The Infidel Guy PWN

This is a point by point response (and effective debunk) to "Infidel Guy" Show entitled "There is no God and you know it."

Location:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANdMYNldd3c&eurl=http://infidelguy.com/

Paul S. ( http://divinusmentis.blogspot.com )


Introduction:

You may have seen him on TV's Wife Swap, or perhaps you've discovered him through the liberal Blogosphere or perhaps you don't know who I'm even talking about.

Well his name is "Infidel Guy" and he runs an Atheist propaganda website and radio show over at http://infidelguy.com/ where he tries to attract paying subscribers. He has had debates, and I guess you might say arguments with people all over the spectrum but today I'm bringing my Empirical flavor and logical approach to doing a point by point rebuke of his aforementioned video.

It is recommended that you open up the Youtube video and watch along as you read this. I am writing this in the form of a direct letter to him, as I will be posting this to his web site's forums as well as my blog, located at http://divinusmentis.blogspot.com.


=============

Begin Video

=============

First of all, to argue the entire concept of Religion, or more importantly intelligent design on the premise of what you call an anthropomorphic God is a flawed approach. You can argue against people that believe in such a God, but can you give a figure onto how many people do believe this?

There's a simple concept you're missing here but I'll explain it in detail.

A quick point on the appearance on TV and the crying bit, how are you more affected by religion than anyone else? It seems strange and bizarre to me that you would need to feel anything other than normal in response to the lady who was a guest in your house. You felt you needed to cry or that you were under stress because she believes something you do not?

There are countless examples of people who do not believe what I believe. I could give a seemingly infinite amount of examples of things I think or believe that others do not. The component I don't understand is what is causing the stress? If this lady is a religious lunatic, how could you give her any power over you as a person to an extent which would lead you to an emotional breakdown? It just doesn't make sense, especially when you don't subscribe to the doctrine she puts forth.

Claims about Gods:

Let's slow it down here because you kinda go into a barrage of invalid arguments on preconceived notions on what God supposedly "thinks" and "feels".

Before you can really criticize the Bible, you must understand it's structure. There are several components, several authors, and several objectives set forth in the book.

Your approach is to attack the Bible from a literalism perspective when the obvious goal of God being "angry" is a lesson in morality. It just doesn't play.

If you don't believe in God why did he make you knowing that you wouldn't believe and that you'd burn in hell?

Well have you considered the possibility that you're not actually going to a fiery place to cook? You literally right now are separated from God, you do not comprehend the concepts surrounding him, as you admit repeatedly on your show by debating them.

This quite literally is what Hell is. Any other description you make or come back with is a preconceived misrepresentation, sorry but that's the way it is.

So now the "why"?

Well I'm a believer, and I can definitely observe your mental state and learn from it, which is it's own benefit. Again, you have the choice to accept or not accept this statement, and of course you will reject it, and therefore you will still be "separated" from God. You're still the infidel guy...

Nobody will make you the "God guy".

Similar concept for Adam, Eve and the garden.

You ask who put the tree there, God did. Simple. I won't discuss the process but suffice it to say cosmic evolution was the cause.

You ask why he put it there if they weren't supposed to eat the fruit from it. Well isn't it obvious he put it there for them to eat?

He told them not to, he knew they would. If he didn't want them to eat it he wouldn't have put the tree there unless he wanted them to disobey. Again, a lesson is learned. The purpose is simple.

The lesson is open for a large amount of conjecture, but I guess we could go with a common interpretation, which is that God told us we are human, and we are not God. He demonstrates this constantly, yet we ignore it.

There is a philosophical point here. It's really about the nature of us, and our humanity and really I think an obvious truth about ourselves, as is quite apparent in the world, we have a tenancy to do things which we know will not result in the preferred outcome, often times due to our own selfishness.

You could and have asked why then? Well I guess if there was no lesson to be learned being anything more than rocks and dust would be pointless.

