Atheism – The Lowedown

September 16, 2026September 16, 2026

Einstein, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the “Fudge Factor”

Do you like fudge?

Who doesn’t?

Fudge is deliciously rich chocolatey goodness.

But fudge can also be bad, depending on the context, as Ralphie demonstrated in this classic scene from “A Christmas Story”.

Using “fudge” as a replacement for the F-word is obviously bad.

But there’s another situation in which fudge is considered bad, and that’s when someone provides misleading or incomplete information in order to direct an outcome or conclusion that they want.

In their book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek tell the story of Albert Einstein and the development of his general theory of relativity.

According to the authors, Einstein, in the early development of his theory, didn’t like where his calculations were leading. Einstein, like a lot of scientists at the time, had always assumed that the universe was eternal. If the universe is eternal, then there is no need for God as an explanation for its existence.

But as Einstein continued to work out the calculations of his theory, it was becoming more apparent that the universe, including all space, time, matter and energy, did indeed have a beginning.

Einstein was irritated by this development because he didn’t like the implication that followed, namely that if the universe was caused, there must be something, or someone, who caused it.

To address this irritation, Einstein introduced a universal constant into his equations that served to show that the universe was static and was NOT caused.

The problem with Einstein’s constant, which came to be known as a “fudge factor”, is that it was shown to be false, a mathematical error that appeared to be introduced purely for philosophical reasons.

Einstein’s theory of relativity, along with the corresponding Big Bang Theory are now as universally accepted scientific truths as gravity, and are the basis for the Cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The Cosmological argument is a logical proof that demonstrates that God must exist. The argument can be stated as follows:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The theist argues that the cause of the universe is God, while the atheist, who for years could always appeal to the universe as an eternally existing uncaused reality, now has to come up with an explanation for the existence of the universe without appealing to God as the first cause.

So what motivates a person to “fudge” the data?

The simple answer is that people don’t like where the data is leading so “fudging” the data is an attempted method of controlling a narrative.

So “fudge” can be good or it can be bad, depending on the context.

It turns out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses LOVE fudge, and not the good kind, because the evidence shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses, like Einstein, introduce lots of “fudge factors” into their arguments and even into the Scriptures in order to preserve the narrative to which they are committed.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce “fudge” into their arguments?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce “fudge” in a variety of ways, including ignoring context, twisting and changing the meaning of words, and even inserting words that are not in the original text, all for the purpose of controlling the interpretation of the biblical passages that most challenge their doctrinal preferences.

Ignoring Context

The most obvious example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignoring context is their interpretation of John 10:30, in which Jesus declares to the Pharisees that “I and the Father are one.”

I analyze this passage in greater detail in my blog post “Evidence that Jesus is God” and give a rebuttal to typical Jehovah’s Witness responses in my follow-up post “Evidence that Jesus is God – Part 2” but the summary is that Jesus makes the aforementioned statement (“I and the Father are one”) and the response from the Pharisees is to pick up stones to stone Jesus.

Jesus asks them why they want to stone him and their response is that they’re stoning him for blasphemy, that “you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”

The context clearly shows that the Pharisees understood Jesus’ statement to be a declaration of deity.

So how do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain this passage?

Simple. They whip up some theological fudge and completely ignore the context and clear meaning of the passage by claiming that Jesus, in declaring himself to be one with the Father, was simply affirming that he was “one in purpose” with the Father.

When challenged with this interpretation by appealing to the context, which clearly shows that the Jehovah’s Witness explanation is NOT the understanding the Pharisees had, Jehovah’s Witnesses double down by pointing to John 17, in which Jesus prays that his followers will be “one” as he and the Father are one.

So Jehovah’s Witnesses ignore the immediate context of John 10, which clearly indicates the Pharisees understood Jesus to be making a claim of deity, and appeal instead to a passage seven chapters later, in which Jesus is praying for his followers to experience missional and relational unity, and they apply that understanding to the John 10 passage.

This is some pretty rich doctrinal fudge.

Later in John 10:38, Jesus doubles down by saying, “understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.“ After making this follow-up statement of relational unity and equality with God, the Pharisees “again tried to seize him.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses churn up some doctrinal fudge by ignoring immediate context, which clearly shows that Jesus was making a claim to deity, and applying a more distant and unrelated passage to promote the explanation that Jesus was simply asserting that he and the Father were in agreement on missional objectives.

It turns out that fudge is really helpful in providing alternative explanations for uncomfortable passages.

