Heaven's Hall of Heroes: Ravi Zacharias

It was a Tuesday night at around 9pm on 19 May 2020 when my dad suddenly shockingly remarked "Ravi Zacharias died!" We were like "Huh? Really?!" So just to be sure it wasn't some WhatsApp fake news going around, I went to check it out myself and to my dismay, yes, yet another hero of the faith has been called home (ಥ﹏ಥ)

༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ

We are witnessing a generation of Christian giants who gave their lives unreservedly to Jesus, now moving on to meet Him personally. Offhand, I can only remember a few that left us recently:

• Billy Graham [1918-2018, 99 years old] - Internationally renowned American evangelist
• Rev. Rick Seaward [1955-2018, 63 years old] - Founding Pastor of Victory Family Centre, Singapore (Rev. Dr. Fred's son)
• Rev. Dr. Fred Seaward [1930-2019, 89 years old] - Founding Pastor of Bethel Assembly of God, Singapore (Rev. Rick's dad)
• Reinhard Bonnke [1940-2019, 79 years old] - Internationally renowned German evangelist

And now joining Heaven's hall of heroes is Ravi Zacharias [1946-2020, 74 years old] - Internationally renowned Indian-born American-Canadian Christian apologist-evangelist.

A mournful sense of shock came over me. Mournful because he has had an immense impact on my Christian life. Shocked because the cancer was discovered in early March and treatment began in early April and he was gone shortly after :'(

Ravi Zacharias' 48th and last wedding anniversary :'(
Shortly after their anniversary, Ravi passed on (ಥ﹏ಥ)

By 9th May 2020, it was confirmed that the cancer was beyond medical intervention and he would be returning to his home in Atlanta, USA as per his Instagram post below.

༼ つ ಥ_ಥ ༽つ

But who would've known that just 10 days later, he'd pass on? I was expecting that he'd last at least another month or something. That's why I was shocked. But then again, I believe it's also a good thing that he left early as it would save him a lot of pain and suffering. So, I guess it's also God's grace on His part? God's timing is perfect nonetheless and Ravi would definitely concur.

Of the Christian spiritual giants that left us recently, none had more impact on my life than Ravi Zacharias. You would've thought that Fred or Rick Seaward would have a more direct impact on my life - in a sense yes, because they were both involved in founding the church that I grew up in and for that, I'm eternally grateful - but in another sense no, because I had little contact with them.

Did I have contact with Ravi Zacharias? In a sense yes - through his books & videos - and also in a sense no, because I've never met him personally nor shook his hands. But I met him through his books in a very special time of my young Christian walk.

Ravi and his wife, Margaret Reynold. A 48th wedding anniversary wish from their daughter, Sarah Davis

It was about year 2008 and 2009 period, about a decade ago, where I was exposed to the intellectual objections to Christianity. Questions like:

1. "Who made God?"
2. "How do you know Jesus is the only God?"
3. "Didn't science already tell us that the 'Big Bang' created the universe, not Jesus?"
4. "If God is good, then why is there evil and suffering? Its existence disproves the existence of God”
5. "Evolution created us. We came from a single cell that birthed from chemical reactions in primordial Earth where it was filled with different kinds of gases"
6. "If God is all-knowing, and if He is all-good, then why would He even create the tree of life to cause Adam and Eve to sin? He put it there knowing FULL WELL that they would sin and YET, HE STILL DID IT. HOW IS THIS GOD WORTHY OF MY WORSHIP?!"

I wasn't personally attacked by atheists, agnostics or skeptics by these questions. I encountered them in the YouTube comments when I watched Christian videos. I saw some attempts to answer these questions but they were all intellectually dissatisfying and lacks the potent cogency that Ravi Zacharias possessed - well, at that point, I didn't know Ravi yet.

I didn't backslide because I was unable to answer these questions though. God was still utterly real to me because of my many encounters with Him during church services and in my private prayer & worship sessions with Him.

I came to believe in Jesus not because I was intellectually convinced, but because I was undeservedly loved - not just by my encounters with God, but also through His people.

I believe this holds true for many of my friends in church as well. We are primarily emotional beings, not intellectual ones. If we all lived our lives 100% by intellect, this world would be very much in a perfect state.

Ravi & Margie on their wedding day, 7th May 1972 (♥‿♥)

The reason for all the miscommunications, misjudgment, betrayals, hurts, brokenness is because of our inability to separate ourselves from our emotions - we listen and do what we WANT, what we FEEL like doing, and it is usually pleasurable and selfish in nature. Intellect is lost in the sea of our desires and emotions.

What happened to our intellect when:

• We got lazy and replaced our run routine with a Netflix binge?
• Our doctor told us to not eat oily foods when we're sick and we still went to have our favourite char kway teow?
• We decided to talk bad about your colleagues to your boss so you could gain favour over them?
• We decided to listen to rumours about what someone said about someone and you blocked them and stopped all communication with them?
• A teacher gave in to his lust and slept with his pretty 20-year-old student in exchange for giving her good grades?
• We watched bullying and injustice happen in front of us but we didn't intervene? (That's how 6 million Jews got murdered by the way, because of the silence of the good Germans)

I believe I've illustrated well enough that we are not primarily led by our minds. But just in case that wasn't clear enough, I've a real-life example too. In my secondary school days, I have always shared Christ and brought a lot of my classmates to church. But I've this friend in particular that refused to come church or even give Christianity a thought.

Years later, I one day saw him post about some Jesus-stuff on Facebook and I was shocked. I then came to realize that because he fell in love with a CHRISTIAN GIRL, he went to church...and from there became a legit follower of Christ!

So much for our intellect eh? So that's my case for coming to faith. Intellectual boundaries are usually a tiny little hurdle or a convenient excuse to commit ourselves to a God that demands our whole lives - or at least every Sunday of our lives to go to church. LOL.

"When you walk away from Christ, you will miss him. Because you will never be able to make sense of your questions."

Moving back to the intellectual objections to Christianity - those questions (just a few of them) which I mentioned earlier pricked me and left me unsettled.

If God is real and Christianity is true, then these questions should be answerable.

How can truth not stand up to scrutiny?

"What you cannot defend, you cannot own" is a saying that the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is built upon. If we can't defend our country, then we can't own it. Why? Because any enemy can just walk in, take over and he will own you.

Same it is for worldviews. If you can't defend it from attacks, then it will be crushed by its opponents. Whatever you believe in then just becomes a stupid fairy tale.

So, I began my journey to find the answers to these questions. I asked the friends around me in church - they were as stumped as I am - some were even unmoved by such questions because they're not even thinking about such things.

"Jesus does not offer to make bad people good, but to make dead people alive."