As for not needing to eat anything, I'm not sure what quack you got that from but needless to say that's completely baseless form any perspective. As much as Adam or Eve had arms to grab fruit they had stomachs and digestive system, cells, and the need for energy. Ridiculous claim whoever made it.

Shortly after you talk about the Adam and Eve story, you talk about how religions evolve. Important point, because I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people you debate are from these wacko mutations that can hardly be called Christianity in the first place.

Anything protestant is based on Martin Luther originally, a man that (so typically) didn't like how the rules applied to him, specifically marriage, and decided, spontaneously, that he somehow had the authority to change the rules. Which is fine if you don't believe in religion, but from his standpoint I really don't know who he really thought he was so to speak because the Apostolic Church was well structured and the basis for it's doctrine was and is still pretty clear cut.

Arguing with a non Apostolic source is like arguing a mutation of Christianity. It's not adhering to authentic doctrine in the first place, so it's really a waste of time. Lutherans for example (as I was raised and have since rejected in adult life) according to the catechism, are supposed to do things like confessional. Well even being raised Lutheran, I never even heard of such a practice, so you see, consider the source you're arguing. I'll support you in calling these "evolved" forms of Christianity on their bull when applicable.

Next you talk about survival of the religions... It's important to note here as I stated, if we are to take one aspect of Religion and specifically the Abrahamic religions more seriously than others, we should probably use common sense and avoid discussing these minor sects like protestantism. The LEAST changed, are the Apostolic traditions (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox etc) and this should be the focus when debating Christian theology, as they are the most pure sources, traceable as the name implies, to the Apostles of Christ.

Can anything shock a God? I don't think I've heard any reference in the Bible as you imply, of God being shocked, surprised or startled. The concept is simple, God is not pleased.

What does that really mean though? God supposedly set forth a guideline that was to be followed. Not abiding to this guideline, in terms a human can

comprehend, could be described as "God got angry" etc. Again, this is quite obviously for the purpose of proposed morality.

The Adam and Eve story is significant because it is really the basis for which all other (and more specific) morality determinations are based upon. With it, it has been established that God knows he will be disobeyed, although even though we all know none of us are perfect, especially Christians, it does give us something in the way of positive goals we can aspire to. The upcoming moralities set forth, are pretty clear cut and virtuous, such as the Ten Commandments.

Regardless of whether you are an Atheist or a subscriber to religion, it's pretty much accepted that murder isn't a good thing. The religions try to put this into perspective.


At this point you return to the subject of hell. I just think the approach on this is wrong, and I'm not being esoteric in saying, that hell isn't specifically a "fiery place" as I said before. Hell is a state of being.

When you put it in terms of a punishment God is going to put you through because of stuff he knows you will do, it's simply not accurate. It's more of a natural consequence, and a natural consequence as literal separation from God.

Example: If you murder, you are breaking a commandment, therefore what is your proximity (figuratively) to God? Are you warm or cold when it comes to conduct within the bounds of the morality set forth? You are separated from God.

If you ask your Biblical Scholar friend about this, he can show you where it says things like "you will not know God" or "be in his presence". He might try

to spin some apocryphal b.s. about the underworld, but those texts could just as easily be talking about the claimed "purgatory" (not to be confused with hell) and that's another subject entirely.


You go on to question free will. If God created you knowing what it would take for you to believe etc.

But you will not believe.

To understand this, you really need to open your mind and look at this from a hypothetical standpoint, which is "ok God exists" to see the mistake in rationale here. Hear me out.

So hypothetically, if God DOES exist, which is the claim, God has already told you quite plainly that he exists, and here are his laws. You do not believe he exists, and that is your choice. Sufficient evidence isn't up for the non believer to decide. Do you see the problem in logic there? If God exists, HE is the authority on what is sufficient evidence, not you. IF he exists, HE is the authority. THAT is the problem... and he has stated that through his actions so far and by faith, you are to believe. The rest is the result of choices you have made.

You then go on to briefly say that he talks about it in this small place and expects everyone to know it. There really is no punishment for people that have never been presented the word. The Bible is quite clear that it is the act of being presented the truth and then REJECTING the truth which causes damnation.

