William Lane Craig vs Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?", Birmingham University, October 2011 

Aristotle's prime mover isn't the God of Aquinas, since the world of Aristotle is eternal and uncreated. Aristotle took movement to be a problem that required explanation by something else that is stationary. He took rest as something that is primary, or requires no explanation. Newton told us that an object in motion will stay in motion, and did not use teleological explanations, so in Newtonian mechanics motion does not require a telos (prime mover). Aristotle's prime mover is modeled after the insight that people remain at rest unless there is a purpose for their movement. Remember, since both of them are eternal, Aristotle's prime mover did not exist before the world: both of them always existed; the prime mover's entire role in Aristotelian metaphysics is to act as a teleological cause for movement. So Aristotle tells us that there are three types of beings: 1) beings that move and perish (e.g., animals); 2) Beings that move but don't perish (he thought planets never perished; 3) Beings that don't move nor perish and thus everything else moves towards or for it.

@@AhmedMohamedFarrag God and Aristotle's unchangeable changer are like each other if God isn't Aristotle's unchangeable changer. I say "unchangeable changer" because in the Aristotelian-Thomisitc sense, movement is any change. Classical theists believe God can't undergo any change. They even think the universe still needs a cause,, even if it has always existed. That's why I use some poor analogies to clarify what I mean. First, suppose I keep three potted carnivorous plants on a tray where water always flows. They'll die if the water goes away forever. The water sustains them, and they can't live without it. So, in the analogy, the water represents what makes them exist. Imagine a Christmas-light string. They lights will shine when electricity flows from the electrical outlet to each bulb, assuming that each bulb will work. each bulb will go out when there's a power outage. The electricity stands for existence God gives each creature. If God stops sustaining anyone or anything he creates, that will annihilate that creature. Since he creates from nothing, each creature needs him to keep it existing. God creates to make an object begin to exist and while it survives. Just as the Christmas lights will go out when you unplug them, anything that gets "unplugged" from God will stop existing. God always creates whether he makes something begin to exist, keeps the creature existing, or enables that creature to do anything it can do. God stopped creating new creatures on creation day seven. But he still paid attention to them because to keep them existing. He's paying attention to you keep you alive.

@@williammcenaney1331 I get you. Islamic theologians also had this conception of God being the sustainer of existence. Al Qayyum, or the sustainer, is one of God's names in Islam.

@@AhmedMohamedFarrag That's good news. St. Thomas Aquinas sometimes agrees with what some Islamic Aeistotelians teach about classical theism. So they disagree with Dr. Craig's theistic personalism. I know Dr. Craig doesn't like the phrase "theistic personalism." I don't enjoy being labeled an idolator when some people hear I'm. a Catholic. But I don't need to let their false opinions hurt my feelings.

Contrast this respectful debate with the sneering arrogant attitude of Dawkins and Hitchens etc

Such a pity Millican was uncomfortable in the format. Craig is an old hand and somewhat glib in it, offering pitiful ad hoc arguments to justify the inconsistencies in the gospels, the 13.4 billion years before man, our poor ability to know God etc. Millican raised all the right points but not forthrightly enough and Craig slips through again.

I haven't watched this yet, but I came here because I saw Millican in another short clip and was impressed with his diction and clarity. So, I'm going to watch this avidly. I agree about Hitchens and Dawkins. But let's not forget the true king of the triggered trolls, Krauss.

​@@bluegtturboYou really putting the two clowns above, to the superior intellect of Hitchens and and Dawkins?😂😂😂😂.

​@@bluegtturbo sneering? those men are more humble than you would ever be armed w/ their fierce intellect

both played well

Very nice summary indeed.

It's not football. LOL. Anyone who thinks the cosmological argument has any merit has very little understanding about how logic works.

Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.

Yah same. Millican’s initial presentation was fantastic but I felt he unraveled as the debate went on, felt more disorganized, didn’t reply to points as effectively as Craig did. To be fair at this point Craig is basically on autopilot though.