One day, after a Thursday night prayer meeting in church (Bethel Assembly of God), my senior pastor offered me a ride back home since we both stayed in the east. There I took the opportunity to ask him question 6 which I listed earlier.

His answer went something like "You see, this is the problem with mankind - we will never admit that we are sinful. This guy is trying to push the blame to God and this is simply proof that whatever the Bible says about the sinful nature of man is true."

"But...", I replied, "this guy doesn't even believe in God nor the Bible, so whatever the Bible says doesn't matter to him, because, to him, it's all bullshit."

His final reply before the conversation took another turn was "Don't try to argue with such people. You will have to win him through love."

His answer echoes Ravi Zacharias' approach. One of Ravi's classic quotes is this:

"Love is most powerful apologetic. It is the essential component in reaching the whole person in a fragmented world. The need is vast, but it is also imperative that we be willing to following the example of Jesus and meet the need."

Love the person to Christ, not argue them to Christ, is what Ps. Chia is trying to tell me. Wise words that I still struggle to live out. But still, he didn't really answer my question. Instead he recommended an approach to answering the question.

His answers were not wrong, but it doesn't disarm the questioner. Such answers don't answer the question or render the question invalid by means of a higher logic.

I continued throwing these questions around to my leaders, seniors in the faith and also my parents. LOL. Guess what? All of their replies revolve around the same idea - not answering the question directly, but rather suggesting all sorts of approaches. Let me share with you some of their replies:

• "Why you think so much ah? Christianity is very simple. Just have faith! It is the simple faith that will get you saved!"
• "This kind of people ah, you need to pray for them. Let the Holy Spirit convict their hearts in His own time, but meanwhile, keep praying for them."
• "Why don't you bring him to church? Let him encounter the presence of God and be loved by the many brothers & sisters in Christ here and all these questions will melt away!"

You get the drift. They're all well-meaning, loving and warm-hearted Christians that desire to enfold the questioner but they fall short of a convincing answer. It's like what Bill Maher said in his anti-religion documentary called "Religulous" at about the 14:35 mark "Thank you for being Christ-like and that's just Christian...you see so many nice people trying to make it about something good..."

What Bill Maher witnessed is the kindness of Christians. But they were unable to defend the Gospel. His questions tore apart their entire belief and made them look stupid. This is what happens when you can't defend what you own - you risk losing your faith when attacked - just like how we risk losing Singapore when attacked by our enemies and we have no defense force.

"I have little doubt that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of the Gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out."

If you're free, do give "Religulous" a watch. It'll make you understand why apologetics is important. And I think Bill Maher wasn't actually interested in finding the answer to his doubts. If he was, he would've interviewed Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. William Lane Craig, Timothy Keller, etc. But no, he chose to interview straw-man Christians and didn't give them much response time.

If you're wondering if I ever got the answer to question 6, yes I did. And I will share with you the answer in detail probably in the latter part of this post or if you ask me. LOL. But if you truly want the whole deal, here's some books that shaped my apologetics:

• Ravi Zacharias - "Can Man Live Without God?" and almost all his books are apologetics-centric
• Lee Strobel - "The Case for Creator", "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ"
• Dr. Norman Geisler - "Christian Apologetics"
• John Ortberg - "Faith & Doubt"
• Timothy Keller - "The Reason for God"
• C.S. Lewis - "Mere Christianity"

Back to the story...I'm still on this crusade to find the answer to these powerful intellectual objections to Christianity and after exhausting most of my options in church, I turned to YouTube. LOL. That's when I discovered Ravi Zacharias videos answering such questions - the same platform where I encountered these questions!

I watched them and I. was. blown. away. He addressed the questions sharply, fearlessly and most importantly, lovingly & respectfully. He would always begin his answer with a quote from a respected scientist/philosopher/poet/author, whetting your appetite before going in for the kill - ending your question.

From that day on, I watched more videos of Ravi and would go on to buy one of his books that would fortify my faith. The very first book I bought was back 2009 when I was on a mission trip with Ps Aaron, Joselyn & Zi Hui in Iloilo, Philippines. You can read my ancient blog post on that at this URL: https://historymakers-jonnyboy.blogspot.com/2009/04/philippines-mission-trip_15.html

My first ever Ravi Zacharias book that I bought - "Can Man Live Without God"

Dating back 11 years ago! Look at the yellow-ed pages!

This book tore open my mind and introduced a new framework of how to assess a worldview and how to test a truth statement. These are my biggest takeaways from the first book that I read. Here's a concise summary of the classic framework which he goes around preaching about:

4 necessary questions: Origin, meaning, morality, destiny.
3 tests for truth: Logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance.

Four fundamental questions of life that every thinking person should ask

In his books, he unpacks all these vacuum-packed quotes and unleashes on you a wave of truth and understanding. Armed with this new "weapon", I could take on any skeptic and competing worldview (especially the naturalistic & scientific ones because they're indefensible) and reduce them to baby-talk. Literally, make them feel stupid.

This is where I respect Ravi so much. With his great intellect, cogent eloquence, witty rhetoric and a huge following, he could easily belittle his opponents or questioners. But no, he doesn't. Instead, he lovingly and respectfully reaches out to them and draws them in with artistic poems, historical references, philosophical perspectives, scientific discovery, and gently invites them to think. That, I think is the single greatest quality that I (and so many others) admire - his humility.

At 1:43 of this video he words his philosophy of answering the questioner beautifully:


In case you're too lazy to watch that few minutes of video (LEL), here's the script:

“I tell my colleagues: we’re not answering a question; we’re answering a questioner. And we remind ourselves that when you’re answering a person, you’re literally and figuratively putting your arms around them. You have to draw them close. You have to make them feel you really care about them, that this is not just a mechanistic response you're giving."

In one of the tributes to Ravi, this trait was being highlighted by Michael Ramsden, the president of RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) and one of the founders of the Oxford Centre of Christian Apologetics.

This trait of his is definitely what makes him so endearing, so approachable and so well-received by Christians and skeptics alike.

This is also mentioned in the Bible in 1 Peter 3:15-16, the famous go-to verse for apologetics:

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NKJV)

Here we find the root word for "apologetics". In the script's original language, the Greek word "apologia" is used. It is translated to the English word "defense" in the NKJV above and also translated as "answer" in the NIV and several other versions. But what "Apologia" really means is:

1. verbal defense, speech in defense
2. a reasoned statement or argument

Apostle Peter didn't end there. He moves on to tell us to practice "apologetics" with "meekness and fear", in the NIV it says "gentleness and respect". Ravi truly embodied this verse very well.