Being oblivious to the truth does not cause damnation. It's quite clear. This also applies to the rapture (for those who subscribe) more specifically infants, and children typically thought to be under the age of innocence (commonly accepted as 12 or so). Obviously this applies to people in remote areas, less culturally evolved peoples etc.

I might point out here though that Christianity really didn't have a hard time spreading, as it is quite obviously globally known. Also we can draw parallels between it and other monotheistic faiths, whereas some might consider it a contradiction, I would argue that the similarities give monotheism more credit than not.

You call it ridiculous, but the person calling it ridiculous is fully aware that if he wanted, he could seek the answers on the subject he desires (if he so desired).

You say evidence is not what you get, as if you want it, yet if God is real, he as I stated already has quite plainly made himself known, after all the Bible remains a best seller, and even if you're broke Churches give them away.

To clarify: You're operating your argument on the premise of the existance of God, from that standpoint, you cannot be the authority on what is sufficient evidence. Sorry if I'm being redundant here, but you mention this several times. It's a simple concept.

Next you talk specifically about God being sad. Again, from the standpoint he exists, it's already abundantly clear that he cares enough for us, at least what remains when this shell of a body is shed, that he has done quite enough in our favor. Again, remember we're operating on premise here, that being that he exists. If we operate on this premise, than God is caring, and it makes complete sense that he would become sad if the morality guides he sets forth are not obeyed, for many reason, but perhaps most simply that they are for our benefit, and are disregarded. Again, a simple concept.

Next you start talking about God needing us, needing us perhaps to do what he asks, or needing to be worshiped. I'll address that briefly. You're making several presumptions here, mainly on what perfect is. This is the gotcha on your point. Your definition of perfect is apparently not needing someone to love and care for you enough to follow your morality... Do you understand? God wants us to be happy, and know him, that is not an imperfection by God's standards, that's an imperfection by YOUR standards... Again, if God exists and we operate on this premise, your standard of perfection is quite simply overruled by God's ideas of perfection. Again, we're operating on the premise that God exists, which leaves God, not you or me, as the authority on what is perfect, which he has stated quite clearly. Again sir, your argument loses validity when we operate on this premise.

You say "it's a human problem" ... "humans wants stuff like that" on what authority do you as an atheist, decide what God desires? You don't believe God exists, so how can you be the authority on what God should want? The only real reason for you to think that God would be imperfect in wanting these things, is that you hold no value on them. If you do hold value on them, love for instance, as I know you are married, perhaps wanting love is actually NOT an imperfection?

Next you talk about demographics. You give the example of locations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Perhaps you should research what is called the

"Abrahamic" set of religions, which encompasses these three. Many things are common among the three religions, primarily Abraham. Investigate it. We know of course through our study of history, that Judaism was first, from that stemmed Chirstianity, and from that Stemmed Islam.

Before I get into Buddhism and the like, let me address those three:

If you really understood the prophecies, you would know that the God in these three religions is the God of Abraham, the same God. Jews Believe that the messiah is coming, but wasn't Christ, Christians are the Jews that DID believe it was Christ that he died resurrected ascended to heaven and will return AGAIN, Muslims are the ones that believe Christ was a prophet, as was Mohamed. All three religions have in common one thing: They all believe the prophet will return ONE MORE TIME. Do you see the correlation?

If you are a Muslim, you can accept Christians and Jews as saved, and if you asre a Christian, you can accept Muslims and Jews as saved. The primary

difference here, is that both Christians and Jews contend that Abraham made a covenant with God, therefore the Jewish people are saved, and thus alleviates them from the mistake they made with Christ as they are already saved. We could get further into the semantics's of these, but suffice it to say, that none of these, at best is completely wrong, from the perspective of any of the three.

The same can be said for Hinduism, as taught to me, the various pantheon of Gods are in actuality incarnations or "aspects" on the one monotheistic supreme being. Again, not completely wrong. There are several examples this can be applied to, for instance Ra, or the "Great spirit" in Native American religions.

