OVER FIFTY UNREFUTED ARGUMENTS

A RESPONSE FROM CARLOS

In early December, 2007, Carlos attempted a refutation of two of my web pages:
Unrefuted Arguments
A Call for a Rational Alternative

His e-mail is found below unedited. My response to his e-mail are found at:
Unrefuted Arguments remain unrefuted
A Call for a Rational Alternative is ignored again

Here I painstakingly address Thor's fifty-three questions.

1) Panel:
Why is Jesus needed to cleanse us from sin? Adam is the one who ate the
forbidden fruit. According to Deut. 24:16, children will not be punished
for the sins of their fathers, so why is Jesus needed?

Thor:
If I decide to drink up my income and beat my wife and children, they
bear the consequences of what I do. God does not, however, hold them
accountable.

Carlos:
Nor does he intervene to avoid their suffering. So it can be argued that
God willed it. Also, as I said elsewhere, moral behavior, including sin,
is not inherited.

2) Panel:
The Bible contradicts itself when it says in one place that everyone is
a sinner and in another that some people were without sin.

Thor:
... the people mentioned sinned later on, making it possible for both
statements to be true.

Carlos:
I still can't understand why you argue that people can remain sinless
for some time before committing their first sin. The doctrine of
original sin implies that we are sinners from birth. That's why Noah's
perfection is contradictory with our universal state of damnation.

3) Panel:
Resurrections were a frequent phenomenon, so why pay any attention to it
at all?

Thor:
... the point Paul is making has nothing to do with how spectacular it
was. He is talking about how true it is.

Carlos:
Paul doesn't explain how it is different from previous instances.

4) Panel:
Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses. It describes his death
and funeral in chapter 34.

Thor:
Clearly someone else put it on paper but since it is almost entirely the
words of Moses it is reasonable to refer to it as one of the books of Moses.

Carlos:
If some part of the Pentateuch is clearly not his, what assurance do we
have that the rest is? Why refer to it unambiguously as Moses' writings?

5) Panel:
Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God's face and live, contradicts
Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw God's face and lived.

Thor:
One was referring to God the Father and the other to the pre-incarnate
Christ [...] because Jacob survived.

Carlos:
What? Again, what? Jewish authors did not even have the concept of the
trinity to work with. Jesus makes no appearance at all in the OT.

6) Panel:
In 1 Cor. 1: 1 7 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to
preach the gospel") Paul did not obey the great commission Matt. 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...."

Thor:
Different people have different gifts from the Spirit and can contribute
in different ways. [...] All Paul is saying is that he mainly preached
while others on his team baptized.

Carlos:
I wouldn't be as strict as Dennis in requiring that Paul baptized
personally, but the fact remains that he didn't do it.

7) Panel:
In Mark 10:19 Jesus listed "defraud not," as an Old Testament commandment.

Thor:
The Old Testament tells us not to defraud in many, many places.

Carlos:
True, but the Mark quote refers to the classic Ten Commandments, which
Jesus was supposed to be listing. "Defraud not" is not part of the "thou
shalt" list.

8) Panel:
Jesus clearly stated he was not God.

Thor:
When God the Son became a man he temporarily surrendered Himself to the
authority of the Father in order to show us how it is done.

Carlos:
This issue has to do with the doctrine of the trinity. Such nonsense has
only two possible solutions: either God is afflicted with multiple
personality disorder or believers are afflicted with terrible
disturbances to their logical processes.

9) Panel:
Jesus did not keep his promise in Matt. 16:28 when he said, "There be
some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the
Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Surely you realize his listeners are
all dead.

Thor:
He was speaking of His resurrection and the foundation of His church.

Carlos:
The foundation of his church hardly has anything to do with this
passage. Jesus "coming in his kingdom" is assumed to refer to his Second
Coming, which belongs in the remote future.

10) Panel:
Jesus said, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" from the
cross. If he was God he must have been talking to himself. Isn't that
evidence of an unbalanced mind? Or is it evidence of two Gods?

Thor:
I frequently talk to myself and I'm not even two persons in one, let
alone three. [...] I'm not sure I could worship God if I could
completely comprehend Him. [...] I know God well enough to worship Him.
What there is additional to know about Him is infinite.