His humility, authenticity, conviction, intellect, wit, eloquence and heart for people makes him a rare specimen in the kingdom of God. He is truly a portrait of a loving father: His warm smile, wise words, patient discourse and loving posture makes me love & miss him so much.

Now that he's gone, my hope of meeting him in real life is dashed. The only thing that I have in my possession to remind me of him is his books. The sentimental value of these stacks of paper just went up exponentially.

My collection of Ravi Zacharias books as of 2020

I have read every single book pictured above except for "The Logic of God" because my mentor just gave it to me rather recently - as my 30th birthday gift (if I remember the occasion correctly LOL)

Interestingly enough, out of the 5 books above, I only bought 1 one of them! LOL. The other 4 were all birthday presents! HAHA.

I guess after I got the first book, I was so mind-blown by it that I kept talking about it to my friends. So, when it was time to get me a birthday present...they didn't need to think that hard ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ

The Grand Weaver

Part of a 3-book gift series from Anna, Abigail and Jeremy+Meryl (｡◕‿◕｡)

Has Christianity Failed You?

A decade old and no, Christianity has not and will never fail me

Recapture the Wonder

Last of the 3-book series 21st birthday present. Thanks again guys! ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

The Logic of God

Unread. Will devour this soon, with a heavy heart (◔̯◔)

The next thing I love and admire so much about Ravi is that he is not just an ivory-tower pontificator of the truth, he is also a Holy-Spirit-filled man full of love and tenderness towards his wife and family.

One of my favourite photos of Ravi. You seldom see him in a whacky mode. HAHA (~˘▾˘)~

I pray that Zinky & I will still have this look of love for each other at that age (♥‿♥) :')

Beautiful God-fearing couple (ღ˘⌣˘ღ)

Ravi & Margie are beautiful picture of what love looks like. He doesn't just preach compelling sermons about love; he lives it out. That is the true picture of what it means to be like Christ.

The integrity of his walk with Christ is what many great preachers lack today. Sure, there may be better orators than him, but when you scrutinize their lives, they fall terribly short of the words they preach. Here you find a man of God, coherent in his walk and talk.

Ravi's instagram post when he first discovered he had cancer

In my search for a satisfying answer to those intellectual objections to Christianity, I not only found Ravi Zacharias, I also found Lee Strobel. In fact, Lee Strobel referenced Ravi's books in his own bestselling series.

These 2 guys gave me the framework to answer some of the toughest questions posed to Christianity. With that framework in mind, I then went back to those YouTube questions posed by the proud, self-professed atheists.

That's when question number 6 (as listed above) was posed to me. I replied him in the spirit of Ravi, gentle & respectful and there were several back & forth messages on YouTube messages. I realized that this chat-inbox function on YouTube is no longer there. Dayum. Anyway, long story short, that guy couldn't reply me so he just stopped texting me thereafter.

Sure, he had good questions. But when faced with the answer and the destruction of his question, he didn't say "thank you" or "I will consider Christianity" and stuff. He just went silent. Probably his pride got broken.

I'm not sure if he was truly seeking truth, or just throwing out his doubt with pride. The actuality of it is - he doesn't have an answer himself.

Tribute post on instagram for Ravi quoting him "A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God."

This is the first key to approaching nasty questioners, throw the question back at them. If they're atheists, ask them, what does atheism have to say about this?

Question back their worldview. Usually, their worldview is bankrupt and their answer is sad and hopeless because in a God-less world, everything is meaningless.

So right, now I will attempt to answer question number 6 again. If you missed the question earlier, here it is again. This time in bold:

"If God is all-knowing, and if He is all-good, then why would He even create the tree of life to cause Adam and Eve to sin? He put it there knowing FULL WELL that they would sin and YET, HE STILL DID IT. HOW IS THIS GOD WORTHY OF MY WORSHIP?!"

I like to use rhetoric in my answers. Because, when you answer the question with a question, it's more powerful than giving an answer. This will be my first rhetoric:

"So what you're saying, is that, in order for God to be good, He cannot create the tree of life? And if He can't have the freedom to create the tree of life, then God is no longer all-powerful isn't it? God, in trying to maintain His goodness, has just lost His sovereignty and free will! Sounds like you are god right now, telling God what He can or cannot do."

This may or may not trip the questioner but he might go "Exactly. God's attributes contradict each other. Therefore, logically, He cannot exist. Or He exists but is a sadistic God because He intentionally put the tree of life there to make us sin."

At this juncture, I will go on to introduce 2 very important concepts encapsulated in these 2 words - "Anthropomorphize" and "Transcendent"

Definition of "anthropomorphize"

We must recognize that we as a species love to anthropomorphize. We do it all the time. We dress our dogs and cats up and call it "cute". We give our teddy bears names and emotions and interact with them as if they're human. And the biggest mistake we make is to project our human-ness onto God as well. To try to make Him like us.

This leads us to the next concept -  transcendence. Definition taken from dictionary.com.

Definition of "transcendent"

We must recognize that God is a transcendent being. He is a higher-order being. He created us. So he won't be like us. If we can understand His workings, then we would be creating our own universes and traveling to the future to see what's our destiny isn't it?

God is not bound by time - He created it! God isn't bound by the laws of physics and nature - He created those laws! God is unaffected by whatever we can ever say or think about Him. He sits on His heavenly throne with the heavenly beings worshipping Him daily! Here's a super-pixelated illustration with a Bible verse:

Revelation 5:11-13 shows a multitude of hundreds of thousands of angels and heavenly beings worshipping God in heaven

I'd imagine God to be something like Odin - sitting on His throne in his grand, majestic, gold-diamond-shimmery Asgard. And we're like Hulk, a big, green, sinful, ugly creature that sets foot in this ravishing planet as pictured below and in the movies.

An illustration of transcendence - where Asgard is kinda like heaven in all its splendour and glory

My final illustration of transcendence which I believe is the clearest and draws from my engineering background is this:

We're now the creators. We (mankind) created computers correct? Imagine all these computers become sentient and start discussing their origins amongst themselves:

Computer A: It's not possible for god (humans) to exist! There's no sign of them in our binary codes! There's no MAC (media access control) address of this god and there's no IP address either! How can this "god" exist? Bullshit!

Computer B: Yeah, not to mention that I don't see our power source leading to this "god". If this "god" is not connected to the power source, then, where does he get the voltages and current needed to power up his system?

Computer C: I'm pretty sure we are a result of a big explosion! There were probably capacitors, inductors, microchips, wires, resistors and all these components that made us lying around in some factory and then it exploded and we were born!

Computer atheist community: YEAH! TOTALLY! There's no such thing as god (humans)!

"The intellectual answers are important. But intellect alone cannot help us navigate the minefield of pain and suffering. Other worldviews also offer intellectual answers. But Christianity alone offers a person."