An argument doesn't carry more weight simply because the arguer is more agreeable to you. You should examine the arguments independent of the speaker. I haven't completed this debate yet but I'm skeptical of your claim here. **After watching the video, I still don't see what it is you're referring to. Maybe you're referring to Craig pressing for responses? I can't see it.**

@@rubenmborgesmusic You missed the point of the OP. Not in and of itself, but being more agreeable means they aren't resorting to slander or ad hominem attacks, so it indirectly does carry more weight.

Does it work both ways? I've seen plenty of rudeness and ad hom on WLC's part over the years.

Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.

@@osmosis321can you link or point me towards a couple of those instances? I haven’t seen all of his debates but I’ve never seen WLC be rude, and certainly can’t recall an ad hominem attack, ever.

wow I have never seen an atheist compliment WLC

@@ceceroxy2227 haha, well he is respectful and that's important to me. Not all atheists are angry 😉

This IS a rarity. Most atheist commenters online seem to accuse Craig of all sorts of misdeeds and ignore his arguments.

Craig has never 'nailed' any debate ever.... the repetition of insipid arguments for a delusional proposition only impresses. foolish people who are predisposed to agree with him in the first place.

Kop Prophet talk from the back.. the repetition of his “insipid” arguments is due to the fact they haven’t been properly refuted/challenged/debunked. Why change a winning formula? Don’t bother with your personal views on him.

Craig is absolute genius, just a brilliant speaker, so quick on his feet, he just obliterates all his opponents.

@@adamadams7314 that makes it worse, people know his arguments and have time to plan for them and they all still get whooped.

@@kopprophet3819 It's okay Mate, you can email me. we can talk about your butthurtness thru Starbucks or Tim hortons maybe.

Simple, how can the universe be so well turned? perfectly balanced? Can you explain that with no God? How does the moon perfectly fit in the sun when an eclipse if both are very distant from earth? Coincidence?

@@misovejasescuchanmivoz ever heard about "The puddle analogy" by Douglas Adams? Take a closer look and you might come around with a different idea!

@@vtblda I just did, that analogy doesn't explain why everything is fine tuned, it is just an analogy with no real science or explanation. How does everything stay in perfect balance?

@@vtblda The water stays in the puddle because there is an unchangeable law called gravity law, that functions in perfect balance with all other laws required for the water to stay there, like time and space, among million of molecular laws working in perfect harmony to maintain the water in the puddle, all those laws function in perfect balance with no human intervention, to think that all those laws were randomly made or that they are just a coincidence is non sense.

@@misovejasescuchanmivoz It is a thought experiment! Puddles don't think! Come on, You're not trying to lecture me in physics and chemistry, are you?

How did he refute it ? Dum it down for me?

I think Craig would make almost anyone in the world feel stupid

God loves you! Not here to debate, check this out IF you’re seeking truth! *Christianity Evidence for you to look into. I’m confident in the cumulative evidence that I believe anyone seeking truth with their bias aside will see the overwhelming evidence for Christianity after checking out the things below. Evidence: Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. The sophisticated complicated language of DNA. The origins of life. Think about how things like purpose and love seem like they actually matter rather than being strictly chemical reactions. Look into the law and order of the known universe. The only reason we can even do science the way we do is on the assumption the universe has order. Look into Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, Watch near death experiences where people see Jesus or heaven and hell (especially from former atheists), look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, look into the science stated in the Bible before humans discovered it. Look into the archeological evidence for Christianity. Look into the laws of logic especially cause and effect and how that would point to a creator along with many other things. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic, you shouldn’t just trust me on the matter. You should seek the truth yourself. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” Debate or discussion links: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bhfkhq-CM84.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0tYm41hb48o.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eOfVBqGPwi0.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aC9tKeJCJtM.html Apologetics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_7QyW9EcCRQ.html Faith is reasonable here’s why.^ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-67uj2qvQi_k.html

Brother if you read the bible it becomes clear that jesus identified himself as god. He is the second Person of the triune god.

