I don't know how different my approach is from other critics of religion and Christianity. But what I do know is that most criticism of Christianity does not stem from an integrated philosophical position of its own. In other words, most criticism, while often providing some worthy insight into Christian doctrine, does nothing to provide an alternative philosophy, nor does it seem to make an effort to infer and keep coming back to a consistent and integrated philosophical position; much of it seems to just take pot shots at Christianity without offering an intelligible alternative in return. That is fundamentally where my approach differs in regard to other critics.

Christianity, as a religion and a worldview, is properly identified as a philosophy, albeit primitive in nature. Objectivism is also a philosophy, however this philosophy differs radically from any other brand of philosophy on the intellectual market today, Christianity included, in that it begins with fundamental essentials. Basically, Objectivism begins - not with stories, fables, metaphors and cartoon-like accounts from which one must draw principles and understanding of the world - but by naming primaries, existence, identity and consciousness. Christianity certainly does not take this approach, nor does any other philosophy, old or new, take this approach to its formation that I am aware of. Because of this, Objectivism offers a clean approach to cognition in general, and philosophic detection in particular, with regards to the present discussion. By identifying primaries and isolating essentials, there is no philosophical doctrine outside the scope of objective philosophical review. This review is the task I put Christianity under. I see that such primitive philosophy, in spite of its revival in America and other countries today, fails miserably in its task to offer man a workable view of the universe, reality and man's life. This is what I intend to expose.

I think the answer to your question is contained therein. You asked if modern Christian philosophy addresses these issues. Certainly, riding on the benefits of modern philosophers, many theologians have gone back to their religious principles and re-interpreted, renovated and reinvigorated them with modern terminology and modern philosophical organization. Basically, Christian theology has undergone a tremendous transformation since the days of its original founding in the first century. The task of the modern Christian theologian is literally to retrofit its primitive doctrines in light of modern advancements in philosophy, science, etc. These advancements, regardless of the theologian's efforts to smuggle them, were not original to Christianity. That's the word I'm looking for - smuggled. These ideas have been smuggled into Christian doctrines. Thus we witness one of the most disingenuous examples of intellectual fraud man has ever known.

An excellent question, and one that is actually quite easy to answer, if you just take an objective approach to the matter. Christian doctrine, as you know, is not at all cleanly and succinctly packaged. On the contrary, Christian principles must be inferred - often by the seat of one's epistemological pants and quite often with great disagreements among its adherents - from a contorted hodgepodge of loosely related stories, narratives, anecdotes, poetry, allegories, histories, sermons, war campaigns, genealogies, letters, prognostications, ordinances inordinately preoccupied with foreskins, etc. Basically, except in a few places, such as the book of Proverbs, the Bible does little to state its principles explicitly, and gives even less effort to actually defining its terms. This last matter is very serious when it comes to a philosophy. The lack of definition spells death to a philosophy, especially one that purports such importance to man as Christianity. Without clear definition of key essentials, such as reality, truth, life, morality, justice, knowledge, etc., without explicitly isolating the essential issues that are necessary to informing a philosophy, and without consistent emphasis to integrate its principles and doctrines into a cohesive whole, the only possible result is a series of vague approximations layered on top of one another.

Notice that many apologists these days are keen to reference their favorite theologians and intellectuals over biblical personalities. If biblical doctrine were sufficient to stand on its own, these theologians and intellectuals would be completely superfluous. Yet, since biblical doctrine suffers from a serious lack of principle, these theologians and intellectuals have their work cut out for them. Remember, there is a living in it for these folx.

