Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic

Great Debates
1

Hey folks. I have a few questions about Christianity that have been bugging me for a while. My limited Search abilities failed to find me relevant threads, so apologies in advance if these questions have been asked and answered before. Religion, obviously, is a broad and popular topic and it’s not easy to narrow down the hits. I’d appreciate any answers or links you can provide :slight_smile:

A bit of background (just skip to the next part if you’re not interested): I consider myself agnostic and somewhat skeptical of religions, but I’ve always been at least marginally interested in all the ones out there. Lately, several people in my life have either become Christian or have more seriously delved into the topic; as a result, I found myself accompanying them to quite a few churches and Christian events and now a few of them are trying to convert me. I’m not entirely closed-minded to that (honestly), but there are a few essential questions that none of them have been able to answer so far. These are issues that I just can’t ignore, so perhaps someone here can shed some light on them?

The questions (separated into categories starting from the more general Q’s, but otherwise in no particular order):

[ol]
[li]Some people believe in God because they think that the universe must’ve come from somewhere. But if everything must’ve come from somewhere, where did God come from? Why is ok for God, but not the universe, to have “always been there”?[/li][li]If God is omniscient, he must know everything, including everything that has ever been or ever will be thought by every human – right? If so, and if human beings are supposed to have free will, how is that God can know the outcome of every human choice before the human makes that choice? If this “freedom” is predetermined/pre-known, is it merely an illusion? Otherwise, how does free will co-exist with omniscience?[/li][li]What good is free will if the “wrong” choice just sends you to Hell? Why give us choice at all if God doesn’t like one of the choices?[/li][li]How come people in the Biblic past always got to interact directly with God in his various forms, but people nowadays have to rely on pure faith? Where are the dramatic civilization-demolishing demonstrations of his power, the burning bushes, the miracles?[/li][li]What happens to people who die before they’ve had a chance to be “saved”? If they end up in heaven, why don’t Christians kill all the humans on this planet in order to save everyone immediately?[/li]
The Bible
[li]How, exactly, did the Bible come into existence? My understanding is that it’s a collection of works by various human authors (all inspired/guided by God); this collection has grown over the ages as more and more authors contributed. Is this an accurate understanding? If so, why did God have to rely upon human authors to write his book? Wouldn’t it’ve been easier/more accurate for him to directly carve out stone tablets for every person, Ten Commandments-style?[/li][li]What gives anyone the right to say that certain sections of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and others, not? For example, Genesis is sometimes argued to be a non-literal explanation of the beginning of Creation.[/li][ul]
[li]Who determines what is and is not to be taken literally? How do they decide? And is the process different for Catholics and Protestants?[/li][li]Why would the work of God be filled with so much unclear information to begin with that it requires this kind of error-prone human interpretation?[/li][li]How is an individual supposed to believe in the Bible, as a whole, if parts of it can be deemed inaccurate at any random time? I would expect this book to last forever in terms of accuracy, since it’s supposed to lay out the basics of how to lead the life that God wants. But how can that be done if the book isn’t clear by itself and human interpretations of it are subject to human whims and cultural changes through time?[/li][/ul]
[li]What’s up with the New Testament? How did it become attached to the Old Testament, and why have Christians accepted its authenticity?[/li][li]The NT paints a much more living picture of God, one that often stands in direct contrast to the Old Testament. What’s with the duality? And why did it not appear until the coming of Christ? Why wouldn’t God have simply included both sides of himself in the original OT text?[/li][li]It would seem that the Bible was not written in one continuous session, but rather over many years and decades. When did it cease to be updated? Why hasn’t God ordained more writers to make the scriptures more contemporary? Again, I don’t see why it’s necessary for random humans to have to do all the updating, translating, etc.[/li]
The concept of “Sin”
[li]If Genesis, or at least certain parts of it, is to be taken literally, Man was cast out of the Garden of Eden because Adam took a bite out of the fruit, giving him knowledge of good and evil. [/li]
Why hide the knowledge from Adam in the first place? It seems that God originally intended Adam to be quite close to a divine being himself; it was only Adam’s failure to resist temptation that brought Man down some levels. But why didn’t God just make Adam another god, a true copy of himself and not just “based on His image”, so that Adam would’ve had full omniscience to begin with?