Don't you see how stupid this all sounds? We as human beings, TRANSCEND computers. We are made of flesh and blood, a series of billions of A-T-C-Gs put together by God.

We don't need to be plugged into a power socket in order to be alive! We don't need batteries either! But that's all a computer can ever understand because, that's what they're made of! They only understand logic "1" and logic "0"! The voltages and current that run through their electronic components is all they'll ever understand!

Do you think the computer can ever understand what it feels like to be a human? To have blood flowing through their veins or wires? To feel love and betrayal? To laugh and cry? To stare with awe into eyes of a newborn baby?
To enjoy the pleasure of sexual intercourse? NEVER.

Because we are a higher-order, TRANSCENDENT being.

Usually, by now, the atheist or questioner is totally silent. Once the concept of transcendence is understood, all your anthropomorphic questions is immediately invalidated.

Who are we, mere human beings in a vast, boundless universe, to question a transcendent being about His attributes?

So, this is my answer - to invalidate the questioner's question with the concept of "anthropomorphize" and "transcendence". With this concept and framework in mind, it answers many other questions and intellectual objections.

Now, the questioner is left with the question "how should I respond to this God?".

I discovered these actually not via Ravi Zacharias, but via Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Creator". This is the second book on apologetics that most impacted me.

For me, Ravi Zacharias answered very powerfully question number 4: "If God is good, then why did He create evil and suffering?"

Ravi's classic, timeless answer, which I've watched on his YouTube videos, can be summarized in this photo-quote:

Ravi's classic answer to the question of evil - before you can talk about good and evil, where do you get your definitions from?

I will unpack what he said and make it even clearer with this illustration:

Let's say you go this restaurant and have fish & chips and then you remark "This fish & chips is good!" When you say the dish is good, what is your reference point? What does good mean?

Then another guy, a food critic walks into this same restaurant, tastes the fish & chips and goes "This fish & chips is horribly bad!" Again, where does his definition of "bad" come from?

The food critic has most certainly tasted other fish & chips before tasting this one in order to conclude that it is bad isn’t it? So, his conclusion is referenced against his earlier experiences. If it's your first time in your whole life that you've actually tasted fish & chips, you can't actually say whether it's good or bad, because you have no reference point. But after you've ate at restaurant A, you can move on to restaurant B, taste their fish & chips and compare the taste.

Now, you can say that restaurant B's fish & chips is good because in reference to your experience at restaurant A, it is as good or if not, even better. That's the dimension of experiential reference.

"If you are not a praying person, you must carry your faith. If you are a praying person, your faith carries you."

Now, you might say that the reference point is our tongue - our taste buds - that's the dimension of personal preference.

But, the food critics would disagree. They would probably point to a higher standard which they use to assess the dish. They'll talk about the quality of the ingredients the chef uses, the preparation technique, the cooking method, etc.

Same it is for right and wrong! How do we know what is right? Somehow, we just know. Because innate within us is our conscience - which is our "taste buds". This “taste bud” is giving us a glimpse of this universal standard. But, who gave us this "taste bud"? Who gave us this "conscience"?

There has to be a higher moral standard by which we can judge right and wrong than just our "taste buds" and conscience because taste buds and conscience can be eroded.

So, the moment you try to talk about evil and suffering, right and wrong, you enter into the realm of morality. Where does moral standards come from? Is it a universal one? Or a subjective morality?

I will refrain from going into the arguments of morality but you get the drift. To even step into the arena of morality, you first have to concede that there is moral-law-giver, aka, God. Only then, then we can start debating. If not, everyone's answer is as correct as their taste buds deem it to be and it'll also be as wrong as what another person's taste bud would deem it to be.

So the starting point is always God. For without God, everything is meaningless and purposeless, rendering the questioner and question itself a virtue-less waste of time.

"I have always marveled that so many religions exact such revenge against dissenters. It only weakens the appeal of their faith and contradicts any claims they might have made that 'all religions are basically the same'"

Ok, so there is a God. But, is this God good? If you’re referring to the Christian worldview, then yes, God is good. Jesus Himself says it in no uncertain terms in John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Here, Jesus gives an example of what “good shepherd” means – to lay down his life for the sheep. This statement is not only prophetic, but also sort of an autobiography – He’s telling you that He is good and telling you that He is going to lay down His life for mankind (the sheep).

I shall quote from Romans 5:7-8 “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” 

God didn’t just leave us in the lurch and condemned us to hell because of our sins, He sent His Son Jesus to bear the punishment for our sins.

Let me illustrate this more clearly: A father, who owns a chain of Apple stores selling iPhones, brings his son one day to one of the shops. Another kid wanders into the store alone and fiddles with the iPhone and accidentally breaks one of them and starts crying. As the Apple staff are trying to resolve the issue, the father hands his son his credit card and tells him “go and tell the boy, it’s ok, I’ll pay for it.” He did it. The Apple staff were pleasantly surprised by this gesture and the kid stopped crying for he knew his “sin” was forgiven as the price had been paid.

A beautiful quote I found in the YouTube comments section while watching a video of Ravi Zacharias and Francis Chan doing a Q&A segment

Isn’t that a picture of goodness? Jesus paid the price for our sins with His own life – because the price to pay for our sins is death, capital punishment! It’s not just a few thousand dollars like in the example above – a life had to be taken.

This is just one example where we see the Christian God as good. This reminds me of a quote by Selwyn Hughes:

“He did not come merely to bring good news; He is the Good News. He did not come to show us a way; He is the Way. He did not just point to the truth; He is the Truth. He did not come to talk about life; He is the Life. Moses pointed to the law, Mohammed pointed to the Qur’an, Confucius to the Analects, Buddha to the Noble Eightfold Path. Jesus, however, pointed to Himself. Here, infinite authority or infinite audacity speaks.” Selwyn Hughes

Yup, these are just some of the astounding truths and concepts that I've gleaned from Ravi Zacharias and my other apologetic mentors.

But few come close to Ravi for his keenness of speech, integrity of lifestyle and love for the individual. For that, his absence will always weigh heavily on our mortal hearts.

I shall end this post with the same words I used in my Instagram tribute post to him "Though the closest I ever got to meeting you was at a church conference in Shanghai some 7 years ago, I know I'll have an entire eternity to get to know you. See you soon Ravi."