Changing the Meaning of Words

Another way the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce fudge into their doctrinal arguments is by changing or twisting the plain meaning of biblical words, which effectively alters the plain meaning of straightforward verses.

A clear example of how they do this is with the word “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18. Again, I have outlined in detail the meaning of this passage in my blog post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” and my follow-up post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)”.

The headline is that the word “firstborn”, which appears in well over 100 verses in the Scriptures, can mean “first in chronological birth order” but only when it is used in speaking of parent-child relationships. For example, when the text says, “Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn”, it clearly means that Reuben was the first in chronological order of all of Jacob’s offspring.

However, when the word “firstborn” is not used in relation to a parent-child relationship, it never carries the meaning “first in line”. Instead, it always carries the meaning of “pre-eminence” or “highest rank”.

So when Paul speaks of Jesus as “firstborn of creation” or “firstborn from the dead” it’s obvious that he’s not speaking of a parent-child relationship. Jehovah’s Witnesses bake up some doctrinal fudge by claiming that the word “firstborn” in both of these cases means something like “first in line.”

It should be noted that in this passage, Jehovah’s Witnesses also add the fudge of ignoring context, since it’s clear that Paul is seeking to establish Jesus’ superiority over all things when he explains “that in everything he [Jesus] might have the supremacy.”

Even though the word “firstborn”, when used in the way Paul uses it in Colossians, always has the meaning of “pre-eminence”, and even though the context demonstrates that Paul is making a case for Jesus’ supremacy in all things, Jehovah’s Witnesses still opt for the alternate interpretation that “firstborn” here actually means that Jesus was “first-created” by Jehovah. They insist that Paul’s intention was to communicate that Jesus was Jehovah’s first created being, despite the fact that there is a specific Greek word that literally means “first-created” and Paul does not use that word.

There’s another clear example of how the Jehovah’s Witnesses twist the meaning of words in order to change the meaning of a passage to more accurately reflect their theological preference.

In Hebrews chapter 1, the author is making the case that Jesus is superior to angels.

In verse 3, the writer says directly that “Jesus is the exact representation of His [God’s] nature.”

If this were not evidence enough that Jesus possesses a divine nature, just a few verses later in verse 6, God explicitly says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

We know that only God is to be worshiped and here the angels are commanded to worship Jesus. What other conclusion is there but that Jesus is God, possessing a divine nature and exactly representing the nature of God?

The conclusion seems airtight, yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses apply a fresh batch of doctrinal fudge to explain this verse.

The Greek word for “worship” is “proskuneo” which literally means “to worship”. And yet, the Jehovah’s Witnesses change the meaning of “proskuneo” from “worship” to “do obeisance”.

It’s interesting to note that the 1961 version of the New World Translation rendered Hebrews 1:6 exactly as other bible translations do – in which God says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” However, starting with the 1971 version of the New World Translation, and with all versions moving forward, the translation of this verse was changed to “let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

The Greek word is still the same word (proskuneo) but the translation was changed.

What is the reason for the change?

Jehovah’s Witnesses cite the context as the reason for the change. Yet here is another clear example of the context being ignored and the plain meaning of the words being altered in order to promote an interpretation that aligns with the Jehovah’s Witnesses preferred doctrinal preference.

The context clearly demonstrates that Jesus is to be worshiped because he is God, for the text says that Jesus:

- is the radiance of the Father’s glory
- is the exact representation of the Father’s nature
- is the appointed heir of all things
- made the universe
- sustains all things by the power of his word
- sits at the right hand of Majesty

All of these statements point to and argue for the deity and supremacy of Jesus and yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the “fudge factor” by ignoring context and changing or twisting the meaning of words to suit their prior theological interpretation.

Adding Words to the Text

There’s a third way Jehovah’s Witnesses add some doctrinal fudge to their theological arguments and that is by adding words to the biblical text that are not there originally.

The most obvious example of this is in their handling of John 1:1, in which the apostle John says,

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I explain and analyze this text in greater detail in my blog post, “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy”.

John, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, begins his gospel with words that clearly demonstrate that Jesus is divine.

The context makes this clear as John asserts that “Jesus was with God in the beginning”, indicating that Jesus existed BEFORE everything was created. That means Jesus is eternal.

John also states that Jesus made everything and is the source of life.

These are all qualities that point to divinity, supporting the first verse in which John states that Jesus was WITH God and Jesus IS God.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses handle this passage that seems to clearly demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus?

They apply the “fudge factor”.

In contrast to every other translation of the Bible and Greek scholars everywhere, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their New World translation, add the indefinite article “a’ into the text, even though it is not there in the original Greek, thus completely changing the meaning of the verse.