It just seems cruel to me for God – who’s supposed to be benevolent – to consciously create a sub-divine being, deliberately present him with temptation, and then punish him for being unable to resist when God knew all along that it would happen. Why would God – whose omniscience would’ve allowed him to know Adam’s choice – create this scenario in the first place? Why plant a tempting tree there, why put the serpent there, and why allow the events to transpire the way they did… only to punish Adam for it after the fact?
[li]What would be the context for “good and evil” in an Eden-like environment, anyway? The Bible lays out some moral guidelines for living, loosely definable as “good and evil”, but this applies to the post-Eden world in which Man actually has the capability and opportunity to do wrong to others. But prior to this, when there was only the paradise of Eden, how would there be room for Evil? What I’m asking is… what does it mean to have knowledge of good and evil before good and evil even existed?[/li][/ol]

Sorry for the long post. I obviously don’t expect everything to be answered at once, but I’ll take whatever I can get. I’m just trying to make sense of it all. Thank you in advance!

2

Check out:

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1 - Pentateuch)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 2 - Old Testament histories)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3 - Old Testament songs and prophets)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4 - New Testament)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5 - Final compilation of books)

3

The problem of free will and divine foreknowledge. I’ve never seen it as much of a problem, but plenty of people plenty smarter than I have, so maybe there is something to it.

4

Thats a lot of pretty heavy questions. You might have to narrow it down. Several have been the subject of long individual threads.

  1. It’s hard for our mortal , time based ,minds to comprehend the timelss. Nobody really has an answer. For many Christians it’s just a matter of faith to accept that God is the creator of everything. It’s important to note that many Christians do not believe the story {stories} of Genesis as being literal.

  2. Again, tricky question worthy of it’s own thread. You’ll get several different answers. I’m not sure how it works myself. I have a very non traditional view so I’ll leave this to someone else.

  3. Too briefly explain my own view. I don’t see God as a seperate omnipotent being rules the universe. I believe we are connected to God and to each other in a very real way like the cells of a body working together for the whole. We make many choices based on our belief in seperateness. We believe we are seperate from God and each other and our choices have natural consequnces. I don’t believe in a lake of fire type hell. I believe we as individuals and a group have to deal with the consequences of our individual and group choices until we choose to live according to the truth of our connection to God and each other.

  4. People still write about modern day miricles. As far as I know none have been documented scientifically. That doesn’t mean they don’t occur. The goal is to change our hearts, choices and understanding. Not to intimidate us into being obedient. I don’t need to believe in every story of the Bible.

  5. Not all Christians believe the same thing about salvation and how it works. To some if you have the opportunity to accept Jesus as Savior and reject him then you’re going to Hell. The LDS and offshoots of that religion believe in degrees of reward and that good people will reside in a good place but not in the yltimate bliss, the presence of God. Since one of the commandments is “Thou shalt not kill” obviously killing everyone is not a practical solution.

  6. Read the provided links. Good info.

  7. Good question. Each person decides for themselves which portions are literal and which ones aren’t. Hopefully they do this with personal honesty, based on faith and evidence. logic, reason, and a commitment to seeking the truth. One of the things that annoys me is how some Christians don’t seem to understand that they are interpreting the Bible. They believe the Bible is the literal word of God and worse than that, they believe their personal interpretation of this book is the one and only will of God, not only for them but for everyone else as well. So, while each person must choose how they interpret the Bible, no one has the right to force their interpretation on anyone else. Some sure do try though.

  8. Also answered in the links

  9. A Christian will explain their point of view. I have limited reading in the OT. In some portions such as Leviticus, I’m convinced it has little or nothing to do with what Jesus taught.

  10. There are other books that are considered scripture by those outside mainstream Christianity. I agree with you. There’s no reason other than tradition to believe that inspiried writing would cease or that we can’t seek contemporary solutions to contemporary issues. James 1:5 If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally, or to simplify even more, Seek, and you shall find.

  11. Thats assumimg evil existed before that fall at all. The Garden of Eden is a metaphor. In it Adam and Eve choose to enter the world of duality where good and evil exist. They, and we can also choose our way back out. I think the experience of duality is part of the point of being able to choose. Without it there’s nothing to choose. Your question amounts to, why are we here at all?
    I’m working on that one myself.

