog. Hey preacher preacher man, you know making fun of you. Would you turn around and point to them and look at them and curse them in the name of the Lord and have them killed.

By my bears you wouldn't do that. You're nicer than God. In lamentations, it says out of the mouth of the most high proceeded the not evil and good. Thus sayeth the Lord and Jeremiah behold. I framed evil against you and devise a device against you.

In Hosea God is angry at Samaria. He said I am the Lord thy God. Samaria will become desolate for she hath rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword their infants shall be dashed in pieces and their women with child shall be ripped up.

There you go. Not only is this cruelty by this. This mean God, but it's abortion as well. I mean ripping open pregnant women. How many of you think that was a good act from this supposedly good. God declares himself to be all good.

You don't have a system of morality with that kind of thinking. You have no system of morality at all. Anything can go if God can declare. Killing children and dashing babies and ripping open pregnant women and beating slaves if a book can declare these things are good.

Did we as moral human beings have a moral obligation to reject such a book? It is not a good book. Here's another juicy little one see. Now this is the Bible so I don't mean to offend anybody here therefore thus sayeth the Lord God behold I.

Even I sound kind of bombastic doesn't it? I even I am against thee and look at the way he talks like he established in his authority, right? I will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.

Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee and the sons shall eat their fathers. This is God talking. This is the loving God of Christianity talking that you that you pretend to love and respect and admire.

I will execute judgments in thee and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all of them. I could go on and on and on and on. Showing to you that that Jesus endorsement of slavery. Jesus endorsement of castration by the way.

And some Christians actually followed his advice to pastor origin one of the early church fathers his cruelty to animals. Most Christians think that Jesus came to send peace on earth. Did he Jesus said in Matthew 1034 don't think that I came to send peace on earth.

I came not to send peace on earth. I came to send a sword and I will set family members against each other. And if you don't hate your father and your mother you cannot be my disciple. Jesus said that he never talked about family values.

He never used the word family. He never fathered children. He never raised kids. He was cruel to his mother on a few occasions. He was a horrible moral example and yet Doug. He even stole a horse. Think about it.

In kindergarten, I was taught that if you take something without asking for it, that's called stealing. I think any five-year-old kindergarten is a nicer person than the Jesus of the New Testament was the immorality of the Bible.

The Inconsistencies of the scripture make it not a reliable objective basis to put anyone's life on that book. Ought to be on a shelf next to other books of mythology. Study and find out about human nature, but we ought not to pretend that what it says constitutes any kind of objective evidence.

For a deity or if that deity does exist is a pretty crazy thing. But by your definition, he's good. So if the Bible is true, and you define God as good your God does not exist.

Doug Wilson's Response: Death, Hope, and the Image of God

Tell you what, I want. I want this to. I want this to go with Doug's response because I Really felt this was one of the the best replies That I've heard in debate was Wilson's response to this poem That's about to be read and I felt it really made the point.

So I'm gonna go ahead and take our break and then we will be able to pick that up on the other side Of the break. We'll continue finish up right after this break.

But you're ready. Today many stars strong and true.

Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools. Users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources.

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool which will allow you to find all of the verses containing Phrases similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation.

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter. Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences.

Scholars. Your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files from your computer As well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available.

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program. This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop.

When I engage in Debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text. For over 15 years Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and That enables you to do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth.

Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate. The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith.

Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. Jay Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org. Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program.

The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you.

And we'll go back to the dividing line. We are listening to the Doug Wilson Dan Barker debate from 1997 and we're coming up the last few moments of Dan's. I guess it's officially called a closing statement.

I would think the more modern term rant would describe this particular venting of hatred toward God. But it gets better. He's now going to read a poem and he's obviously going for the emotional direction here and I'm just gonna let Doug respond because I think it was very very well done.

Let's listen.

He wrote a poem about his mother who died in 1976 and the poem is called Gertrude is very short. It's just four sentences. I Wish that all the people who peddled God could watch my mother die To see the skin and gristle weighing in at 79 every stubborn pound of flesh a small death.

I Wish the people who peddled God could see her young Lovely and gardens and beautiful in kitchens and could watch the hand of God Slowly twisting her knees and fingers telling gnarled and nodded settling in for 30 years of pain.

I Wish the people who peddled God could see the lightning of his cancer stabbing her that small frame tensing at every shock. Her sweet contralto scratchy with the Lord's infection. So I want to die. I Wish I had them gathered around those preachers Pope's rabbis in moms priests.

Every pious shill on God's payroll and I would call the sheets from my mother's brittle body. And they would fall on their knees at her bedside. To be forgiven all their faith. I wish that in concluding I could address you as a brother but failing that.

Allow me to address you as a friend speak to you as a friend. Before my final responses to your position I want to remind you and everyone here something you just brought up actually that we are debating on the precipice of eternity.

Several years ago. I had the privilege of debating dr. Gordon Stein. Since that time he has died and has to head and has had to go and give an accounting to his creator. In that debate he was denying that he had one and I was maintaining that he had one and he has died and gone on.

To give that reckoning in the last several years. We mentioned the dr Bonson an apologist a Christian apologist has also died and gone to meet his creator. We are debating here on the precipice of Eternity and I speak this way not as a formal part of my argument.

But rather as a reference to the context of our debate. I speak as an old Puritan preacher said that's never sure to speak again a dying man to dying men. In the light of this I wish you well Desiring any good for you consistent with the holiness of the one who made both you and me.

Now in saying this I want to Conclude my remarks by developing something that you mentioned in your final remarks. You said that Doug is nicer than God if that's a summary. I would not do some things that God would be willing to do.

That would that strikes me as a horrible and blasphemous thought. And I know you did not intend to blasphemy, but that's how it. That is in fact what it is if there is no God. Nice does not exist. If there is no God all there is is raw Power that's fallen corrupt greedy what we see in the newspapers around us.