John 1:1 in the New World Translation reads,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Notice the fudge factor insertion of the word “a” which has the effect of making Jesus a lesser “god” instead of equal with God.

Why exactly would they insert this word? What is the justification?

There is no contextual reason to do it for we’ve already seen that the context supports the original translation, which is that Jesus is divine in his nature.

Nor is there any grammatical reason to add the word. It’s not there in the original Greek and no non-Jehovah’s Witness translators have translated the verse in this way. In fact, the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation has been universally panned by the biblical translation community.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses fudging the data by adding words to the text.

In Colossians 1:16-17, the New World Translation adds the word “other” four times even though the word is not there in the original Greek (see my blog post “How Does Isaiah 44 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?”, which goes into greater detail on the Jehovah’s Witnesses mishandling of this verse).

Here is the NIV translation of Colossians 1:16-17, which matches just about every bible translation you will find:

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The plain meaning of these verses indicate that Jesus is the creator of all things, he existed before all things and he holds all things together. Clearly, these two verses demonstrate Jesus’ power and his eternal nature, both qualities that provide strong evidence that Jesus is God.

Now look at how the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this same verse in their New World Translation:

because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist (Colossians 1:16-17, New World Translation)

I’ve highlighted the four instances of the word “other” that have been inserted into the text by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in order diminish the divine nature of Jesus.

What is the justification for adding the word “other”?

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “other” is added in order to make the text more readable. They cite other verses, such as Luke 13:2 where the word “other” is inserted to distinguish all the “other” Galileans from the subset of Galileans that Jesus had just mentioned.

This explanation is not sufficient as the insertion of “other” in Luke 13:2 does not change the meaning of the verse, while the insertion of “other” in Colossians 1:16-17 completely changes the meaning of the passage, making Jesus a created being instead of the eternally self-existent author of creation.

In short, Jehovah’s Witnesses, like Einstein with his theory of relativity, don’t like the implications of the passage, as it contradicts their preferred theological understanding. To rectifiy the situation, they insert a “fudge factor” to altar the equation, which yields a result that fits their ideological choice.

Jehovah’s Witnesses consistently engage in the theological Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means “to read into the text.”

What that means is that instead of allowing the Scriptures to inform their theological view, the Jehovah’s Witnesses conform the text to match their theological view. This is dishonest. It’s “fudging” the data to create the conclusion they want.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have decided that Jesus is a created being, a lesser god, if you will, than almighty Jehovah. They establish this conclusion first and then every verse that seems to challenge their concusion must be interpreted in a way that affirms this prior doctrinal choice.

As has been shown, this is extremely difficult to do with the Scriptures because of the plethora of passages that point to Jesus’ divinity and support the traditional Christian doctrine that Jesus, in his very nature, is God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses approach this difficulty in the same way Einstein did with his general theory of relativity, by inserting “fudge factors” into the text and into their explanations.

They insert these “fudge factors” in three different ways: by ignoring the immediate context that substantiates the traditional meaning and interpretation of debated texts, by changing and twisting the meaning of words beyond their normal and accepted use in order to force their interpretations onto the passage, and by inserting words into the text that are not there in the original Greek. The net effect of these “fudge factors” is to alter the plain and obvious meaning of passages that clearly refute their doctrinal view.

One would think that Einstein’s discovery that the universe had a beginning would have been a fatal blow to atheism, but it wasn’t. In fact, atheism as an ideology is more popular now than it was 100 years ago when Einstein was first formulating his theory.

Whenever someone is faced with evidence that challenges their official narrative, it creates ideological tension. How one deals with that ideological tension is very telling.

In the case of atheism, they simply dismiss or ignore any and all evidence that refutes their view. This is known as confirmation bias and it’s been around forever. Saul, later known as Paul, provides a clear example of confirmation bias, which I explain in my blog post “Saul’s Conversion and Confirmation Bias”.

In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they reinterpret the evidence that challenges their narrative by introducing “fudge factors” that conform the evidence to their narrative. This is what is known as “cognitive dissonance”, a phenomenon in which information is not ignored or dismissed but is reinterpreted in such a way that the original narrative is maintained (see my blog post “Job’s Case of Cognitive Dissonance” for a biblical example).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses do this through their generous use of “fudge factors” – ignoring context, changing the meaning of words and adding words to change the intended meaning.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are just like atheists in this respect: they are so committed to their ideology that they will resort to “fudging” the data as a way to explain and maintain their view.