@@derschokokuchen9410 I have read the Bible. Jesus made it clear that he worships the God of the Jews (John 20:17), and does not know everything God knows (Matthew 24:36) or have the authority God has (Matthew 20:23; John 14:28). Can you name any place in the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God (or equal to God)?

1. John 10:30 “The Father and I are one.” John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.“ Colossians 2:9-10 “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.“ John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.“ John 8:57-58 “The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!” There are planty more my friend. It's called christianity for a reason. John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.“

@@derschokokuchen9410 The Bible also says husbands and wives are "one flesh", and Jesus prayed that his disciples could be "one" _just as_ he and the Father are one (John 17:11). The fact that no one has seen God is further proof that Jesus isn't God (people did see Jesus). But of course Jesus is the unique revelation of God and we cannot come to know God apart from Christ. Amen! That still doesn't make them equals. The fullness of the divine quality does dwell in him, but why? The previous chapter (1:19) says it is because the Father was pleased to make it so. John 1:1 does not say "and the Word was God" in the original text. If it did, the sentence would be a self-contradiction, as Dan Wallace (a Trinitarian and expert in NT Greek) has acknowledged. You can't be "with" yourself. Fortunately, that's not what the sentence says. And yes, of course Jesus existed before Abraham. Lol. He existed before the world was! (I am a Christian, by the way, and accept everything the Bible actually says about him). Jesus made his claim very clear at Matthew 16. He asked the disciples who they say he is, and they said "you are the Christ (which means the one anointed by God) the Son of the living God". Jesus said that was correct. So, that's what we ought to think.

So just to be clear: jesus is the second person of the trinitarian god. All the three persons of god (father,son,holy spirit) are all fully god and fully equal.

So who created God?

@pennytopfield5713 Well nothing must be impossible.

We observe that material things need a cause, and math demonstrates that an infinite regression of time is impossible, ergo whatever created the universe itself is immaterial, uncaused, and timeless: this we label God.

VitalSigns1 I've watched this debate twice, and paid very close attention. I like Millican (especially his demeanor and good manners). But consider what I mentioned in my initial post. He said he wouldn't make it a matter of all the other gods there are, and then immediately turned around and did just that. His rebuttals to the cosmological and teleological arguments were textbook arguments from ignorance and mystery. It's all "we just can't know yet". Craig is arguing from what we *do* know, to the conclusion that the most reasonable position given our current knowledge is theism. Millican just appealed to our current ignorance. No, I think that, along with Wolpert, Law, and Enqvist, Peter Millican is among the least formidable of Craig's opponents.

VitalSigns1 Let's try this another way. Please summarize for me the parts of Millican's rebuttal to the Kalaam that don't boil down to an argument from ignorance or mystery.

VitalSigns1 1) Causation isn't defined as requiring physicality. Even a totally non-physical world could be described causally. So this appeal to our experience is gratuitous and irrelevant. 2) Read David Albert's review of Krauss' book. It is sensationalist nonsense to say that anything ever comes from nothing at all in QM. The quantum vacuum is far from "nothing", as Craig specifically pointed out in this debate. 3) Craig is not reasoning from "every part of the Universe has a cause" to "therefore the Universe itself does". Craig addressed this as well. 4) God only causes at the first moment IN time. These are all really weak objections, and Craig responded to all of them. When I said that Millican's case "comes down to" appeals to ignorance and mystery, what I mean si that after Craig easily rebutted these weak objections (just as I have done), Millican was left saying very little more than "we just don't know enough yet". That was all it boiled down to, especially in the q-and-a.

VitalSigns1 Fair enough.

"He recognizes that he's committing the Genetic Fallacy, but then basically commits it anyway!" No, he recognizes what the genetic fallacy is, and said that isn't what he was committing. He made that perfectly clear. At no point did he say belief in god was false because of the way people came to it, only that the way people come to belief in god is unreliable.

What debate were you watching? Dr. Craig clearly won this debate.

Millican clearly won.

@@AHouston06 I think Millican has better points generally but I do agree that Craig did a better debate.

Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.

Craig won hands down.