Another good question. Many people today will say that men need something to believe - something to believe in. I disagree completely. Essentially speaking, we have everything we need right in front of us - reality. It's not a belief that I think people are looking for; on the contrary, most people you find today are hungry for principle, principle which will help enable them to deal with the immediate particulars of reality as well as their long-term goals, needs and desires. The tendency to focus on what men should believe rather than what principles are suitable to their existence as living beings capable of rationality is in essence a grand misidentification of man's needs, a misidentification perpetuated by the influence of Christianity. The success of this influence is due to the fact that most people do not question the primacy of consciousness basis of their outlook on reality, the view that reality is ultimately controlled by some conscious 'force' - either God, demons, angels, karma, star charts, crystals, etc., and that man's primary obligation in life is to seek out that 'force' - not in order to identify it and understand it - but to obey it and please it.

This same essential error - the acceptance of the primacy of consciousness view of reality - is the underlying factor responsible for the success of such entertainment as Star Wars. Star Wars does not offer an explicitly Christian view - in fact, it is fundamentally secular in orientation. However, such films are popular because they affirm the primacy of consciousness view of reality most people have accepted - but have not identified. In fact, Star Wars is especially successful also because it attempts to show man as a heroic being - which is an essential component to American heritage philosophy - even though that heroism is undercut by the primacy of consciousness view of reality at its foundation, which reduces any heroic act of man to a mere cog in the wheel of the ruling consciousness' divine plan. Most people, however, are not in the habit of identifying such philosophical issues and therefore do not recognize this contradiction. Incidentally, it is the acceptance of the primacy of consciousness view that accounts for the success of competing religions, such as Islam, Bahai' faith, New Age and Scientology, and eastern philosophy.

Arguments? Arguments for what? That's just the thing, the "presuppositional method" - if you will - is basically a device for deepening confusion. Once one recognizes the essentials underlying this particular avenue of apologetics, he will realize that 'presuppositionalism' is not legitimate argumentation at all, but a ruse, an evasion. Contrary to traditional, or 'evidentialist', apologetics - which is involved with constructing arguments that conclude with the establishment of God's existence, presuppositionalist, or 'transcendentalist', apologetics attempts the exact reverse. You cannot establish a conclusion when it's built into the argument's premises, that's called begging the question. It's a presumptive error. Yet this is precisely what presuppositionalism is: it's a set of arguments that attempt to convince non-Christians - or, more accurately, non-Presbyterians or what have you - that the Christian God exists because, they argue, he is 'presupposed' by all rational thought. So, basically, such apologists are admitting that they start with the presumption that God exists, and from this position they begin to construct their arguments that he exists. However, as we know, basic axioms - or, in their terminology, 'ultimate presuppositions' - are not conclusions to prior reasoning, they are the foundation of all reasoning, they are the prior premises, they are the starting point, and as such cannot be conclusions per se.

Recognizing this, the presuppositionalist then turns his efforts to validating his belief in God as his starting point - indeed, as the only valid, rational, functional starting point - through a contorted mess of neo-Kantian non sequiturs, borrowed terminology, unsupported and untenable assertions, and a farrago of other internal errors which often these folx themselves are not aware they commit. And in the end, what they're arguing for is completely arbitrary anyway since they evade the essential, fundamental issue of rational philosophy - the primacy of existence versus the primacy of consciousness - and err on the side of metaphysical subjectivism, the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness.

I've talked to several atheistic philosophers and most do not consider the presuppositionalist position even worthy to consider in their debates. I don't know how deeply they've looked into the matter, but perhaps some of them are correct in saying that transcendental apologetics will never gather a popular allegiance because of its feigned high-brow rhetoric. However, I do recognize the political goals that presuppositionalists have attached to their theology, and in my opinion, not only does it seem to be gaining wider acceptance, it is likely to continue growing in popularity - and therefore continue evolving - if it continues to go unchecked.

In my opinion, no, not completely. I admire Martin's succinct manner and clean style of dealing with many of the issues covered by the presuppositionalist arguments. He often goes for the heart of an issue with exacting precision, yet I'm not convinced that he's identified the primary issue at hand, at least as an Objectivist approach would make possible. Martin exhibits at least some awareness of Objectivism, or at least of Ayn Rand, whom he calls a "libertarian thinker" in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. This tells me he is not an Objectivist, to say the least, and that he probably dismisses Objectivism out of hand as most professional intellectuals today do. He does so at his own peril, in my opinion.