Carlos:
Issues about God's infinity aside, this is another problem related to
the trinity. Its absurdity (see #8) remains.

11) Panel:
Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell
fire" (Matt. 5:22). But in Matt. 23:17, 19, Luke 11:40, and 12:20 he
calls people fools.

Thor:
If you look at the context of Matthew 5 you will discover He is talking
about calling people names in contempt and/or with the intent to hurt
them. When Jesus called people fools He was accurately describing them
in an attempt to waken them to repentance.

Carlos:
In Matthew 5 Jesus was commenting on the commandment against killing,
expanding it to include even ill will. He made no mention of intent or
modifying circumstances. Jesus remains guilty of insulting people.

12) Panel:
Mark 16 says Christians can drink poison and survive. Care to try it?

Thor:
In this same passage we find a prophecy of Paul's surviving a viper
bight on his trip to Rome and of tongues at Pentecost. [Thor also argued
that this did not apply to "all" believers.]

Carlos:
While Jesus did mention tongues, relating this to Paul's incident with
the viper is to overstretch the text. It could have had to do with any
other incident, or to none at all. Second, the word "all" is not
necessary in the text. The absence of quantity modifiers to a plural
noun implies that the collective as a whole is meant.

13) Panel:
Eccl. 1:9 says "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is
what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun") but since then
we have invented the atomic bomb and landed on the moon among many other
scientific advances.

Thor:
The scientific principles that make atomic bombs and rockets possible
were just as true when Eccl 1:9 was written as they are today. The
proclivity of people to wage war and explore is the same as it has
always been.

Carlos:
I wouldn't worry much about a passage that is mostly poetic, but I find
it meaningful that both Dennis and you can support their positions from
the text. As I see it, the only point where this portion of Ecclesiastes
fails is in clarity.

14) Panel:
It makes no sense for Jesus to be executed for the sins of other people.
No real judge would allow such a thing.

Thor:
If I am fined $125 dollars for speeding the judge could care less
whether it is me, my father, my son, or my neighbor down the street who
actually pays the $125.

Carlos:
I don't think a fine can be compared to a death sentence. If the judge
sends me to the chair, will he accept my willing cousin as a suitable
substitute?

15) Panel:
Mark 8:34 says "whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, take
up his cross and follow me." Since Jesus had not yet died on the cross
this is senseless.

Thor:
The cross was as familiar to them as the electric chair or noose is to
you and I.

Carlos:
Yes, the cross was as familiar to them as the wheel, the sword and the
brick wall. Among all the well-know items of the time, why would Jesus
choose the cross in particular for his metaphor? Before Jesus became an
iconic figure, what was "take up his cross" supposed to mean?

16) Panel:
Jesus could not have thought of himself as God since he said, "My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

Thor:
Jesus was merely referring his listeners to Psalm 22 in the manner of
the day, by quoting the first verse.

Carlos:
First, death by torture is not the most suitable moment for engaging in
catechism. Second, this still does not resolve the inconsistency with
the trinity doctrine (see #8).

17) Panel:
Since God created everything, (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, John
1:3), he created evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38) and is therefore
responsible for all of it.

Thor:
Yes, He created evil. He also warned us to stay away from it. If you do
not follow His directions and stay away from it, you are responsible,
not Him. [...] How is it hypocritical?

Carlos:
The myriad examples I could offer of instances where evil events
overpower human resistance are enough to blame its presumed creator.

18) Panel:
[In a passage from Luke] The Pharisee was astonished to see that [Jesus]
did not at first wash before dinner.

Thor:
Basically what these accusers are saying is that Jesus can not be the
Savior because they do not approve of His manners. [...] Where does it
say that being rude is always sinful?

Carlos:
We could start with Jesus' admonition against calling thy neighbor
'fool', but for this argument it will suffice to point to the humility
that would be expected from the epitome of goodness.

19) Panel:
Jesus said "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but disobeyed
the command himself. Matt. 23:17 ('Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O
generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:27 (". . . hypocrites ... ye are
like unto whited sepulchres...")

Thor:
He loved them by telling them the truth. He blessed them by trying to
lead them to repentance.

Carlos:
Such harsh methods are seldom effective, and often counterproductive.