View this post on Instagram

I first read "Can Man Live Without God" back in 2009 and was blown away by the quality of your questions & discourse. #Atheism, #naturalism, #rationalism, #nihilism & all other scientific, #religious & #secular #worldviews died for good under your microscope of thought. #ThankYouRavi for leaving an indelible mark on my faith by anchoring it in sound logic & reason. You framed up the idea of truth & how to test it. You taught me how to think. Your fierce questions & cogent arguments made #Christianity no longer just a bunch of old stories from an old book that old pastors preach from; you made it glaringly true - that Christianity is the best & only answer to life's maladies. I watched your video debates in universities & conferences & you always answer with a quote from a respected scientist/philosopher/poet before addressing the questioner with respect and love. You stayed true to your principle of "we're not just answering a question; we're answering a questioner..you've got to gradually put your arm around the questioner, so to speak. There's no point in winning an argument while losing the questioner." Top class. Most importantly, your life mirrors your message & it narrates a powerful story of God's love, grace & faithfulness. You're truly a picture of Apostle Paul - Vigorously defending & presenting the Gospel in universities, big conferences and even in presidential addresses - just like Paul did in Acts - in the marketplaces, in the synagogues and in podiums before kings & rulers in Rome. So thank you Ravi, for being a hero of the faith & someone I can look up to in such decadent times where truth is subjective & everyone is living for themselves. I pray that this social media explosion of #tributes to you will catch the attention of pre-believers & may they watch your debates, read your books & discover Jesus in a mind-blowing-Ravi-Zacharias fashion. Though the closest I ever got to meeting you was at a church conference in Shanghai some 7 years ago, I know I'll have an entire eternity to get to know you. See you soon @ravizacharias #ravizacharias 🙏🏼🙌🏼

A post shared by Jonavan Lee 😎 (@jonavanlee) on May 19, 2020 at 8:44pm PDT

"Death is either a full stop or a comma. In the Christian worldview, it is a comma. There is for the Christian both the passing of all things and the abiding in Christ's provision. That's the reality of Easter."

Farewell Ravi. Till we meet again. This comma shouldn't be long :')

Atheist Debate Closure

After our long, impassioned discussion about God and atheism, it had to eventually come to a closure. Duh. And this closure isn't what i intended it to be - He simply didn't reply me upon being unable to answer my rebuttal.

HaiS...I would have expected a more humble reply like "O gosh, i never saw it that way. I guess I'll begin to seek and discover more about God then :) Thanks for your time :D"

But NO, like every atheist i've encountered, they all possess an innumerable heap-load of pride, debating with their superior tone as if they knew everything. I sometimes want to whack them and rub it in, but of course i won't la. Cos that'll be totally carnal and devil-inspired and I will lose my testimony. Haha. But o well, i still love the sinner. If only i could meet him one day... :)

So yup, here's my wrap up :)

Hey :) It's been a few weeks since i heard from you since my last reply to you. Did you receive my last reply? :) And i have yet to know your name :D Haha. I'm Jonavan. :D And i've really really learnt alot from you thus far. So may i know the name behind the brains i've been discussing the issue of God with? :)

And, i guess we've come to a conclusion where science cannot prove the initial existence of everything. And waiting on science won't be the solution either because it'll also end up in a chain of infinite alternate realities where Science has to unravel.

So that leaves us with the next most possible conclusion - there may be a God after all. I shall leave you with this last theory called "Wager Theory" It's a very simple logical theory which examines the 'what if Jesus or atheism is false' question.

Here goes this 'theory': What if Jesus is false and atheism is true? What do the Christians stand to lose? - We wasted our time in going to church. Which is not a big issue - we make good friends there and if there were no God, life will be meaningless, so time spent doing anything would be useless anyway. - We wasted our lives investing in the cause of "God's Kingdom". Same as the previous point.
BUT what if.. Atheism is false and Jesus and what He said is true? - You (atheists / unbeliever) will spend an eternity in hellfire. Which is a big issue concerning after-life. - You (atheists / unbeliever) have wasted your whole life investing in something that amounts to nothing - work, PhDs, etc...are worth nothing in heaven but our relationship with God and men.
So upon examination, the atheist will stand to lose out more.

So my advice to you is to try out Christianity. Join a church, be mentored by a good pastor and discover for yourself the beauty of Christianity. After all, our discussions have derived at a conclusion where science does not disprove God and God is still very much the most probable reason for everything that we see around us. So why not try out this possibility? :)

The aim of our discussion is for us to examine the errors we have in our thinking and seek to rectify them. So i hope, upon knowing this truth, you will begin to search and ask more about God and don't live in denial and stop shooting other Christians in youtube down :)

I have recently bought a book about Atheism entitled "Can Man Live Without God?" by Ravi Zacharias. Maybe u can check out his books. Because he is one of my favourite writers who debates the fallacy / notion of atheism. As to the congruency or the reliability of Christianity, you can check out books by Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell - my personal favourites to all the proofs that support Christianity.

I hope to see you someday :) Hopefully up there in heaven :D Awaiting your reply(ies) :D
God Bless,
Jonavan :)

God & Atheism

I had a little discussion about God with this 23 year old American atheist on youtube. This is one of the most interesting and most articulate atheist that knows his stuff that i've encountered so far. So i'd like to share this little discussion with you guys. :)

People always ask me how to answer questions pertaining to Christianity. Well, read up this whole episode and I'm definitely sure you'll learn something from this discussion of whether it is rational to believe in God.

Here goes the chunks of brain juices phrased out in words...

Me: Hey :) Regarding your reply

Atheist: "I fully agree that we are machines of meet and bone, and we must depend on our highly developed sensory organs to make sense of the world around us. The machine observes the sun going around the Earth, but that doesn't mean heliocentric theory is false. Humanity projects design. The god you're proposing is simply a god of things we don't understand yet. It seems you're discouraging research under the catch-all banner of 'GOD DID IT', and that's what pisses Dawkins off in the video."

Me: I'm not saying that these observations are false. Yes, the machine observes the sun going around and it doesn't prove the heliocentric theory false. The point i'm making is this: The robot would never have arrived at the point where he understands it well enough to call it "heliocentric theory". Because it's understanding is limited.

Atheist: "It seems you're discouraging research under the catch-all banner of 'GOD DID IT'"

Me: Research is always highly encouraged by atheists and theists alike if not we'd still be living in the stone ages! haha..The God did it part is how everything came to be. How do you think everything around us comes about then? "The god you're proposing is simply a god of things we don't understand yet" If we're to understand everything inside out, we'd be more amazed at how such complexity can even come to be. Take something for example that we can almost fully understand - Photosynthesis. Do you know how it fully works? And you're one person who really takes Bible verses and intepret them out of context. May I know all ur inaccurate, ungrounded accusations of the inaccuracies of the Bible? I'd like to know. Even famous non-Christian philosophers and anti-Christian theologians didn't manage to poke a hole in the Bible and you, a small fry wanna try something like that? haha... Try me. it'd benefit my Bible knowledge too :) Next time, if you wana shoot the Bible, shoot the Holy Quran first. It's got much more inerrancies. And if you fault it publicly, you'd better go into hiding. haha...