  12. I think I just commented on that. In God there is no evil. They chose to disobey the will of God and to not just be aware of the potential of duality but to actually experience that duality.

5

I’m not a christian, but I can answer this because it’s what I believe (well, minus the God part :wink: )

Say you have a decision - you can either have an apple pie, or a pecan pie. Yum. Let’s say your favourite is the apple pie, so you pick that. Free will is a-ok so far.

Now, let’s hop in our invisible time machine and go back to before you made that decision. We see you out the window. And, because nothing has changed, the past you picks apple pie “again”. We can keep doing this as many times as we want, but as long as nothing changes, the past you will always choose apple pie. So, we can predict that the chances of you picking apple pie will be 100% - and yet it is by your free will each time that you pick apple.

God doesn’t need the time machine. Simple as that!

6

I’ll second that as well. The concept is that God is “outside” of time. Hence, your question about the creation of God (what was there before God?) doesn’t make sense.

Note that modern physics is sort of consistent with this, in believing that time is connected to space. Before the big bang, there was no time (and no universe), so the question “What was there before the big bang?” is a meaningless question. There’s no such thing as “before” the big bang in any terms that we can understand. This notion – that time suddenly started, and before a certain point, there was no such thing as time – is hard to grasp. My bet is that even the most sophisticated physicists and astronomers only understand it in terms of mathematical formula, not in terms of experiential reality.

Much more so with God, who is far beyond our meagre comprehension. We think in human terms, and the bible speaks poetically about “the finger of God” or whatever, but we know that’s just trying to express the utterly incomprehensible in poetry so that humans can get some glimpse of comprehension.

7

My personal take on a few of them:

The distinction here is between “necessary” and “contingent” existence. We (apparently) see, in the physical universe, things which are dependent on other things to exist - if a carpenter makes a table, for instance, the existence of the table is contingent upon the actions of the carpenter, it wouldn’t exist without those actions. It can then be argued that:

a. The fact that some things in the universe are contingent implies that the universe as a whole is contingent;

b. A contingent entity cannot come into being without a cause that exists necessarily;

c. The universe must have come into existence through the action of a necessarily-existing being - which we call God.

Now, there are various responses to this argument - we can claim that there’s no such thing as contingent existence, that everything in the universe happens necessarily; we can deny the implication that parts of the universe being contingent requires the entire universe to be contingent; we can claim that contingent entities can come into existence spontaneously, without requiring a preceding necessary entity; and we can claim that, even if the universe was created, there’s no justification for identifying the entity that created it with “God” in any of the traditional senses - specifically, there’s no requirement for the demiurge to be personal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, etc.

But that’s how the argument works.

God is transcendent, His existence is not constrained by time or space. He doesn’t know what you’re going to do before you do it, as “before” and “after” aren’t applicable to God. He knows what you do as you do it.

This is a difficult one. All that really can be said is that a world with free will, and therefore sin, is “better” or “more consistent with God’s nature” than a world without free will. To put it in an over-simplistic way, God “preferred” to create the universe this way; why He chose to is beyond human knowledge.

Many people today see visions of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the name of Allah in everyday objects, and many people have direct, unimpeachable, personal experiences of God. Can these “miracles” be explained naturalistically? Yes. Do they convince everybody? No. Does that mean they’re not genuine for the people who experience them? I don’t think so.

Jim Jones and the Heaven’s Gate cult took this approach. Was it sucessful? We’ll presumably find out, although I have my doubts. :slight_smile:

That being said, it’s not an uncommon belief that the only issue in the Christian doctrine of salvation is whether or not we get into Heaven; I would disagree with this. It’s our duty to improve things in this world, rather than just look forward to the next; to behave, insofar as we can, in a way that’s pleasing to God - to behave morally, if you prefer, and mass-murder is immoral by any standards at all.

There are some who regard an explicit commitment to the Christian faith as necessary to salvation - they would answer “They go to Hell” to the first part of your question, which is why they consider it so important to convert as many people as possible to Christianity. I personally would disagree with this approach, and argue that everyone has the opportunity to reconcile themselves with God in whatever way that’s best for them. In other words, everyone has a chance to be saved, but not everyone will take it.

