Negative Feedback

Here are a few samples of negative feedback this site has received, and the responses to them. Some have been sent via email, and some have occurred in various discussion forums.

I only include these rebuttals to expose the objections for their foolishness, and not to engage in argumentation with those who cannot account for the ‘logic’ they use in their objections.

Stop trying to force an answer. Your entire site is like an inquisition that asks “Have you stopped beating your wife? YES OR NO! NOTHING IN BETWEEN!”

~ A.A.

The questions assume nothing. Absolute truth does not exist – true/false, is like: You do not beat your wife – true/false.

I hate that Zeus damn argument that the claim “There are no absolutes” is an absolute truth. It’s not a *censored* absolute truth, it is the absence of an absolute truth. Just as cold is the absence of heat, “there are no absolute truths” is the absence of an absolute truth.

~ D.J.K.

Is it absolutely true that “There are no absolutes,” is the absence of an absolute truth?”

Absolute truth doesn’t exist. Truth exists on a scale.

~ T.Y.

Is it absolutely true that truth exists on a scale?

If we did not assume what you call the uniformity of nature, we should not be able to do anything.

~ C.B.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSS this is EXACTLY my point. You assume the uniformity of nature but cannot account for it. You can only ‘do anything’ because God makes nature uniform, yet you deny Him.

Are morals absolute? So is cutting open a living person moral or immoral? Then I suppose all surgeries condemn the surgeon to hell. Or wait… do circumstances render that judgment? Hm.

~ E.A.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your assessment of moral absolutes. Ambiguous questions indeed do not have a morally absolute answer. Just ‘cutting open a live person’ is far too ambiguous to make an absolute moral judgment. I would say though that cutting open a live person for the SOLE intention of doing them harm would be an absolute moral wrong – wouldn’t you?

1Co1:27 (CEV): But God chose the foolish things of this world to put the wise to shame. …
1Co1:28 (CEV): What the world thinks is worthless, useless, …

The things of the world… perhaps things like science? Science is investigation of the world. Is it not? What would Paul think of science? Well, he would think it foolishness. Would he not? This is the impression I got when I read through Paul’s writings.

~ M.S.

If Paul were confronted with logic, science, and mathematics, I’m sure he would say they are all from God, or reflect God’s character. The world’s foolishness is trying to account for these things APART from God. We use the foolishness of how the world accounts for these laws, to put the ‘wise’ to shame (no doubt, ‘wise’ is meant in a mocking tone here). What ‘the world’ thinks about universal, immaterial, unchanging laws is indeed worthless, useless, and foolish.
The wisdom of this world is the foundation of science



I hope you can see now how we differ on this. All of science is based on ‘induction,’ basically stated that ‘the future will be like the past.’ Induction cannot be accounted for apart from God. To say “The future will be like the past, because it has always been like that in the past,” is entirely circular.

If you don’t believe me when I say that I don’t believe in god, then how do I get from point A to point B? In other words, according to a presuppositional apologetic, there is no bridge between unbelief and belief, because the unbelief position doesn’t exist. This is what I mean by when I say it’s arbitrary: I just look at you and shrug my shoulders because I don’t know what you’re talking about and this apologetic is meaningless to me because you don’t even think I’m an atheist.

~ M.S.


We differ on what point A and point B are. Point A is not unbelief; it is ‘suppression of the truth.’ Point B is ‘confession of the truth.’ Only God can open your eyes so that you can freely (yes freely) choose point B.

I find it quite puzzling when I hear theists attacking human reasoning. It’s weird because they try to reason against human reasoning, thereby presupposing it. So, if you were to try to convince me that human reasoning is limited, wouldn’t you need to apply human reasoning? In other words, by what other method are you going to communicate an idea?



Human reasoning is a gift from God. It is reliable because God has made it so. I in no way discount human reasoning. I however, can account for it.

You used the example of 2+2=4

Not always

-20 = -20 (Starting equation)
16 – 36 = 25 – 45 (rename them)
16 – 36 + (81/4) = 25 – 45 + (81/4) (add a perfect square to both sides)
(4 – [9/2])^2 = (5 – [9/2])^2 (rewrite them as binomials squared)
(4 – [9/2]) = (5 – [9/2]) (Take square root of both sides)
4 = 5 (add 9/2 to both sides)
2 + 2 = 5

Where is your God now?


Tell you what, next time you order 2 +2 tires for your car, and the dealership puts this equation on your bill so they can charge you for 5 tires, if you actually pay for 5, then we’ll talk.

People who think they know all the answers…don’t even understand the questions.
~ G.T.

Is this something you are claiming to know as universally true?

So you’re saying that:

A: There are universal laws.
B: There must be some cause or creator for these laws.
So C: There is a creator…namely God.
But let’s change that up.
A: There is a God.
B: He has always been and will always be. He is without cause.
So C: Things can exist without cause.
So we end up with:
A: There are universal laws.
B: There need not be a reason or cause for them.
So C: There need not be a God.
~ D.C.

Actually D.C., it is not a causality argument. The argument is that you can only make sense, even of causality, if God exists. So, your explanation for universal laws then is that since God did not require a cause, then universal laws do not require a cause? I guess that means you believe in God then?

The best way to limit the ability to learn ANYTHING is to say you know SOMETHING.
~ R.M.

And how do you know that the best way to limit the ability to learn anything is to say you know something, or do you even know this?

Religious bigotry is not the truth.
~ A.N.

Is it true that religious bigotry is not the truth? I would agree with you, since I have an objective view on what truth is. What is your justification for claiming that religious bigotry is not the truth?

Actually 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. In base 3 it equals 11, in base 4 it equals 10. So your claim that mathematical laws are universal is invalid.
~ A.F.

Is it universally true that in base 3, 2 + 2 equals 11? Is it universally true that in base 4, 2 + 2 = 10? Is it universally true that in base 10, 2 + 2 = 4?

I am a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim.

Then you don’t understand any of them because they ALL claim exclusivity. You can say that there are many ways to God, but this is not what the Christian worldview claims. Indeed there are many ways to fictitious ‘gods’ but only one way to the one true God of Christianity. Truth is not arbitrary. If something is true, the contrary necessarily has to be false.

Not true. You’re still outside looking in. Many great spiritual teachers used the holy documents of multiple religions. They could effortlessly find the essences of Truth in all of them. They were looking for the similarities, not the differences in which the truth was clad. To not recognize all true religions as valid, you do not understand the infinite capabilities of the Creator. Until you realize that God has a path for each of his children, whether or not they ever heard any particular earthly name, you are a spiritual cripple. As are all unenlightened followers who claim exclusivity to His attention.
~ G.Z.

Hmmm let me see if I get this right…You are right and I am wrong. Sounds rather exclusive to me wouldn’t you say?

What makes this so hard for some folks to understand, me included, is that people seem to be either unwilling or unable to see a difference between “facts” and “beliefs”.

We all have beliefs that we want to be true. But when you insist that YOUR beliefs are fact and other folks beliefs are not, the presentation of your particular belief suffers.

Perhaps if you said “Here are my beliefs and here is why I believe this way” people would be more interested in hearing your point of view. It turns some of us off immediately when you present your beliefs as absolute truth.
~ G.T.

And if your bank teller gave you $10 when you asked for change for a hundred, saying “Here is my belief, I believe that the correct change for $100 is $10,” you would be fine with that? I believe in absolute truth. You are free to disagree, but you can’t live that way and be consistent with your belief.

The standard of morality is what I expect from people of great power, i.e. with great power comes great responsibility.
~ A.A.

Where do you get your standard of morality from – Spiderman?