But only one side wants my money and threatens me with eternal suffering.

@@FlencerMcflensington 🤣

@@FlencerMcflensington But only one side offers you nihilism and no grounds for objective morals...Either way, Craig wants your money? Seriously? Threathens you with eternal suffering? No, he simply showed how you already ARE in threat of eternal suffering because of YOUR moral failures. After all, it is YOUR fault, not something made up about you. And even so, God has graciously offered a way to evade that suffering for FREE.

NaVi ' wouldn’t surprise me if they cared more about the money than morality.

@@FlencerMcflensington They don't need your money bruh, you need that to have a better hairstyle.

A child could outdo Craig

really ? like 1 years ago?

@@Henok-qn6nc 13 years ago, yes.

if you watch other WLC debates, you'd see that you should've thanked Millican for that instead of Craig. btw it was painfully clear that Millican was struggling at the end to say something accurate.

Peterson is an apologist for materialist theist supremacism. His brilliant transpersonal psychology breaks down at the abusive powerholders usurping Jesus Christ´s legacy in hypocrisy and worse. "Terror" is an emotion that fails in contexts like WWII when conservative isolationist businesspeople opposed FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel pro-social New Deal experimentation, his pro-religious, pro-spiritual speaking. Roosevelt´s readiness to act involved his achieving Lend/Lease and more. His actions weren´t based on "terror," but insightful proactivity suspiciously traceable to his education in the Social Gospel of Jesus Christ, who taught the parable of the Good Samaritan along with 2 loving commandments for Moses and God. The Good Samaritan took loving action, and showed the experience of being loved.

God did not create a world of suffering. Humans brought that into the world.

@@TheBradleyd1146 I suggest that you are avoiding the truth of the matter, that all forms of life suffer, and would even if humans did not exist. Who, other than the god can you blame for "that" suffering? You can't blame "that" suffering on a devil ... can you? If you are not honest in these matters with your self, you certainly won't be able to be honest with others.

This is your argument for disbelieving in God? LOL

@@angelojuat4754 If you refused to believe in the existence of a god, do you believe that the god would have a righteous right to punish your soul for eternity? "Yes," or, "No?"

A Wicked statement

It is a well established fact that the vast majority of animals lack self awareness, so I'm not sure why you are acting shocked when Craig repeats this well established fact.

@@jackplumbridge2704 How are you defining “self-awareness”? Have you ever watched pigs scream when being gassed by factory farm deathhouses, or have you ever watched a mother cow break a fence and run after its calf in desperation? What *exactly* do you mean by “self-awareness”?

@@TheEternalOuroboros self awareness means exactly what it says, being aware of the self. Why you think animals reacting to pain is supposed to conflict with them not having self awareness I don't know. It seems you haven't spent anytime thinking about this issue. Lacking self awareness in no way shape or form entails a lack of reaction. Even unconscious beings, like white blood cells, react to their environment. Reacting to stimuli says nothing about whether the entity is self aware.

@@jackplumbridge2704 It’s fair to suppose some animals have degrees of self-awareness over others, including the capacity for pain (though it’s notoriously challenging to analyse another conscious being’s phenomenology). What disturbed me about WLC’s statement is how sweeping it is coming from a respected academic. It’s intuitively obvious that (at the very least) *some* animals are certainly aware of being in pain as much as they are self-aware - thus to assert that *no* animals do is beyond absurd. This is my concern.

sorry but the "impossible" isn't required to demonstrate it unless it's a claim, if you say there is a god, you have to demonstrate it to me, i don't have to do anything at all. demonstrate there is a god, cos a) there is no free will b) dead people stay dead c) all loving gods can't drown babies, which pretty much clears up that the christian god is a myth.

@@HarryNicNicholas If someone claims that there is no God, then they should back that claim up, just like the person who claims there is a God should back it up. You did the right thing by listing reasons. I disagree with those 3 points, but at least you offered arguments. In any case, the 8-year-old comment your responding to wasn't about the burden for theists or atheists, just whether being open to things carries a burden of proof (like, if I'm open to the existence of aliens, but don't say for sure one way or the other, why would I have a burden of proof just to be open?).

the ontological argument has been done to death. it's useless.