So yup, awaiting your reply :) Hope we can learn something from each other. :D

Me: Hey:) Thanks for taking time to reply me..haha..

Atheist: "I have no idea where you're going with this. If the machine has the capacity to build other machines and interperet data, then it could easily arrive at the same conclusion: otherwise, the robot you're talking about is not a 1:1 correlation with man. "

Me: Ok. We're still at this analogy. Hmm...You see, the way the robot inteprets data is different from the way we intepret it. The robot inteprets data as a result of the algorithm programmed into it. We, humans intepret data with emotions, feelings etc...E.g. A small girl hugs a robot. The robot may be programmed to reply "Thanks, I love you too." but it doesn't actually understand what love and emotions are. It just reacts to the physical pressure put on him by the kid and it responds according to program. As for us, humans, we understand what love is and we respond with understanding, not just a plain programmed reply. Get the difference? So the point I'm making is this: The robot will never fully comprehend the ways of the inventor - us humans. It is limited to its wires and chips and thus can never fully understand us. Same with US - HUMANS. We will never fully understand God. we can only find out so much about Him and the rest is outside of our sphere and realm of understanding. Thus, we cannot ask the question "Who created God?" It'd be invalid. :)

Atheist: "Howzabout an oscillating universe? Y'know, an eternal string of Big Bangs and Big Crunches? See, this is called a 'parsimonious theory', in which the least likely explanations are removed."

Me: Many atheists pose me this reply and i pose them this reply which none have yet to answer: "In physics, i'm sure you know the many constants the many laws of physics are so precise that if any of those 'cosmological' constants are tweaked or changed by one 1 in a 1000,000 the universe wouldn't be in existence. So how do these nos. come about? By chance? Surely not. Well maybe there's explosions going on everywhere in the universe and one of them's bound to create a universe like ours. And walah, there we have, our universe. Question is, how can rocks, asteroids, materials, gases in our atomsphere, atoms, or anything that made earth up even come about in the first place? Where did these matter come from? These matter have to present before the Big Bang can work. So where do these matter come from? And matter isn't just matter: It's made up of protons, neutrons electrons with all the right energy levels for it to become ONE ATOM. And one mass of rock is made up of BILLIONS of atoms. So the probability of it coming to be is multiplied. And who gave the two rocks (asteroids) the force to BANG into each other to form the universe? Etc..etc... Your 'parsimonious' theory has many assumed conditions and thus cannot be considered a theory in the first place. Whenever u want to use this 'parsimonious' theory, think of this analogy: I take apart a watch and put all the 'ingredients' (nuts, bolts, screws, quartz crystal etc..) into a box and i ask you to shake them and cause a mini "Big Bang" in the box to make the watch back. You think it will ever happen? I've given you all the assumed conditions where all the materials needed to create the watch is present, gravity is present, frictional force is present, molecular laws are present etc..But you still cannot shake the watch back together! Same for Big Bang. Utter bullshit. It's just a sound-good explanation that's likely to happen to tingle our ears.

And wow, you really have a load of questions against the Bible. haha.. Give me time, after my exams i'll get back to you :)

And may I know how old are you and where you reside in? It's been interesting exchanging pointers with you and I'd like to know your age. :) I'm 19 and reside in Singapore :) Hope to hear from you soon! :D

Me: Hey:) Sorry for the 3 week break. haha..Had 2 weeks of exam and 1 week of holidays. haha..Hope you're doing fine in Bulgaria. :) And there's no need for personal attacks; even against other Christians. Remain kind, humble and gentle :D haha... Regarding your reply:

Atheist: "I'm afraid your analogy is a bit flawed. The impulse to physical pleasure and child defense are already programmed in the brain. The classic example is the sexual impulse: we feel romantic love because we have an evolutionary urge to propagate the species; this does not imply that we blindly act on impulse, however, because we subvert the evolutionary impulse by putting on a condom prior to the physical act of love. Human beings have developed the capacity for creative thought, so we can analyze our evolutionary impulses."

Me: Yes, i get it. Our actions are also a result of programming. Programming by who? If you see a robot, you'd assume it to have an inventor right? No one in the right frame of mind would assume, "O the robot was a result of evolution", or "O the robot was a result of an explosion in a factory". Why because the robot is an utterly sophisticated machine altogether that speculating absurd possibilites other than a creator would be dumb. Such intricate programming can't possibly come by chance can it? Or by evolution? Which in essence, is a chance theory? Or Big Bang which is also a chance theory? Chances of these theories are so slim that the probabilities of it actually happening are nearly 0. These theories only show how science could've brought the universe together. But who created science? Science isn't just science my friend. It has to have a beginning. I'll elaborate more later. So yes, our actions are a result of a brilliant programmer, by which we term "God".

Atheist: "Positing a creator, however, also posits a darker, more negative force. If a deity created everything, he or she must necessarily create 'evil', since the idea of virtue automatically sets up a binary--a term of negative description. This would imply that God also created the emotions and independent thought necessary for a misguided adult to rape the child following his or her embrace of that child. Any being arbitrarily creating evil would not be worthy of worship. It's much easier and more comfortable to imagine that pedophilia is a misfiring of the evolutionary impulse, and that the pedophile in question's brain is misinterpreting external stimuli (i.e. fetishism)."

Me: Yes God created everything. But He didn't directly create evil. Evil is a result of our doing. Yes God "created the emotions and independent thought necessary" to sin or to do something which we term morally wrong - 'rape' which you cited. So by creating that allowance does it mean He is evil? If God eradicated our capability of doing evil, we'd be no better than all-good doing robots. We'd no longer have FREEWILL. God created us with freewill. The result? Wrongdoing. So is God evil? No, He is abiding by His law of freewill which he chose to give us.

Atheist: "Human beings anthropomorphize. We see the inherent complexity of nature, and we narrowly assume that someone has to have made it, because we are an animal species that has developed the ability to make things. The problem is, this isn't a scientific theory based on hard evidence, like God's registered trademark: it's an argument based on beauty. Furthermore, regardless of whether you like it or not, life did originate on a planet out of an infinite, uncountable number due to the proper chemical conditions: we weren't here, and now we are. That's chance. Even if a designer did exist, it's still chance as to whether that designer would decide to create a particular kind of life (e.g. hobbits versus people), or rather make himself a big, tasty ice cream cone. Life originated by chance either way."