Fudge as a dessert may taste good, but when used in misleading and dishonest ways, it can end up leaving a bad taste in your mouth. Just ask Ralphie, he’ll tell you.

Game Over, Man!

2 Kings 6

⁸Now the king of Aram was at war with Israel. After conferring with his officers, he said, “I will set up my camp in such and such a place.”

⁹The man of God sent word to the king of Israel: “Beware of passing that place, because the Arameans are going down there.” ¹⁰So the king of Israel checked on the place indicated by the man of God. Time and again Elisha warned the king, so that he was on his guard in such places.

¹¹This enraged the king of Aram. He summoned his officers and demanded of them, “Will you not tell me which of us is on the side of the king of Israel?”

¹²“None of us, my lord the king,” said one of his officers, “but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the very words you speak in your bedroom.”

¹³“Go, find out where he is,” the king ordered, “so I can send men and capture him.” The report came back: “He is in Dothan.” ¹⁴Then he sent horses and chariots and a strong force there. They went by night and surrounded the city.

¹⁵When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh, my lord, what shall we do?” the servant asked.

¹⁶“Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

¹⁷And Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

¹⁸As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, “Strike these people with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.

¹⁹Elisha told them, “This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for.” And he led them to Samaria.

²⁰After they entered the city, Elisha said, “LORD, open the eyes of these men so they can see.” Then the LORD opened their eyes and they looked, and there they were, inside Samaria. (2 Kings 6:8-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

In the blockbuster movie “Aliens”, Bill Paxton plays Private Hudson, a brash loudmouth whose main contribution to the movie seems to be one of comic relief.

With typical military bravado, private Hudson talks tough and acts macho, but when things go sideways, he panics.

At a critical juncture in the movie, Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, and her rescue crew seem out of options. It’s at this point that private Hudson provides the above meme-worthy response that has been repeated millions of times by movie-lovers in countless scenarios over the years.

When I read this account in 2 Kings, I imagine Elisha’s assistant acting like the Private Hudson character.

The context is simple: the king of Aram was at war with Israel, and yet, whenever he mobilized his troops for an offensive, Elisha would warn the king of Israel of their exact location and plans.

After several iterations of this scenario, the king of Aram, embarrassed and enraged at being made to look like a fool, brings together his inner circle, hoping to sniff out what he thinks must be a mole.

Amazingly, when one of his officers tells him that there is no mole, but that Elisha knows his plans as if he is right there in his bedroom when he speaks, the king takes him at his word.

The first thing I find interesting is that the king of Aram believes his officer. In our modern culture, we are so desensitized to the possibility of the supernatural that we wouldn’t even entertain this option. Certainly, there must be a traitor in our midst! That is the only logical conclusion.

But the king of Aram believes that Elisha certainly must be the problem, so he orders that he be found and captured. The text doesn’t give any indication of what he intends to do with Elisha when he’s captured but it’s certainly not a dinner invitation.

It’s at this point that we reach our “Game over” scenario. Elisha’s assistant gets up early and discovers that the entire city has been surrounded by the armies of the king of Aram.

The text doesn’t indicate the tone or exact disposition of the servant, but clearly there was panic. I imagine Elisha’s assistant channeling his inner Private Hudson when he says, “Oh my Lord, what should we do?”

Game over man.

Those guys are out there.. They’re going to get us.

We’re going to bite it here on this rock.

While Elisha’s assistant is melting down in full-Private Hudson mode, Elisha is the perfect picture of calm, cool and collected. The reason is simple: he knows something that his assistant doesn’t – that there’s an unseen world at work that changes the equation and reverses the odds.

Elisha tells his servant not to worry. “There are more with us than with them.”

He then asks the Lord to open his servant’s eyes to see the reality of the spiritual realm.

The text doesn’t tell us how Elisha’s servant responded when he saw the hills filled with horses and chariots, the literal armies of heaven ready to do battle on Elisha’s behalf. But I suspect there was a sigh of relief.

“Game not over man!”

“THAT’S what I’m talking about!”

Interestingly, Elisha doesn’t call on the armies of heaven to vanquish the Aramean army. He doesn’t need to. Instead, he asks the Lord to blind his enemies, at which point Elisha tells the invading army commanders, essentially, “These are not the droids you are looking for.”

Elisha then leads them to Samaria, a safe distance away, where they no longer pose a viable threat.

Elisha was God’s prophet, endowed with supernatural abilities that are not normative. We may not be able to blind our foes as he did, but that is not the point of the story. The big idea is that there is a spiritual realm that exists. We are either unaware of it, like Elisha’s assistant, or we acknowledge it, as Elijah did.