20) Panel:
The punishment should fit the crime or it is not justice. Nothing done
in our limited lifetimes could possibly merit eternal punishment.

Thor:
... what is to be done with someone who will not behave himself and yet
will exist forever?

Carlos:
"Forever" seems like plenty of chance for repentance. Can't God wait?

21) Panel:
The "blood atonement" of Jesus is immoral, uncivilized and repugnant.
Everyone knows blood atonement is an evil idea.

Thor:
I do not like it, but what evidence to you have that it is wrong?

Carlos:
The evidence is in the cruelty, heartlessness, absurdity and uselessness
of employing death as an instrument. That's the same reason why war and
death penalty are wrong. There is a quote by Bertrand Russell about the
variation of tastes across time, but I couldn't find it. As I remember,
it said something to the effect that religious norms made acceptable
what people without that religion would have found intolerable.

22) Panel:
How can God be fair if billions of people who are infants or simply not
mentally capable are condemned for not accepting Jesus as their Savior?
(John 14:6)

Thor:
Each of the generations hate Him by their own choice. When they do
choose to hate Him, they have to bear the consequences of their parents
sins as well. God is warning us that if we sin that our children and
grandchildren will suffer from it.

Carlos:
Let's read Exodus 20:5 again: "... I [...] am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..." God says here that he
personally sees to it that children of sinners suffer. Could the text by
any more clearer?

23) Panel:
The Bible contradicts itself because in one place it says that God does
not repent and in another that he does.

Thor:
The same word does not always mean the same thing. In Num. 23:19
repentance means sorrow for sins committed. In Jonah 3:10 it means to
change your mind. [...] ... humans are struggling to describe the
behavior of an omniscient being in human terms.

Carlos:
First, translators chose "repent" in both cases. Their knowledge of
those languages told them that "repent" was the best choice fo
expressing the intended sense. If there were any nuance that needed to
be made clear in the text, translators would have included modifiers or
more precise synonyms to that effect. The contradiction between a
repenting and a non-repenting God remains. Second, downplaying the
ability of human language to express spiritual truths diminishes the
utility of all printed bibles and only damages your case.

24) Panel:
How can the Bible be considered moral if it has pornography in it like:
"...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2
Kings 18:27).

Thor:
In the proper context dung and piss are not obscene.

Carlos:
2 Kings 18 speaks about a sieged city whose dwellers are forced by
starvation to eat feces. Is that a proper context? It seems rather
monstrous.

25) Panel:
It is impossible to obey the 6th commandment because some translations
say thou shalt not kill and other say thou shalt not murder.

Thor:
The underlying Hebrew word can be validly translated either way. Why
wouldn't you just obey it both ways?

Carlos:
Moi, I have no problems minding my own business without taking anyone's
life. But for those who support the legitimacy of standing armies, death
penalty, and homicide in self-defense, the implications derived from the
exact translation of this commandment is of paramount importance.

26) Panel:
Jesus is called the son of man in the New Testament but Psalm 146:3 says
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is
no help" and Job 25:6 days "How much less man, that is a worm? and the
son of man, which is a worm"

Thor:
You neglect range of sense. Just as light may mean a fixture, the rays
that illuminate, or the fact that something does not weigh very much,
son of man can be taken more than one way.

Carlos:
No biblical author bothered to explain what was meant by "son of man".
The range of sense for this expression is empty.

27) Panel:
Acts 20:35 says "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It
is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Paul is a liar. Jesus never
said anything like this.

Thor:
John 21:25 makes it clear that the written record of what Jesus said and
did is not complete with the Gospel accounts. [...] We know that Jesus
did say it because Acts 20:35 reports that He did.

Carlos:
Acts 20:35 reports no deeds of Jesus', only Paul's description of them.
There is a difference between reporting that a fact occurred and
reporting that a guy says it occurred.

28) Panel:
The Bible is self-contradictory. David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4),
seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer. [Examples like
this abound.]

Thor:
... the minor errors demonstrate there is nothing that keeps there from
being major errors in the Bible as well. That is why it is a miracle
that there are no major errors.

Carlos:
First, the minor errors demonstrate that whatever god might have been
behind the bible project abandoned it. Second, major errors are numerous
and evident. Dennis' website is out there for you to confirm it.