Buddhism can be dealt with similarly. There are even sects that believe Buddha was the first messiah, or that Jesus was Buddha etc. Of course historical science leaves little room for this, but if you actually study the religion from a scholars perspective, it's easy to find the simple truths and virtues of Buddhism.


The simple fact is, something is RIGHT. You say something is wrong, yet it is not pure psychotic thought that allows these philosophies to survive, it is the fact that they bring quality to life, instill values which are good, and simply put "they work".

As for doing a horrible job in letting us know his absolute word, again, it is rare that you will find a place where someone is oblivious to a Semitic

(Abrahamic) religion of one form or another. It's just not a valid argument.


After these remarks, you return to the subject of Hell I guess, talking about God torturing people. Again, how is it God torturing people when they had the choice, and hell is a direct result of their actions? How is he guilty if they had the choice? Yes he created them, but they had the choice. Again, the only torture you will encounter, as the Bible talks about the afterlife, is that once you finally REALIZE God's greatest, it's kinda like a profound sort of epiphany. You can call it guilt, shame or whatever you want, but again think cautiously here, because again you're operating on the premise that God exists, and in this premise, it was you who chose separation from God.

A quick example, as we're nearing the end of the youtube video, perhaps a good example would be my complete explanation of your apparent misunderstandings and confusion. Again, as I'm sure has been a consistent occurrence during your seven years doing this, I am giving you perfectly valid explanations yet you will without a doubt reject them and question their validity. Again, you're making a choice, and very simply being told you're making the choice, and you would blame God for your decision. That is flawed logic.

Next on the subject of God controlling the universe. Let's stick to science here... It's usually the best plan. We're pretty sure we have a good idea of what's controlling the aspects of our universe that we're involved in, which is 4d space. 3d space + time.

This could get complicated and drawn out but I'll try to keep it as concise as possible while still being effective with my points.

It's important to note, that the originator of the Big Bang theory was Georges Lemaître... A Catholic Priest. We can also attribute another great application of science, the realization, moreover the scientific proval that the Earth was not the center of the universe to Nicolaus Copernicus, another Catholic Cleric.

It would be ignorant then to say religious people are without scientific minds as it's abundantly clear that's just not true.

It's mainstream science, that the current trajectory of all celestial objects is a result of the known forces in our 4d universe: Gravity, Strong Force, Weak Force, and Electromagnetism. If you like, you can extend that to Dark matter, string theory, and dark energy.

So the question I often pose to Atheists and agnostics is: If you were staring God, or his actions in the face, would you be aware of it?

The answer is simply "no". It's obvious that anyone that can't fathom that for instance, gravity is a "force" of God, or perhaps more accurately, a result of God, or perhaps even more acurately still, an ASPECT of God's limited presence in these 4 dimensions. But again if we return to the premise that God does exist, it leaves us with little other explanation. We could speculate things endlessly. We know from entanglement that all matter appears to be connected. So is it really that ridiculous to consider a force like gravity to be an aspect of something else? It really doesn't matter how much we find out about how things work here, in the sense that doing so will not actually CHANGE the larger whoel that they represent. It's important to consider this, and similar points.

"Is the universe working on autopilot"? We know what the universe is working on. :)

Is God controlling the universe? I can't say Empirically, but I can say that it's likely that God is Controlling the universe in as much as if I dip my finger into a still body of water I am controlling the wave. My finger caused the wave, but water's properties are waters properties and they will act accordingly, which brings up an interesting point.

We will always find how stuff works. Constantly, and that's great, but one thing that's constant in the universe is that certain "laws" do exist, and those are the parameters by which things operate. Biology, evolution, cosmic evolution etc. These thigns are all governed by unmistakable laws.

Next you're talking about eating every day and I'm fine and screw everyone else. I'm really not sure what religious person you're talking about that acted like that, but if they did shame on them. It's my understanding however that there are more Christian organizations donating food money and developing third world countries than Atheist organizations doing the same work.