There is yet a third option. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ (now Cru) used to say that most Christians are practical atheists, those who say they believe in the supernatural, but live as though it doesn’t exist.

Sadly, I believe Bill Bright’s statement is still true of many Christians today.

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

When it comes to the supernatural realm, are you more like Elisha’s assistant, unaware of and unconnected to the spiritual realm, or are you more like Elisha, aware and connected?

Bill Bright described many Christians as practical atheists – those who claim to believe in the supernatural but live their lives as if it doesn’t exist. Why do you think many Christians live as if the spiritual realm doesn’t exist or has little impact?

Describe a time when your eyes were open to the reality of the spiritual realm.

What are some things you can do to avoid reacting like Private Hudson when you’re faced with a situation that seems bleak and out of control?

May 19, 2021

Further Proof that Jesus is God

Titus 3

³Once we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled by others and became slaves to many wicked desires and evil pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy. We hated others, and they hated us.

⁴But then God our Savior showed us his kindness and love. ⁵He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins and gave us a new life through the Holy Spirit. ⁶He generously poured out the Spirit upon us because of what Jesus Christ our Savior did. ⁷He declared us not guilty because of his great kindness. And now we know that we will inherit eternal life. ⁸These things I have told you are all true. I want you to insist on them so that everyone who trusts in God will be careful to do good deeds all the time. These things are good and beneficial for everyone. (Titus 3:3-8, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

“The Bible never claims that Jesus is God!”

Perhaps you’ve heard someone make this claim. The argument essentially says that the Bible doesn’t teach that Jesus is God, but teaches that Jesus is something less than God, such as “Son of God”, or “Son of Man”, or “Messiah”, or “anointed one”, etc.

Because the Bible doesn’t teach that Jesus is God, then Jesus must not BE God and therefore, the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus is divine must be false. Hence Christianity is false.

But is it true that the Bible doesn’t teach that Jesus is divine?

No.

The evidence for the deity of Jesus is overwhelming and generally falls into three categories: 1) Direct claims of deity that Jesus made – I covered one such incident here. 2) Passages that show Jesus has attributes that only God could possess and 3) passages in which Jesus’ followers clearly identify Jesus as divine. This passage in Titus is one such example.

Jesus’ divinity is not hard to demonstrate from this passage and only a basic understanding of logic is necessary to prove that Paul believed and taught that Jesus was God.

Verse 4 says clearly:

“But then God our Savior showed us his kindness and love.”

Verse 6 states that:

“He generously poured out the Spirit upon us because of what Jesus Christ our Savior did.”

So in one verse, Paul refers to God our Savior, while just two verses later, he refers to what “Jesus Christ our Savior did.”

These two verses show that God is Savior AND Jesus Christ is Savior. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.

There are dozens of other passages that demonstrate that Jesus’ own followers saw him as divine and even worshiped Him. Keep in mind that for the Jew, worship was reserved for God alone. Therefore, when a Jewish person worships Jesus, they are doing so because they believe He is God and therefore worthy of worship.

This one passage may not be enough to convince your non-Christian friends that Jesus is indeed God, but it should help convince you. Jesus not only made direct claims of deity but His followers also ascribed deity to Jesus and promoted their understanding of Jesus’ nature to others.

Reflection

What has been your understanding of the nature of Jesus? In what ways have your views changed or been substantiated?

In what ways do you find the above logic regarding proof of Jesus’ divinity convincing? In what ways are you not convinced?

If you are not convinced that Jesus is God, what are your reasons for not believing? Conversely, what basis can you give to support the idea that Jesus IS God?

Why do you think it matters whether a person has a correct understanding of the nature of Jesus? What are the consequences for having a wrong understanding of who Jesus is? (For my thoughts on these questions, see my posts here, and here.)

Photo by Timothy Eberly on Unsplash

May 13, 2021June 25, 2026

Where Did that Ball Come From?

Romans 1

¹⁸But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. ¹⁹For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. ²⁰From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

²¹Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. ²²Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. ²³And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people, or birds and animals and snakes.

²⁴So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. ²⁵Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.

²⁶That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. ²⁷Note And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

²⁸When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. ²⁹Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. ³⁰They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. ³¹They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. ³²They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:18-32, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

I heard a humorous story a long time ago that goes like this:

A guy is talking to his atheist friend and poses this series of questions:

“You’re walking along the beach and you see a tennis ball. What do you assume? Is it the product of random ocean forces that somehow mixed random ocean materials together to create a tennis ball and then washed it up onto the shore?