I don’t think the word “punishment” is really the best one to use. Adam was given a choice - have an easy, paradisical life, with no worries or concerns, but without knowldge, without the ability to understand the nature of the world and our place in it, without the ability to do anything other than eat, sleep, and reproduce; or, be knowlegable and rational, be able to use and exploit nature rather than merely being part of it, to do something rather than just be something. The second choice involves pain, suffering, and forseen death; but does that make it wrong? I personally don’t think so.

I would recommend “Paradise Lost” for an insight into this approach to the Fall.

Incidentally, where does the idea that God is supposed to be “benevolent” come from? It’s not one you’ll find in Christianity, as the briefest of Bible readings will confirm. “Perfectly good”, yes. “Benevolent”, no.

The potential for evil; as in, opposition to God’s will; did exist before the Fall - indeed, we could say that Adam’s disobedience was evil, even though he was in an unfallen state when he did it.

8

Using your example, doesn’t God change things through his actions? For example, he knows that you will choose the apple pie when choosing his course of action. If somehow his action will remove apple pies from existence, you will only be left with the pecan choice. He has thus effected your actions knowingly, since by definition of omniscience he knew what effect his actions would have on you.

In other words, there is only one course of action that I can/will take. The one that God foresaw when he created me, and the world as he did. That seemingly leads to a contradiction, if there is only one path I can take, how do I have free will to choose which path I take? Its like Henry Ford said, I can have any color Model T I want, so long as I want black. I can choose any path I want, so long as its the one God foresaw when he created creation as he did.

9

A few thoughts…

Different parts of the Bible represent different literary genres (history, poetry, law, “wisdom literature,” letters, etc.), and different genres are supposed to be read in different ways. There isn’t perfect agreement over how factual certain parts are or are supposed to be (but that’s a problem not limited to just the Bible—just ask James Frey), but scholars can get a pretty good idea.

Why does the Bible contain so many different genres and types of writing? Well, suppose you went to the library with the goal of understanding life, the universe, and everything. You’d be well advised to read widely in all sections of the library. Rather than limiting yourself to one section, you’d want to read natural and social sciences, history and biography, great works of fiction and poetry, philosophy, etc.

Vast oversimplification: For Catholics, the Church determines what the Bible means and how it should be read and applied (using the best human intelligence and scholarship available and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). For Protestants, the individual reader determines what the Bible means and how it should be read and applied (using the best human intelligence and scholarship available and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

Even though most, if not all, Christians refer to the Bible as the “word of God,” they differ widely on what that means, and exactly what part God played in its writing. Is it an attempt by God to communicate with human beings, or is it a record of human beings’ attempts, over the centuries, to understand and relate to God? Or both?

In a sense, all language is symbolic or metaphoric. Given that there is not and can never be an unambiguous one-to-one correspondence between language and reality, what does “taking things literally” really mean? How can we say anything about God, for instance, without using symbols, metaphors, and analogies?

10

By the way, I agree that this would do better as a 12 part series, instead of one giant thread.

11

Your direct question has more or less been answered. More interesting, in terms of Christianity (or any human religion) is how to connect this creator god to the particular god they are worshipping. Even if a deity did create the universe, maybe it is the god of a different planet. After all, our religions all get the creation story totally wrong. A true god would have inspired someone to write it down correctly - maybe not the equations, but at least how long ago it was and the general outline of th big bang and inflation.

So, creation may be an argument in favor of the existence of some god, just not any of our gods.

12

Let me say at the outset that I’m often considered to be a renegade Christian by those in the mainstream because of certain views that I hold. Nevertheless, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin, that He was crucified, that He rose from the dead, and that He is God. I don’t know what to call myself other than Christian.

The universe has always been there, if by always you mean “all of time”. That’s because the universe is made of space, which is saturated with energy, and time, which is a context in which that energy’s ability to do work decreases. God, on the other hand, is not made of energy, and therefore is timeless. Be careful that you do not equivocate: there is a difference between eternity in the metaphysical sense and eternity in the physical sense.