29) Panel:
2 Kings 8:26, which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22, contradicts 2
Chron. 22:2, which says he was 42.

Thor:
These minor discrepancies, of which, there are hundreds confirm the
Bible's general accuracy in two ways. First, they confirm that the
various witnesses did not collude about their testimony. Second, it
confirms that the scribes who copied the Bible over the centuries did
their best to accurately copy what they found instead of glossing over
mistakes.

Carlos:
See #28 and: how do you draw the line between "minor" and "major"
discrepancies? According to 2 Timothy 3:16, "all" scripture is inspired
and useful.

30) Panel:
The Bible made a statement contrary to known scientific fact in 1 Samuel
2:8 "For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world
on them."

Thor:
It is a figure of speech in the middle of some very nice poetry

Carlos:
Poetic license does not include factual error.

31) Panel:
Jesus contradicted himself. He said "honor thy father and mother" in
Matt. 15:4, but in Luke 14:26 he said "If any man comes to me and does
not hate his father and mother ... he cannot be my disciple".

Thor:
It is a figure of speech. We are to honor our parents. But we are to
honor God so much more that the honor we have for our parents seems like
hate in comparison.

Carlos:
Jesus said nothing like that. He clearly said love in one occasion, and
clearly said hate in another. He added no modifiers or explanations. You
are adding to the text so the contradiction can be ignored.

32) Panel:
Matt. 10:34 "I came not to send peace but a sword" contradicts Matt.
26:52 "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the
sword shall perish with the sword"

Thor:
In Matt 10:34 sword is a figure of speech. In Matt 26:52 sword is meant
literally.

Carlos:
The shifting nature of the sword does not improve Jesus' ambiguous
stance on violence.

33) Panel:
Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere then how could he come down
to earth (Gen. 11:5) or Satan leave His presence (Job 1: 12, 2:7)?

Thor:
It is simply human language struggling to describe the indescribable.

Carlos:
See #23 and: if human languages come short of conveying the meanings God
intended, why bother to make a Bible at all?

34) Panel:
The Bible contradicts itself when it says Saul's daughter, Michal, had
no sons in 2 Sam. 6:23 but that she had 5 sons in 2 Sam. 21:8.

Thor:
Most other versions say it was Merab that has children, not Michal.

Carlos:
First, both chapters are speaking about the daughter of Saul. Second,
according to a footnote in my bible, it was the Greek translation which
introduced the name Merab.

35) Panel:
The Bible claims that the world's language did not evolve but appeared
suddenly and yet the modern science of Linguistics show this to be
impossible.

Thor:
What is particularly funny about this accusation is that the Bible makes
no claim that world's languages appeared suddenly. All it says is that
the builder's of the tower were no longer able to understand one another.

Carlos:
Genesis 11:1 says that only one language existed prior to the events at
Babel. Then, the verses 7-9 say that God confused their languages. If
this does not mean sudden creation of tongues, what does it mean?

36) Panel:
In Matt. 15:24 Jesus says, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel," but later says to his disciples "Go ye therefore, and
teach all nations" (Matt 28:19).

Thor:
Jesus went to Israel and his followers went to the nations. Where is the
problem here?

Carlos:
If all nations were to be preached to, what point was there in
restricting Jesus' mission to Israel?

37) Panel:
Heaven can not be a perfect place since wars have occurred there and
might again.

Thor:
... once the war is over there will be no more death or sadness there.

Carlos:
In Genesis, God's plan was ruined once. What prevents something awful
from happening again?

38) Panel:
How could a perfect God create a man so imperfect that he sinned?

Thor:
A being with a free will that could not choose poorly seem like a
logical impossibility to me, like a square with out corners. [...] Adam
was not a child when he was put in the garden. He was a full grown man
who knew better and did it anyway.

Carlos:
Adam sinned because he was able to. In other words, the fact that Adam
did wrong is evidence that the potential for error existed in him prior
to the sin. This means that bad tendencies were already present in him.
God made a faulty creation.

39) Panel:
In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be
with me in paradise." But how could they have been together in paradise
that day if Jesus lay in the tomb for three days?

Thor:
Jesus' body was in the tomb. His Spirit was active.

