Mike Licona (Christian) vs. Matt Dillahunty (Atheist

[Luke]

Mike Licona is one of my most favorite apologists.



Matt Dillahunty said what would convince him Jesus is God he has no idea, but that if it is true He is morally responsible to make him believe what would be needed to believe. To me that strikes eerily similar to Calvinism. Whereas in Christianity God gives you sufficient grace to have the free choice so your left without excuse for rejecting the evidence that God so aptly provides.

Take this to the extreme. Let's say there are 1 billion things in the universe. Even if Matt knew all 999,999,999 things as to their cause and effect, he would conceivably still hold out for that one last thing required for him to know if God exists. He is basically saying he has to be God to know if God exists. Obviously Matt doesn't know all things and only God could know all things.

This seems arrogant and lacking any ounce of humility.

Matt Dillahunty is under the false impression he lost his faith. Actually, it was never there to begin with, for we are once-saved-always-saved like John 10.28 says those who are born-again "they shall never perish". Matt was never been born-again so whatever he thought was his faith it lacked the depth to truly be a new creation of God in God's eyes. He was basically living a lie. He was living a lie as false Christian and now living a lie as an Atheist. Satan is the father of lies.

[Luke]

Even when Matt is before Jesus at the Great White Throne, I believe Matt will still reject God because he will contend on some level. Hell is created for just such souls. Perhaps he will reject Jesus because he doesn't like how Jesus created things. Perhaps he can't fathom the Trinity so he will maintain that hostility by that means. I don't think it is problematic that we are not before Jesus right now in order to believe, because I find the evidence overwhelming already beyond a reasonable doubt. Group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.

[Luke]

The importance of Paul is his time spent with Peter, James and John that they all held the same eyewitness testimony and imparted to Paul. Since their lying is not plausible, nor did Paul, what naturalistic explanation is there?

[Luke]

Matt Dillahunty confessed even a severed head reattached a few minutes later would not convince him in the supernatural. Mike Licona responded to him no amount of evidence would convince Matt. His epistemology is screwed up. Thus, I see the need for Hell for Matt.

[Luke]

Mike Licona contacted the American Psychological Association. They told him there are no documented credible accounts of group hallucinations. It seems even silly to have this sort of discussion that the Apostles all hallucinated and not just one time but in 12 different group settings of different individuals present.

Mike said, "In the book put out by the American Psychological Association-Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception-for the last 100 years on hallucinations, they don't have anything on group hallucinations. I contacted the authors and asked why not? They said we could not find any reliable documented sources on group hallucinations. They seem impossible."

Therefore, the resurrection is true, Jesus really is God, and there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved.

Mike said, "In the book it says the group most likely to experience hallucinations are senior adults bereaved of the loss of a loved one. But only 7% of them experience a visual hallucination. In the various groups it would have to be 100% of all individuals involved. Group hallucinations is not a plausible explanation, does not have explanatory power and is ad hoc."

[Luke]

Notice very carefully, Matt said, "I will be open to supernatural explanations the moment somebody defines, describes and identifies the supernatural in such a way that it could be an explanation." In other words, Matt places himself at the center to decide. He is playing God.

it sounds to me why Matt Dillahunty gave up what he thought was the faith is why I would give up the faith too if I had his faith. He emphasizes works. He speaks of constantly struggling in that faith of his. We are not saved by works lest anyone should boast. He never received the free gift of eternal life and forgiveness by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. He was unwilling to die with Christ on the cross to his old man. Because once you do, you place all things on Christ and He bears them for you. It is a peace and comfort that requires no struggle. You're guided daily by the Holy Spirit. If birds have no fear of where they have their next meal, why should we fret?

Matt keeps asking for the explanation. The explanation is given in Christ. To choose a people for Himself who will dwell in the New City and New Earth after the millennial kingdom. It's not required to know the explanation to accept the supernatural since certain things can't happen naturally they must occur supernaturally.

Matt said he doesn't have a god reason for belief. That you are a sinner, sin leads to death and the second death, an eternal separation from God since God can have no fellowship with sin....is this not a good reason to believe God exists? Only God is qualified to pay for sins since He is the Creator of all things then the choice is before us to choose life or not.

[Luke]

I'm sad for Matt but not in a way that you should feel sad for me, because my sadness for Matt is a holy sadness like God sheds a tear for the lost. It is a righteous response and shows God's empathy. Liberated to believe in lies is not liberating at all but a path down a road of lies which is ultimately harmful to you and others. Matt expresses his desire to go to Hell however convoluted it may get.

Matt said he cares about the world, which entails a world predominately atheistic. How is that a good thing? Living in a world where the source of our existence is an eternal regress of ad hoc meaningless cause and effects? It's like saying my mother and father are really just undirected arbitrary natural cause and effects from dust to biology and no caring God. What a terrible world that would be. I guess that is why there are far more charities that are Christian than any other world-view or faith. If atheism was left to its own devices think how much worse this world would be.

Let's not forget that 60 million people died under the atheist Mao, 40 million under the atheist Stalin, and 30 million under the naturalistic kill or be killed Hitler. What a wonderful world this is. If only we could get more Atheist leaders in the world.

[Luke]

I disagree with Leighton Flowers. He is claiming the cross is not absolutely proven. I believe it is, because I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Nor can I find it reasonable that Atheists claim there is an infinite regress of cause and effects or that something in nature can come from nothing. Both these ideas are absurd.

Licona made the point well maybe an evil god caused Jesus to die on the cross in order to present the need for faith in a loving God. True faith is proven faith. This is Gnosticism where an evil god is involved in our creation. But this idea is easily disproven because God cannot have morals below our own. The greater can never be less than the lesser. Since we believe it is wrong to let Jesus die for no valid reason, we cannot say God is evil.