Again, it is all too easy to equivocate. There is a difference between theological freewill and teleological freewill. Freewill in the Christian sense means freedom to exercise your moral will, and has nothing to do with the order or randomness of physical events. It is all about your essential self (your spirit) making aesthetical choices. God does indeed know what choices you will make, but that is because He knows your essence. And here’s the thing — note that, in that regard, God has no advantage over you. You also are omniscient with respect to God’s will. You know with a certainty that His aesthetical choice will always be goodness. And that is because you know His essence. Thus, freewill is an aesthetical issue, not an epistemic one; that is, it is about what is valued, not what is known. God’s omniscience has no bearing on your freewill any more than yours has a bearing on His.

Because the choice is aesthetical. Suppose you were going to engage in whatever activity it is that you enjoy the most. With whom would you prefer to share it: someone who has no interest in the activity or someone who loves it as much as you? The former will complain about boredom and make your experience dreadful, whereas the latter will augment your own joy with his as you both share an experience that you both appreciate. Free moral agency is the assurance that we will pursue that which we treasure most. Be very careful not to exercise moral judgment with respect to people’s aesthetical choices. All who value goodness above all else are one with God. The atheist who denies God with his mouth but who loves goodness is far closer to God than the Christian who professes Him but obstructs goodness.

They’re here. But one man’s miracle is another man’s coincidence. People today interact directly with God. Admittedly, it is difficult to figure out who is interacting and who is just acting, but Jesus teaches that we shouldn’t burden ourselves with that concern. Just take care of your own journey with God, and do not worry about what others do or don’t do.

Because Christians are extremely lousy moral judges, and even are prohibited by commandment from exercising any moral judgment. I have no power to save a man, and thus killing him would be simple murder. Everyone who is not saved is already dead. Becoming Christian is a rebirth — that is, an awakening of the spirit inside us. Jesus very carefully discriminates between physical life and death and spiritual life and death. The former is trivial; the latter is essential. When a man dies physically, if he has never known God, then he will see Him face to face — just as the physically alive faithful do now — and will decide for himself whether God is to his liking. Jesus teaches that neither He nor His Father judge us, but rather that we judge ourselves. And we do this simply by deciding whether He is our cup of tea.

The Bible is just a book. Many writings and words are inspired by God. Not all inspired writings are Christian, and not all Christian writings are inspired. Those who value goodness above all other aesthetics easily discern which is which. Jesus commands us to love, which means to facilitate the goodness that He values so much. Our job as Christians is to serve as the conduit through which God may do His work. As St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary use words”.

Nothing. Ignore what people say about the Bible in that regard. The Bible is not holy; only God is holy. The Bible is not the word of God; only Christ is the Word of God. Let the Holy Spirit, and not the Bible, lead you. Use the Bible as it should be used, as a guide, a roadmap. But when you’re driving, keep your eyes on the road, and not on the piece of paper in your lap.

That sort of thing is what I call piddly shit, and is the concern of politicians and munchkins. Even God Himself does not presume to make your determinations for you. Why should any man?

What’s wrong with error? Error is a part of humanity. God does not punish error. Nor is He confined within the corners of a page. If the Bible becomes a stumbling block for you, then throw it away.

To paraphrase our Lord, the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible. A good heart finds the good word wherever it searches, while an evil heart finds the evil word everywhere it looks, including in the Bible. Make your heart right with Him; that is, treasure what he treasures — goodness — and all else will fall into place. You will know the truth from a lie, and what passages are meaningful to you.

I accept its authenticity because it is logical to do so. That does not mean, however, that I pay it any sort of allegiance. Sometimes, I wonder whether people worship God or the Bible. It is often hard to tell, but it’s not my job to figure them out.

He did. The good heart sees it everywhere.

Then don’t sweat it. Why allow a picayune detail to derail your majesterial walk with God? It is like taking a stroll through a garden and becoming distracted by a perceived necessity to discern ordinary plants from weeds. A weed is just a plant you don’t like. If people are pushing the Bible on you as though it were the arm of God, run away from them as fast as you can. He is elsewhere.

Because otherwise, man could not be like God. God is not good because He has no choice. God is a free moral agent just like us. And in fact, that’s what it means to be created in His image. It doesn’t mean that God has two arms and legs like we do; it means that we have spirit and free moral will like He does. God chooses to be good, complete with the freedom to do otherwise. It is simply His essential nature that He values goodness above all else.