“NO! It’s a tennis ball. I assume someone left it here after playing with it on the beach.”

“Ok. Let’s say you’re walking along the beach and you see a bigger ball, like a soccer ball. What do you conclude? Was it designed or did it create itself through some random process?”

“It was obviously designed and placed there by someone.”

“Ok. Let’s say you’re walking along the beach and you see an even BIGGER ball, like a weather balloon. What do you conclude?”

“Well, since a weather balloon has purpose, it must have been created by someone who understood that purpose.”

“Great. What about an even BIGGER ball? What if you’re walking along and you see the EARTH? What do you conclude? Was it the product of an intelligent designer?”

“Oh no. The Earth was not created by an intelligent being. It’s the product of billions of years of random chance processes.”

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Romans 1 is the classic Bible chapter outlining the process by which people, in the futility of their own mind, devolve into the depths of their own sinfulness.

Paul speaks to the fictional exchange above in verses 18-20, which state that it’s obvious when you look around that there must be some powerful, creative force behind all that we see. Given our own understanding and experience with creating and designing advanced, complex machines and electronics, how could anyone come to the conclusion that something like our universe, which is so intricately, beautifully and purposefully designed is the result of random chance?

It really makes no logical sense.

William Paley, in the early 1800’s, posed this scenario when he developed his “Watchmaker” analogy. In his analogy, he said in effect,

If I stumbled upon a stone and asked how it got there, I would think the question is absurd. It has been there forever. But if I stumbled upon a watch and asked how it got there, the answer would be different, for a watch is obviously designed with purpose, showing evidence of a designer.

So what is the reason people will acknowledge that man-made items such as watches, computers and automobiles are obviously designed, yet something much larger, more complex and intricate that includes biological living things and entire eco-systems, is NOT the product of a designer?

Paul’s answer in this chapter is spelled out in the first verse of this section (verse 18), when he says:

“But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.“

The short answer is that people suppress the truth that is inherently obvious to them. To suppress truth is to deny it and reject it.

Paul’s discourse outlines the depth of the problem of sin. Sin is not just doing bad things or saying bad things, but sin has penetrated to the very depths of our heart.

The heart represents our will, our most inner motives and desires. Paul is saying that though God’s qualities are obvious to all through creation, people end up suppressing (rejecting) this truth through a downward spiraling pattern of inner rebellion.

How does this happen?

It starts when people who know God, or at least know there is a God, refuse to give thanks to God or acknowledge His role in our lives. Next, people develop an image of God that matches their own preferences. They fail to acknowledge God as He is, but instead begin to create a god in their mind who matches their own desires and inclinations.

As people begin to follow and worship their own view of god, their hearts become darkened. Why? Because they are not following the truth but they’re following a distorted and false image of god that represents their own preferences and desires. In effect, people begin to train and condition their own moral values away from God’s standards and towards their own sinful desires.

As people continue on this course, God gives them over to their own base desires. In other words, He gives people the freedom to follow their choices and also experience the natural consequences of those choices. People’s thoughts, attitudes and actions become more and more vile and wicked as they reject God’s standards of morality and choose to follow their own inclinations.

The end result is that people develop their own moral values that contradict and oppose God’s values in varying degrees. What sinful humanity now thinks and calls normal and good, God views as wickedness. These rebellious acts show up in every possible area of our lives, from the way we talk to others, the way we conduct our business, our sexual practices, etc.

The final stage in this rebellion is a declaration that our sinful acts are righteous (thus, morality is redefined) along with an encouragement for others to follow these new moral guidelines.

In order to justify the new moral order, people either eliminate God altogether (atheism) or they re-create God in such a way that He actually advocates and endorses these attitudes and behaviors that have traditionally been seen as sinful (paganism/idolatry).

I think verse 31 is a fitting summary that characterizes the attitude of the person Paul is describing, when he says,

“They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.”

This sounds a lot like our current culture to me, and the thing is, none of us are immune to these outcomes. If we are not intentional about caring for our spiritual life, we may find ourselves, over time, slowly drifting away from God until one day we resemble the person described in Romans 1:28-32.

How can we avoid this?

I’m sure there are many practical steps that could help but if we did these three things consistently: acknowledge God, give thanks to Him for His goodness, and worship Him for who He is, we would likely safeguard ourselves from entering the downward spiral which starts the progression.

Reflection

What are the typical reasons you hear people giving to reject God and His existence?

What examples can you see in our current culture where people are redefining morality and changing their view of God in order to accommodate their own life choices and preferences?