As you can probably tell by now by my extensive point by point breakdown of your youtube video, I subscribe to the ID theory, and as such it wouldn't make much sense for me to have this world view. Perhaps you should really investigate some work organizations like the salvation army do, and what that "horrible ten percent" actually gets put too. As a person that has not been without financial strife in my life, I can testify that a Church has paid 400.00 towards my rent on one occasion, and although I don't go to church, they didn't seem to mind. Evil?

As for the statement "something is so special about you"... Are you being serious man? I am special. So are you, just as special as I am, so is the blind kid. That's really kinda one of the major points of the whole religion thing, did you somehow miss it? Because it's quite clear that we are to "love thy neighbor" as it were, and a Buddhist would give you the shirt off his back. Are you serious? And calling us rich Americans isn't really going far as far as valid points are concerned, as Christianity merely TRAVELED HERE, this is not the source, it's everywhere, rich countries, poor countries and everything in between. This just doesn't seem like a realistic argument here, so I'll leave that one where it is.

Next you're talking about God saying "where are you?" etc. I'll touch on this briefly. Again, an opportunity for them to come clean, proving a point here, it's pretty straightforward. Kinda like when I see a mess on the floor and when I ask my kid what they did when I know full well they dumped the popcorn all over the place.


Next you kinda go into the whole Santa clause thing. C'mon man. This is a tradition that advocates quite plainly the "spirit" of generosity. If you actually study the historical record regarding St. Nicolaus, you would understand why this became a tradition in his name, in support of this ideal. By the way, Santa is only depicted as fat in the USA.

It's equally ridiculous I guess to dress up in green on St. Patrick's day...


You claim these things have no "explanatory power". Which seems like a word fumble if not a vague point here, but the Bible has never claimed to be a cosmological cookbook, or an explanation of Quantum Mechanics. We've obviously done a good job figuring these things out for ourselves. However, to act like there is no moral fiber, no moral benefit from these ideas set forth by the Book, is simply inaccurate.


I thought is was funny when you went on to the mud thing. What's mud? Dirt and water. Well, we're pretty much carbon and water. I don't think in the Bible it gave a really detailed recipe for humans, but carbon and water IS pretty accurate if you know what we're made of.


=============

END VIDEO

=============


To wrap it up here, reached the end of the video.

Now, I've never said in this response anything like "God just did it" to explain away anything, so we're just gonna skip that whole thing.

I think you're a smart guy, but as I pointed out here several times, you attempt to simultaneously operate on the premise of God existing, while putting yourself as the authority on what god should do or would do based on your opinions or conceptions.... This isn't ever going to lead to any sort of understanding of anything and is really pointless in the long run.

I'm not here to convert anyone to anything, but I think it's important that if were are to embrace science, we really can't do that if we're attacking doctrine, as science really offers nothing Empirical against anything I've said.

We can easily approach any religion or any thought or belief for that matter with an incorrect preconception, that does not however make our argument valid just because we formulate our own premise.

When approaching the premise of God, and when we operate in this premise, how is it that we are the authority within this premise? It's just not valid.


Now that I've offered my critical responses to the video, a little about me:

I am currently studying Physics Via MIT openCourseWare.

I am a student of World religion and philosophy.

I was raised Lutheran, although I reject it and all forms of protestantism on the basis that these "reformations" were made with no actual authority.

I believe in Intelligent design, but do not subscribe (currently) to any organized religion.

I do not attend Church, nor do I pray often.

I'm not a Bible banger, and I really don't care if you believe or not, what I really care about is offering a difference of opinion when it comes to logical
argument, especially when Empirical science is involved.

I also believe that religion can be treated as a natural science.

I believe that science and theology are not opposed to one another and that they provide a different perspective on the world.

"Both believe that there is a truth to be sought and found through the pursuit of well-motivated belief." - John Polkinghorne

Everyone is encouraged to do a search for Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Doubles, and Hado.

Thanks for reading.