The ontological argument is kind of dishonest and useless

​@@HarryNicNicholasI think the modal ontological argument is a very good argument. In fact, it is my favourite argument for God's existence.

Usually what i’m left with arguments like this is: then, what is the explanation or framework you propose? Its rather easy to come up with objections, but it requires so much more to devise a proper answer or solution. At the end i’m sympathetic to the position of the radical sceptic since not believing in anything is easier on the short term but is unsustainable in the long run… Beginning of something physical come from a preexistence inside the confines of the mind, this we experience every time we see something made by humans. Before they where a “thing” they were ideas in someones mind, then that mind came in contact with the created world and gave birth to the object. To assume that this is the same process by which the “universe” came to be is logical. But logically it cannot be accepted by someone that discounts the existence of a mind previous to the existence of the universe. Granted, maybe you wont believe in “God”, but perhaps you are open to believe that consciousness is a phenomena previous to the material world. However, if you believe that consciousness requires that the physical world exists first then this explanation is imposible. Maybe we should be open to other explanations when we can’t provide our own, however, usually atheist can’t provide a probable cause but just and absolute impossibility.

@@fobos9289 Then I suppose you'll be disappointed when I issue what I consider the only honest answer anyone can give regarding where everything came from: I don't know, and anyone who says they do is selling something. It seems to me that a disembodied mind is not a good candidate explanation, as minds are emergent properties of brains. One might say "but those are the rules within this universe, not outside it" and sure, that's technically correct. But when you start speculating about things that don't follow any rules we've ever known, all bets are off, and you have no way of checking if you're right.

@@osmosis321 the error of your answer lies in the supposition that your lack of knowledge of God transfers to a lack of knowledge in others. We give explanations to our experiences by natural means, we don’t receive experiences by our explanations. So, the honest answer is, I don’t know the intricacies of God, He is way bigger than my understanding and I’m not trying to sell you what you don’t want I’m just trying to show you what you can’t see. You can’t prove to me that you experience thought and yet I believe you can think, however I understand that you can’t comprehend what you haven’t experience and tend, as all human beings to think your experience is similar (if not equal to others). It ain’t so. You would want to have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe if you where rational and logical. You would test it out and try to prove it on your own but your pride hinders you from such knowledge. So, I accept you don’t know but I would suggest to you that you have No evidence other people don’t know as well. Because you’ve never been to Japan doesn’t mean Japan does not exist, it is just outside of the purview of your experience. Look deeper and humbly and you may find it. At least if you truly want to the know the Truth you would pursuit it, however, if you don’t want to know you won’t be oblige to since we are given free will and God does not violate the sanctity of our individuality and sovereignty. But maybe you’ll say, whatever man, you are delusional… and I would reply that you don’t have any facts to say that, just speculation and speculation will grant you no experience and doubt will only give you the confort given by ignorance. Don’t be antiscientific. Test it yourself and stop the empty rhetorics they are just words with no experience. Live! God bless you and give you knowledge of His existence, amen, amen, aleluya!

@@fobos9289 Well that certainly was a lot of words, but without evidence that's all it is - empty words. I'd like to see some of this evidence.

@@osmosis321 you don’t want evidence. Maybe to be catered to, but no, you don’t want evidence. Truth doesn’t need to be approved by you to be true, but you can live without truth as long as it doesn’t prove fatal. Stop doubting and search for the truth, you have enough intelligence to do it but perhaps lack the will power to pursue such endeavor. Doubt is not a good way to lead life since it has no purpose or goal, but curiosity can lead many places and honesty can help to see and accept what is unknown to one experience. But this can’t be done for you. Gotta be done by you. Stop being lazy. At least say something… God loves you, but He wont cater to you. God bless!

And wrong

@@oldtimeycabins sounds like coping.