What biblical moral standards do you struggle with the most? What do you think are the reasons you (and others) struggle with those particular moral values?

In what ways are you most tempted to re-define God in order to meet your own personal moral preferences?

Photo by Kevin Mueller on Unsplash

April 7, 2021December 17, 2024

Does the Existence of Evil Disprove God?

Psalm 75

¹We thank you, O God! We give thanks because you are near. People everywhere tell of your mighty miracles.

²God says, “At the time I have planned, I will bring justice against the wicked.

³When the earth quakes and its people live in turmoil, I am the one who keeps its foundations firm.

Interlude

⁴“I warned the proud, ‘Stop your boasting!’ I told the wicked, ‘Don’t raise your fists!

⁵Don’t lift your fists in defiance at the heavens or speak with rebellious arrogance.’”

⁶For no one on earth—from east or west, or even from the wilderness—can raise another person up.

⁷It is God alone who judges; he decides who will rise and who will fall.

⁸For the LORD holds a cup in his hand; it is full of foaming wine mixed with spices. He pours the wine out in judgment, and all the wicked must drink it, draining it to the dregs.

⁹But as for me, I will always proclaim what God has done; I will sing praises to the God of Israel.

¹⁰For God says, “I will cut off the strength of the wicked, but I will increase the power of the godly.”

(Psalm 75:1-10, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The biggest, most potent argument the atheist has against the existence of God is the presence of evil.

The atheist argument against the existence of God generally goes as follows:

- If God exists, he is all-powerful and all-loving
- An all-loving God would WANT to eradicate evil
- An all-powerful God would BE ABLE to eradicate evil
- Since evil is not eradicated then God must either not be all-loving or not be all-powerful
- Therefore, an all-loving, all-powerful God doesn’t exist

This argument is logical and if the premises are true then the conclusion, which logically follows, must also be true.

But are the premises true?

Does it follow that because evil exists, then God must not be all-loving? Because evil exists, does that mean that God must not care about it?

Or does the fact that evil exists mean that God is unable to do anything about it? Does it mean that he’s not all-powerful but is instead an impotent deity? Or worse, an imaginary deity?

The problem with the argument above is really premise number four, and it’s exactly what Asaph, the psalmist, addresses in verse 2 of his psalm when he says:

God says, “At the time I have planned, I will bring justice against the wicked.”

The fact that evil exists doesn’t mean that God is unable to deal with it, nor does it mean that God doesn’t WANT to deal with it. It only means that He hasn’t dealt with it YET. And in this psalm, we learn that God DOES have a time plan for dealing fully and completely with evil.

Why would God possibly delay dealing fully and forcefully with evil?

One reason that God is waiting to fully and finally dealing with evil is PEOPLE.

If God were to bring about justice and completely eradicate evil now, Jesus would need to return and put an end to the current world system which promotes and perpetuates the evil we see and experience. And that would mean that all people would enter into immediate judgment. That means people would no longer have a chance to respond to the message of hope and forgiveness that is offered through Christ’s sacrificial death.

Peter, in his second letter, said it this way:

The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent. (2 Peter 3:9, NLT)

There may be other unknown reasons God has for waiting to bring about ultimate justice. We simply cannot know everything about what God has planned or why He has planned it that way. One thing we know from reading the book of Job is that God is all-wise and He is infinitely more knowledgeable than we are. The idea that we could indict Him for what we think is some cosmic injustice when we really know next to nothing about God or the way the universe works is somewhat laughable. And yet, we, in our human arrogance, think we know more about fairness and justice than God does!

The presence of evil doesn’t mean God is unaware of it or unable to deal with it. It simply means that His plan for eliminating it hasn’t been fulfilled or fully enacted yet. This is exactly what the Scriptures tell us.

Furthermore, the presence of evil is an issue even for the atheist. It may seem like evil is an ironclad apologetic that disproves the existence of God but if you believe God doesn’t exist, you still have evil. Removing God doesn’t have the effect of removing evil. It only removes God as a factor in understanding evil.

How exactly are we to make sense of evil acts without the presence of God? What I mean by that is how does not believing in God make it easier to understand and cope with the existence of evil?

I don’t think evil can be explained or understood if you take God out of the picture. If God is removed, how does one explain the existence of evil? Where did it come from and how can we explain its ongoing presence?

The truth is evil seems to be on the rise in our world. There doesn’t seem to be a coherent explanation and solution to the problem of evil that doesn’t include God.

God DOES care about evil.

God WILL eradicate evil.