Carlos:
Within Christian ontological assumptions, I have no problem with that
answer. Point granted.

40) Panel:
In Matt. 19:17 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there
is none good but one, that is God") Jesus is denying he is perfect.

Thor:
It is not a denial of perfection. It is a claim of divinity.

Carlos:
I read and reread the verse, but I can't see by what rhetoric somersault
does your explanation make sense. Please elaborate.

41) Panel:
Jesus contradicted the Old Testament in John 3:13 saying "And no man
hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the
Son of man..." but in 2 Kings 2:11 it says ". . . and Elijah went up by
a whirlwind into heaven".

Thor:
Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind. Jesus ascended by His own power. It
is not the same thing.

Carlos:
Jesus' words made no such distinction. He said nobody went up, period.

42) Panel:
Luke 12:4 says "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," but in Matt.
12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, and Mark 1:45 he does not
follow his own command but rather shows fearful behavior.

Thor:
Fear is only one possible motivation for concealment and avoidance. He
simply wanted to pick the time and place for the final confrontation.

Carlos:
Unless you have mastered cross-millennial telepathy, I can't believe you
can describe Jesus' inner motives better than the written record plainly
shows.

43) Panel:
The bible contradicts itself when it says salvation is by faith alone
(John 3:18,36) but Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments to be
saved in Matt. 19:16-18.

Thor:
Yes, anyone who follows all the commandments will be ushered to first
place in line to get into heaven. [...] It also makes it clear that
Jesus is the only one who will ever be successful doing that.

Carlos:
If fulfilling all the commandments is beyond human capabilities, why did
Jesus recommend doing just so?

44) and 45) deal with what you call "anti-supernatural bias" (I'm yet to
find a funnier misnomer for good sense). Mr. Carden, your decision to
interpret unexpected and surprising events in your life as evidence of
God's hand does not make them cease to be anecdotal evidence. A much
stronger case for the existence of the miraculous will need to be made.

46) Panel:
There are almost 40 chapters in Josephus about [Herod]. This massacre is
not mentioned. Nor is it mentioned elsewhere by any other historian.
With full grown sons already why would Herod be afraid of a newborn baby
taking away his rule?

Thor:
For many years the "scholars" ridiculed the Bible because it talked
about Hittites. They stopped the ridicule when archeologists dug them
up. It was his sons Herod was protecting. It was his dynasty he was
protecting not his rule.

Carlos:
I don't have the time to do the full research this deserves, but my 2000
Encarta CD-ROM says, "The primary sources of information about the
Hittites came from Egyptian records, notably those of the 19th Dynasty,
and from certain passages in the Bible." In that order. Re Herod,
whatever he was defending, an infant born to a poor family is still
innocuous.

47) Panel:
In all the ancient writings only biased Christian writers clearly
mention Jesus of Nazareth.

Thor:
If you discount the Christian writers just because they believe what
they wrote then you will not be convinced by any evidence. [...] As far
as I know, all major religions which claim to have a founder can also
make a reasonable case that their founder was real.

Carlos:
Still, no pagan source mentions Jesus. Some texts make a passing comment
on how his followers were doing, but this does not help prove the man
breathed and walked.

48) Panel:
The Bible has scientific errors in it when it says the bat is a bird
(Lev. 11:13,19), hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev.
11:20-21) and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs.

Thor:
Probably these are simply translated wrong or refer to species we know
nothing about. [...] The distinction you are talking about has to do
with an arbitrary classification system invented by biologists in the
last few hundred years.

Carlos:
Re translations, see #23. Re classifications, you are right that
biologists invented taxonomy, but God is supposed to have created the
natural order that taxonomy describes. What is meant by "bird" is clear
enough. In Leviticus it's God himself who is speaking, yet he can't get
it right when describing his own creation.

49) Panel:
The Bible says there were flying serpents (Isaiah 14:29, 30:6) which is
known to be untrue.

Thor:
How do those who accuse the Bible of errors of fact know that there were
no flying serpents at the time of Isaiah that have since gone extinct?
They are arguing from the absence of evidence in a field that science
makes no claim to have completed its study. It is also, possible this is
a figure of speech, that symbolically represents Satan or his demons.