Love, as I told you, is the facilitation of goodness. The opposite of love is sin — the obstruction of goodness. Good and evil existed before man. It is simply that man had no awareness of them. In other words, it simply never occurred to him to value anything other than what God valued. It is like the sheltered child who simply doesn’t know what’s out there, and likes what his mother likes.

Then you’re just like the rest of us. :slight_smile: May God go with you in your search for truth.

13

Yep, he could do that. But to remove one of the options in a two option choice is to remove choice at all - so, again, free will is not affected since in this instance there is no choice for you to potentially make.

Yes.

Yep, if there’s a God, then he knows what you’ll pick/picked/picking (not existing in time, i’m not sure which would be correct from his point of view. Probably all of them).

If apple is removed, then yes, there is only one path - you’re unable to choose something which doesn’t exist. I don’t see why that impinges on free will at all - you can’t make the choice to fly, either, but that’s not a problem with free will, but one with reality.

Sort of. You aren’t choosing that way because of God (unless you claim he dictates your every action, which is not my claim) you’re choosing apple because you want apple. You aren’t going to change that decision, if we replay it, if nothing else changes - you’re just always going to pick the apple pie. It’s consistent with free will, because you, every time, have the choice - that you pick the same choice every time is because of your food tastes, not an action of God’s.

And if God were to remove the apple pie option - then there is no choice to make, so again our free will is not harmed in any way because it is unimportant. You’re just given a pie, no choices are avaliable nor made.

14

Not a Christian, but I can answer this one. We’ve got quite a bit of scientific evidence that the universe as we know it hasn’t always been here. There is, of course, no such evidence that God exists now and came into existence sometime in the past.

15

This not a particularly good objection, becuase the street goes two ways. He could just as easily add a third pie, say snoozleberry, as he can take away one. Plus, in the example I had God removing the apple pie, which you would have chosen, leaving you with only the pecan pie. Thus, he has changed your choice of pie from apple to pecan.

What is this “you,” you are speaking of in this post? Is it not true that everyone, and everything was created by God? In other words, even if I have this thing called free will, who is exercising it? Is it me, or God? I would argue that its neither, “me” isn’t independent of God in the least bit. God created “me”, the rules by which “me” operates, and the enviroment in which “me” operates. “Me” is nothing but an expression, or creation of God.

Its analogous to a computer program. Even if I design a program to be sentient, and give it free reign to make choices, the result is still completely dependent on my programming choices. Thus, it is not the programs AI that determines the outcome, it is the programmer.

16

No, he hasn’t. If he makes it so that there is an extra pie, then there was no “original” choice, and so you haven’t already chosen apple.

True, and a good point. I can’t think of an argument against this, actually, so I think i’ll have to concede. I’d like to add, though, that under your system free will is totally impossible - as any actions or choices we make are the result of outside factors weighing in on us with their “programming”. If there is no God (which I believe, though uncertain - agnostic) then instead of a singular programmer we have millions upon millions.

17

The point I am trying to make is that by controlling the environment, or possible choices God, at least to some extent, controls the decision a person makes. Thus, at best we have free will to choose from the options that God provides for us. That, to me at least, does not rise to the level of what I would call free choice. Again, I bring up the Ford quote. I can have any color I want so long as its black. That is, I can choose from any options that God provides for me, and if my true choice isn’t one of those, tough noogies.

Indeed that is what I think. Unless a person is somehow at least partially self-generating free will is impossible. That is, part of ones self must be created independently of outside factors. This creates a paradox becuase it is impossible for something to create itself.

18

:smiley: That one always kills me! No such evidence — as though there ought to be scientific evidence of God but it’s missing. Science is completely inadequate with respect to any commentary on God whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that something is lacking in God, but that something is lacking in science; namely, the ability to test anything not empirically falsifiable. It’s like a theologian bragging that science has no such book as the Bible. Science is as useless in studying God as theology is in studying biology.

19

If we may all strain the already strained analogy further (:)), what if what matters isn’t the choice of black versus red, but the choice to pursue or value one over the other — no matter what is available?

Then you’ve just given materialists an insoluable problem, and have rendered all argument between theists and atheists a stalemate.

20

Thats really not true. Anything a person experiences can be studied scientifically. For example, the way in which God affects the world, or the way in which a person experiences God can be studied. We probably won’t get anything useful out of the study, but it can be studied nonetheless.