But He will do it in His timing, according to His ultimate plan, part of which includes, in His cosmic goodness, the patient delay of justice so that we might repent of our own evil deeds and turn to God for forgiveness and redemption!

Reflection

If you are Christian, or a believer in God, how have you previously understood and made sense of the presence of evil?

If you are an atheist, how do you explain the existence of evil? What is your solution for eradicating evil?

What are some reasons you think God might be delayed in dealing with evil and bringing about justice?

When we talk about evil, how do we even know what evil is? Whether you are a theist or an atheist, what is the standard by which you measure actions and are able to label them as evil or not?

Photo by Ekaterina Bolovtsova from Pexels

March 16, 2021February 19, 2026

The Implications of Belief in No God!

Psalm 53

¹Only fools say in their hearts,“ There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; no one does good!

²God looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if there is even one with real understanding, one who seeks for God.

³But no, all have turned away from God; all have become corrupt. No one does good, not even one!

⁴Will those who do evil never learn? They eat up my people like bread; they wouldn’t think of praying to God.

⁵But then terror will grip them, terror like they have never known before. God will scatter the bones of your enemies. You will put them to shame, for God has rejected them.

⁶Oh, that salvation would come from Mount Zion to rescue Israel! For when God restores his people, Jacob will shout with joy, and Israel will rejoice.

(Psalm 53:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this Psalm, David is pondering the moral implications of life without God.

Two observations are worth noting.

First, David plainly states that only a fool says in their heart that there is no God.

It’s interesting to notice that the fool doesn’t conclude God’s non-existence through reason or evidence but what makes a person a fool is that they say “in their heart” that there is no God.

What exactly is meant by this phrase “in their heart”?

I think the best way to think of the heart is the will – the control center of a person’s life. Your will, which equates to your desires, will motivate and compel you to act in ways that are contrary to reason and what you know is right. If you decide “in your heart” that you want to pursue a certain course of action (whether good or bad), nothing will convince you otherwise.

So in this context, the fool is someone who has decided that there is no God, despite whatever evidence may be presented. Reason and facts don’t matter because he or she has already made a decision of their will (a decision of the heart) what they intend to believe and how they intend to respond and move forward.

David says that the belief that there is no God is foolish. Why? Because it is a denial of that which is observably apparent, namely that we exist and the universe exists and that something grander and larger and much more powerful than the universe must have created it.

The second thing that David addresses is the moral implications of believing in no God.

Without God, there is no moral foundation. Hence, the actions of the atheist ultimately devolve to evil. It doesn’t mean that people who believe there is no god are not capable of doing good – they are. It does mean, however, that without the moral foundation that God alone provides, there is no anchor to call anything good. Therefore, moral values can easily shift, where things that were once considered evil are now considered acceptable, even good.

The implications of this are huge. David says that when God looks down on the human race he cannot find anyone who is truly good. This certainly contradicts the prevailing view on morality in today’s culture.

In our culture today, it’s popular to hold the belief that people are generally good and only do bad things because they are exposed to evil, corrupt or unfair environments.

These verses (particularly verse 3) explicitly refute this ideology, affirming that NO ONE is good. This does not mean that people are incapable of doing good things. What it means, however, is that no one is able to meet the standard of goodness as defined by God.

What is God’s standard of goodness?

God’s standard of goodness is himself – perfect righteousness. Humans are not able to meet this standard. Hence no one is good, not even one.

By the way, those who claim that people are good and only do evil things because of the influence of their environment, never explain how those environments were able to corrupt people in the first place.

In other words, if man is basically good, how did the environment that supposedly caused his negative actions become bad enough to influence his negative actions? This is never explained by those who believe in man’s goodness.

So to summarize, David says that someone who makes a decision of the heart to believe in no God is a fool. It’s foolish because it defies logic and reason and that which is observably apparent.

Secondly, without God, there is no basis to call anything good and therefore, people will make their own standards for what they think is right and wrong. These standards will be constantly shifting and fall far short of God’s standard for goodness, which is Himself. As a result, God says NO ONE is good. NOT ONE. We are all sinful and corrupt and have turned away from God.

As I look at the culture we live in today, I’d say David’s words look more like prophecy than ancient poetry.

Reflection

What has been your standard of goodness that you’ve used to evaluate your own life?

What is your response to the idea that someone who decides “in their heart” that God doesn’t exist is a fool?

How would you respond to someone who makes the claim that people are basically good but they only do bad things because of the negative influences of their environment?

What would you say to someone who doesn’t believe in God but believes that they can be moral?

Photo by Dave Lowe