Carlos:
Let's put these flying serpents together with Leviathan and Behemoth in
the missing monster department. Seriously, there's a grave problem with
a book when readers can't even have a clue on what on earth is meant.

50) deals with Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.

51) Panel:
... no absolute laws that would apply in all situations.

Thor:
I'll give you two absolute laws that are good for all people, places,
and times in the universe. [...] 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH
ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' [...]
'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

Carlos:
In all times? Really? Let's speculate. Just as a rhetoric exercise,
would it do any good for people already condemned in hell to pray to god
or start loving their fellow damned?

52) concerns the Documentary Hypothesis. After a lot of arguing, it came
to Thor saying:
Finally, what if everything you said is true. So what? Thirty-eight
hundred years is still pretty old. Close to a hundred generations of our
forefathers believed it was a truth worth preserving. Why don't you?

Carlos:
The dedication all those people showed in preserving and transmitting
the biblical text does not add to its veracity. The Hindu Vedas are
older books than the Old Testament, and they have survived to this day
among a strong community of believers. Applying your argument would
require us to consider Hinduism truer than Judaism.

53) is about the canon formation. Priests at the time weren't sure
themselves what to let in and what to leave out. This happened with both
testaments. Given the great amount of books that were rejected, we can
learn a lot figuring out the historic significance and political motives
of such decisions.

Bonus track: Thor's eight questions on alternatives.

A) Thor:
We thirst and there is water. We hunger and there is food. We desire
meaning and there is God. How could a desire come into existence for
which there is nothing to fulfill it?

Carlos:
A god does not add meaning to life. An eternity spent singing psalms in
heaven is the most meaningless future I can imagine. The argument from
desires is absurd. Human life is filled with desires with no viable
satisfaction.

B) Thor:
Why is good powerful and evil powerless?

Carlos:
Neither is good powerful nor is evil powerless beyond the person doing
the good or evil act in question. As I already said, good and evil do
not exist as objective features of the universe but as human, contingent
qualifiers for deeds.

C) Thor:
Why is there almost universal belief in the spiritual world?

Carlos:
Touché. Consider this one: Why are spiritual beliefs currently
disappearing in the more civilized societies?

D) Thor:
How are the mathematics of Intelligent Design to be explained? Or if the
Teleological argument does not demonstrate God, how do you account for
the design and order of the universe? (i.e if it is all an accident, why
doesn't it look like one?)

Carlos:
The big, big mistake of ID advocates is that they do not take into
account the huge amounts of time involved and the myriad simultaneous
opportunities for events to happen. Their calculations are valid if we
assume just one instance at just one time. Obviously the odds would be
against the emergence of life if one only chance was all we had. But if
you have millions of years and all the oceans of Earth to work with,
life is not only probable, but inevitable. The apparent order of the
universe results from a fundamental bias of the human mind. We're
trained to organize reality in patterns we can work with.

E) Thor:
On what basis can we make sound ethical decisions and convince our
children to do the same?

Carlos:
Ethical decisions are based on goals. (Which goal you want to achieve is
up to you; that's what freedom is for.) The most efficient way to reach
a goal without producing adverse consequences that might later render
the goal useless turns out to be the best choice. This seems like
something Machiavelli would endorse, but a convincing case can be made
that absolute selfishness often yields counterproductive results. When
educating children, show them what works and what doesn't. Practical
example is the best teacher.

F) Thor:
How can the Problem of Evil be solved?

Carlos:
Loaded question. It can't.

G) Thor:
If the Cosmological Argument does not demonstrate God, how do you
account for the universe?

Carlos:
The cosmological argument is no help. You would still be left with the
task of explaining where God came from. Rather than answering the
question, it only brings it back one step and leaves it at that. The
cosmological argument is not an explanation, but an evasion of the
problem. How do I account for the universe? I wish I knew. Do you?

H) Thor:
If the moral law does not imply a law giver, where did the idea come
from that there is such a thing as morals?

Carlos:
The requirements of our survival as a group of thinking individuals, all
with different and conflicting interests, moved us to make increasingly
more complicated agreements (from taboos to decalogues to codes to
decrees to constitutions) so we don't bash each other's head over what
to have for dinner.

Well, I'm done. I'll go eat an ice cream.