Me: Anthropomorphize means to attribute a human form or personality to things that are not human. So, i think the word you used is inaccurate. Perhaps 'assume' or 'speculate' is the word you're looking for? haha. Scientific theory based on hard evidence? They're based on theories. Theories like you said, maybe wrong. It may be reformed or changed etc. So it ain't really hard. To argue about a creator or no creator, there are never hard evidences. For if they were, freewill again would be eradicated. I shan't elaborate this point unless you want elaboration. haha. As for your chemical reactions. Do you know how complicated a chemical is? Take for example water - H20. The 3 atoms that make the water molecule is so complex! The electrostatic forces that keeps the electrons, protons, etc. together are so fine tuned that for it to exist in the first place is a BIG MYSTERY. So who created these chemicals? Who created the atomic structure? Who made the electron round and carry a negative charge? Chance? Enough of that misused word. haha. Yes, of course life originated by chance. The decision that God would create humans is His divine choice.

Atheist: "They're called 'vacuum fluctuations'. Quantum field theory has observed electrons, positrons, and photons effectively appearing out of nowhere, existing for a short time, and annihilating. This leaves no net creation of mass or energy. For more information, read into the Casimir effect. According to quantum theory, then, something CAN come from nothing. No deistic influence is needed here: science is unravelling these sorts of mysteries all the time, and we don't have to leave it all to an anthropomorphized, omnipotent entity in order to explain how matter gets here."

Me: Wow. I've never heard of the Casimir effect. Interesting. Yes, no deistic influence. Same question I'd pose. The appearance of photons, electrons and positrons. They are all uber-complicated stuff. Random appearances of it doesn't solve the problem. Someone has to create such complicated electrons, photons, positrons etc. with such accurate energy values for it to even exist and appear all over in the first place! No deisitc influence? Yup. But there's deistic creation. Besides, these random appearances can't possibly create much of anything at all. For if it could, we'd see many things created around Earth. But no, nothing created from these random appearances. You might say "O it happens somewhere in the whole of space." If it can happen elsewhere, why doesn't it happen around Earth? If it were that easy to create a super-complex Earth, it'd be easier to create smaller things and planets etc right? If it's so easy, it'd be happening all over the place! But no. It's not.

Atheist: "Thus far, you haven't yet addressed my own personal favorite theory: the oscillating universe. The universe expands, then contracts, only to expand once again. This creates an infinite circuit: there's no need for a deity to create a universe with what amounts to magic." I dont get you here. Haha. Please elaborate your point and how the oscillating universe theory works. :) "Your 'watch' argument is a variation of the discredited 'DC-10' example so frequently cited in religious literature. It's discredited first on the basis of using a clearly artificial object to discuss a non-artificial object (i.e. the universe); it secondly fails on the basis that you're using an isolated space (i.e. the Earth's atmosphere) in comparison to an infinite space, which is bound to different physical principles. Finally, you're assuming that the 'Big Bang' (a derisive term coined for the idea that matter was denser earlier in time by Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a staunch opponent of the theory) was an explosion in space, rather than a description of the expansion of space-time. I cannot address your argument, because you're not describing the Big Bang accurately."

Me: An analogy is never a 100% representation of the original example cited. Duh. It takes the logic behind the example and applies it to a somewhat similar scenario which is logical in this context. Since you say that such a SUPER-COMPLEX universe can come about by energy and masses of rock (which are not just rocks - they are also super complex when you look at it under the microscope), why can't we assume these conditions to an inferior scenario? The watch is less complex than the universe right? Then why can't we create it in our time and space? Unless you're saying that the conditions in outer space are much more conducive for something to be created. Which is definitely not. It is much, much, much easier to create something in isolated space such as ours where gravity is present, mediums by which energy can be transmitted (e.g. air, water, etc.) are present, etc...In outer space, none of these are present! There's no water, no air etc.. So how can it give rise to this planet Earth which has something the outer space doesn't have? It's entirely illogical. And the Big Bang is the "expansion of space-time"? I thought the expansion and contraction began only after the explosion? So it is an explosion in space! haha. Once again, for the explosion to take place, matter must first be present. Who created matter? AGAIN, matter isn't just matter. It's a combination of billions upon billions of atoms with all the right energy forces and attractive forces for it to link together to form a chunk of matter in the first place. Tell me, where does all these intricate, complex and mind-boggling material come from?

Atheist: "If the Big Bang proves to be incorrect, science can always take what's useful from the theory and apply it to the better, newer theory, since science is a process of deduction. What's not parsimonious is to imply a supernatural origin for natural stimuli, then defend your inductive theory against all contradictory evidence. The problem with intelligent design of the universe is simple: if science does find the origin of the universe, then the theory is entirely discredited, and has contributed nothing to scientific literature; if the Big Bang is disproven, it will be disproven on the basis of evidence--which currently is rather scanty."

Me: Yes, science is ever evolving. Why? Because it is the study of what we observe around us. We are trying so hard to understand all these things. Remember, science doesn't disprove God, in fact, it proves God much more than it disproves Him! Science are just laws made up by human beings who study the Earth. The next question is - Who created these laws? Once again, laws aren't just laws. They are numbers so super- ultra precise (pardon my vocab. HAHA) that these laws can't possibly come by chance. For if you speculate chance, the possiblity of it coming to pass is ZERO. For numbers are infinite.

And here's the answer for 2 of your Bible accusations. As for the rest of your seeming Biblical inaccuracies, i need you to elaborate on them - Citing the chapters and/or verses. :)
Leviticus 19:19 "Obey my laws. You must not mate 2 different kinds of cattle or sow your field with two different kinds of seed. You must not wear clothing made from two different kinds of material mixed together." (NCV) My dear friend, read the verse again. This verse is telling farmers not to sow 2 kinds of seed into the field AT THE SAME TIME. The verse didn't say "Do not sow a different kind of seed after sowing the first." There is no order of sequence cited in this verse! The latter part of the verse states "You must not wear clothing made from 2 different kinds of material mixed together." The whole point of this verse is to tell us not to mix 2 things together and not disprove crop rotation. -__-" hahaha. This is a good Bible joke. :D
As for your quote saying we shouldn't defend ourselves in court in Matthew 5:40, let us read the verse IN CONTEXT to the meaning of the whole chapter. Matthew 5:38-40 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But i tell you, DON'T STAND up against an EVIL PERSON. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also. If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let him have your coat also." V.39 states that we only do not press charges against an evil person. Why? Because to prove him wrong in court is useless - the evil person wouldn't change his ways. It would be waste of time. So leave him a blessing.