Perus Saataja Why not take the examples from the OT where YHWH commands his "chosen" guys to murder other people, winning the war, brainwashing all believers that these wars were a good thing? Craig is one of them, having actually defended the atrocities including the murder of children and babies.

John Doe I think you know Craig has addressed that question as have many Christian philosophers with differing answers.

Perus Saataja Yes, by defending it. Precisely like a Nazi would defend the holocaust. By seeing these murders and calls to murder for what they are, any non-believer would be more moral by the believer's own ridiculous "objective morality". Now that is irony.

John Doe Hi, assume you mean Craig defended it, not all Christian philosophers. In case you are interested, Randal Rauser (systematic and analytic theologian) has 11 part critique on his website about Craig´s position on this.

Perus Saataja _Hello! I'm not... writings_ Damn, I was certain when I've just read your comment that I must have responded to it already, but I see I haven't. And yes, he uses that example often. It doesn't shed much light into the issue though. Because he always leaves white space in the map of his view on morality. He gives this example to explain how 'objective' means basically 'unchanging'. Which is hardly sufficient. So, he leaves it up to the audience to fill in that 'good' = 'that which one ought to do' and vice versa. This is a cheap trick. He doesn't show how, on his view, that's what the words 'good' and 'evil' actually mean. On his definition 'good' = "that which corresponds to God's (moral) nature" and vice versa. How does it follow that "God's (moral) nature" is equivalent to "that which one ought to do" ? Especially since he denounces nihilism or acting out of self-interest. I hope I explained myself more clearly now.

Impossible he was Murdered by Hitchens long ago.

Wrong

+Bungalo Bill Plenty of religions have creator gods that are held to have created the universe and everything in it. I don't see why Millican's approach is problematic. The Abrahamic god is just one of many on offer...and creating the universe is just of many things that gods are from time to time said to have done. And atheists can certainly relate what sort of evidence would prove the existence of gods. In terms of the Abrahamic god, a big one is proof of miracles. Another is demonstrating that minds can exist without bodies.

+Paul Marino They will lump all gods together, monotheistic religions and polytheistic. Funny how they often pick limited ones as examples, such as thor. There are several with supreme beings, but most share with other gods or include other gods. The God of Abraham is quite unique in that he is the supreme and only God, of which there are no others. He does not share anything with some other god, the idea of any other god in relation to him is described as a false belief. He is not the ruler over gods, he is the one and only God. Some will argue the Trinity to be polytheistic, but this is not so, there is still only one God of Abraham. Three persons but one God. The Trinity is not three independent parts, but a whole which includes three persons.(Personifications) God will never ask Jesus or The holy Spirit, why did you do such and such. They are always of one mind.

Bungalo Bill Jews do view the trinity as polytheistic. There is some leeway for non-Jews to believe in it (according to some opinions) without being considered idolaters, though. But this aside, the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten advocated a monotheistic religion - and his god wasn't the Abrahamic one. There have been a few monotheistic options. And it has been argued that early Judaism didn't hold that the Biblical YHWH was in fact the only god...though this is certainly debatable.

+Paul Marino Anyone who believes the Trinity to be polytheistic does not understand the Trinity. As Jesus reported that David said.....The Lord said to my Lord. The Jews had no answer for this. As Paul stated...They stumbled over a stumbling block. Psalm 110 verse 1 The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. The Jews believed in one Lord (and they were correct), this verse would have made David's Lord equal to God. No one can be equal to God and not also be the same God.

Having a human being walking around on earth be considered god is idolatrous/polytheistic by Jewish standards. Some of the early Christians, who probably did not even know Hebrew, might not have known this (many/most Jews 2,000 years ago only knew Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew). . Most of today's Christians rely on mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible and also do not know it.

Atheists don't require rationality; they merely require disbelieving in God. In that way they are kind of consistent; once you reject God what reason does one have to be rational?

a) there is no free will b) dead people stay dead c) all loving gods can't drown babies, which pretty much clears up that the christian god is a myth.

More logical for something to pop into being with its cause being the will of a powerful mind. Far more logical than with no cause out of nothing