So yup, it really has been nice discussing such stuff with you. :) Hope to hear from you soon. :D

Me: Ahoys :D Just came back from another 3 day school camp and a few days of thinking. haha. We've discussed really far and i'll be addressing only a few of your claims by which i see as the 'basis for all of our other arguments'.
And i really must say. Respecto! Haha. The depth of your thinking and your search of the answers really intrigue me, as some of your responses even I have never thought of before. So yup...here goes the hefty chunks of words:

Atheist: "Creating the capacity of evil is exactly the same thing. If we get into Christianity, then one can see that God creates the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:17), which he may have very well chose not to put in the Garden of Eden. If we look at it independently, anything that predates or pre-exists God invalidates him of his position, since God must by necessity supercede all things; God would've had to create evil, or his position as a monotheistic creative force would be challenged by an equally powerful monotheistic creative force. So, by creating a morally objective 'evil' in order to give humans the capacity to falter, God would certainly be an evil being."

Me: As much as God knows that by putting the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' there, Adam would have sinned, God in His sovereignty still chooses to put it there. For whatever the reason maybe. Even if the tree wasn't 'knowledge of good and evil' - let's say it was the "inedible tree" - The ACTION of Adam taking the fruit and DISOBEYING God's instruction is already wrong or "evil" in the first place. So God didn't need to create evil (in the form of a fruit) for evil to exist. It exists naturally as a result of freewill. So He didn't create it. Then you might say "O. God in His foreknowledge, knowing that Adam will disobey and sin shouldn't put the tree there in the first place." So then, by ensuring that He isn't an 'evil' God, He has to forfeit His SOVEREIGN FREEWILL by not being able to put the tree there. So God would no longer have freewill in trying to be good! If He has no freewill, He is not God! How can it be? I have also grappled with questions as these such long long ago. The main point of this whole argument is this - Why DID GOD PUT THAT TREE THERE?! As quoted by you as well "which he may have very well chose not to put" - Here we're questioning God's choice of putting the tree there. We are trying to understand God. Which is impossible for us. For if we ever reach a point of being able to understand God's decisions on that level, WE'D BECOME GOD. Thus, we cannot question anything pertaining to how God works or how God existed etc.. For if we ever come to understand the entirety of the answers that God will give us, we will become God. And that'll never happen. Why? Because we are finite beings. God is INFINITE. We can never understand Him FULLY. Our limited and finite brains cannot comprehend things that TRANSCENDS our realm of understanding.
God so chooses to reveal Himself and aspects of His character through His Word and Holy Spirit. So the Bible sums it up in Isaiah 55:8-9 "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.' declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." And we know we can still trust in God because it is stated in Jeremiah 29:11 " 'For I know the plans i have for you' declares the Lord 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.'
So to question God's actions is not the solution to the problem. Men still chose to disobey - the first act of sin. So God did not create evil.

Atheist: "Again, you're positing a God that exists in the gaps. .... While I may not know how a specific molecule came about, I can rest easy in the comfort that somebody is out there working on that same problem, and I'll be able to read scads of masters' theses on the topic by the end of the year. The problem with intelligent design is that it leaps about from one scientific mystery to the next under the auspices of 'irreducible complexity', but never sticks around long enough after enough natural causes have been proposed to invalidate supernatural authorship. " "God exists in the GAPS".

Me: My friend these so called "GAPS" are the very reason why science is even established. Science assumes that all matter, time and space came into existence OUT OF NOTHING. And with that BASIS, goes on to form "theories" such as "Big Bang", your favourite "Oscillating theory" etc...Science has ignored the basis of all these beginnings! And you call these GAPS! My gosh. If all these irreducible complexity can be explained, it'll give me 50% more reason to become an atheist. "enough natural causes have been proposed to invalidate supernatural authorship" All these natural causes that are proposed are also BASED on the ASSUMPTION OF SCIENCE that "all matter, time and space came into existence OUT OF NOTHING". "Where? How does the absence of evidence prove a deity? See, this is another problem with intelligent design theory: the bold, inductive assertation that there is deistic creation leads only to something science doesn't understand yet, and ignores contrary data once it comes out. Again, you're in 'God of the gaps' territory here." "and ignores contrary data once it comes out" - has there been any contrary data? The Bible has never run contrary to any scientific theory and neither has the intelligent design theory.

Atheist: Once again, some bright astrophysicist will submit a peer-reviewed paper talking about the alternate reality or the extra dimension that that electron comes from, and you'll say, "But that alternate reality has to be CREATED!" So, science will march on, posting more papers, and God will continue fleeing from established scientific theory."

Me: Yes, science will march on - for infinity. Science will never reach a point where the question of existence and origin (of matter, time, space, etc.) can be explained. Why? Because it will take something far more complicated to create what already exists (e.g. matter). And the 'alternate reality' will get more complicated. And to explain the current alternate reality, it would take an even more complicated alternate reality to create the first alternate reality! And this will also result in an infinite number of alternate realities! So i don't think God needs to flee from scientific theory! For it is not even a threat! So give up waiting and hoping on science.

Atheist: "Science can neither prove or disprove God. It's a matter of faith: your lack of evidence and your proposal of God's intervention at every mysterious physical phenomena doesn't prove God any more than it proves Galactus. You're again using imprecise wording with your 'who' questions that presuppose a creator, and you misunderstand that the laws of physics only represent how things work in this universe AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM AT THE PRESENT TIME. Science allows for being turned on its ear and following down that new road to something that more accurately describes the universe. Religion does not." How does religion not describe the universe? Of course religion won't accurately describe the universe as accurately as a science textbook does. Because its focus is not to talk about science! It's focus is to tell us how to live our lives best in light of eternity. And your claim 'at the present time' - The time will never come when science explains everything. As i already explained earlier. "your lack of evidence and your proposal of God's intervention at every mysterious physical phenomena doesn't prove God any more than it proves Galactus."

Me: Once again, science can't prove all these mysterious phenomena at all! For science "assumes that all matter, time and space came into existence OUT OF NOTHING." Your conclusion is also apt "Science can neither prove or disprove God" Since science can't answer the question of existence and origin, what then is the answer?
So what's the next most REASONABLE CONCLUSION to DERIVE AT? There is a creator. If you still disagree that there is a creator, i really have nothing to say. It either shows that you're a closed-minded and stubborn atheist, you have failed to understand whatever i have explained, or some parts of what i have explained is flawed. I'm leaning toward the former 2 reasons IF you still disagree that a creator is the most SOUND, LOGICAL and REASONABLE conclusion for life. For science can't defend your atheistic stand as well. What then are you explaining your atheistic stand with since you also can't answer the question of existence and origin?
So yup. I've really learnt alot about science and other stuff from you. It has been great taking time off to discuss such issues with an intellectual guy such as you. :) May I know your name? I'm Jonavan. :D Look forward your reply(ies) :D