Yes, it is true. The Argument from Existence is true to the form of the Objectivist principle known as Rand's Razor. A razor, to use Leonard Peikoff's words, "slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas." Rand's Razor basically states: name your primaries, or, starting points. This is what the presuppositionalist postures himself as doing when in fact he cannot, for he begins with a false idea as his essential primary: the notion that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy. This is the essence of all god-belief, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Mormon or what have you. The notion that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, which is the metaphysical doctrine of subjectivism, commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. There is no such thing as consciousness outside existence, yet this is exactly what god-belief is attempting to posit, if indeed 'god' is said to be the creator of the universe. Universe is the sum of all existents; anything that exists is part of the universe because it is part of the sum of existence. The Argument from Existence corrects this error by recognizing the Objectivist axioms, and the violation that god-belief claims commit against them. Basically, the Argument from Existence points out the metaphysical primacy of existence, and therefore the falsehood of the metaphysical primacy of consciousness, and therefore the falsehood of god-belief. Since all apologetics finds its ultimate justification in attempting to justify god-belief assertions, the Argument from Existence shatters all apologetic systems with a single, seamless blow to their vulnerable foundation, which most atheologists have failed to identify.

Whether one wants to argue for his god-belief using cosmological, deontological, ontological or revamped Thomist paradigms, or neo-Kantian rip-offs like so-called 'reformed' or 'transcendental' theology, either way each argues for a kind of ruling consciousness, a form of consciousness that is responsible for the existence of the universe, which is to say, responsible for the existence of existence, which means: something prior - essentially a form of consciousness, a 'will' or 'God' - to existence is responsible for all existence. Since all these argumentative methods are essentially attempting to establish the truth of the same error, the Argument from Existence is sufficient to refute any and all god-belief systems, and their apologetic machinery. Any single argument that's going to slash off an entire body of false ideas single-handedly is far more preferable to developing specialized refutations to deal with individual apologetic arguments.

Definitions anchor the meaning of our terms. Ayn Rand stated that "definitions are the guardians of rationality". A clear understanding of the definitions of one's terms - and the importance of using them consistently throughout one's doctrines - is crucial to the success of a philosophic system. The unit component essential to any philosophy is the concept, beginning with axiomatic concepts. Those are our starting points. Upon these axiomatic concepts, once they're explicitly identified, we build upon them, forming propositions, arguments, doctrines and eventually the entire system itself, which must be the result of integrating its parts, from its units - which are the concepts - through its development into those propositions and doctrines. If these units, upon which everything else ultimately depends, are unclear or vague, or ambiguous or approximate, it's like building a house on quicksand. This is exactly the case with biblical philosophy. The Bible fails to offer explicit definitions of even the most essential key terms. In fact, there are only two explicit definitions that I know of in the Bible, and they are the terms 'faith' in Hebrews 11 and 1, and 'sin' in First John 3 and 4. Where Objectivism's founder, Ayn Rand, was constantly willing to define her terms as she went, explicitly identifying her concepts and their meaning at every step, the Bible has Jesus talking in vague parables, stories that assume an enormous amount of undeclared philosophical principles which are not found defined anywhere. The result of Jesus' teachings is a kind of folksy wisdom littered with rash condemnations and mystical justifications and rationalizations. His teachings were extremely raw and unrefined, in spite of what most glossy-eyed apologists feel, and were ripe for the elaboration and development that Paul and other epistolary authors later contributed to the new offshoot religion.

This carelessness for defining essentials has made possible all kinds of injustices throughout the centuries, resulting in tragically inadequate philosophy, dishonest priesthoods, collective tyranny, wrongful impoverishment, retardation of human philosophical development, not to mention political hegemony, war, inquisitions, genocidal crusades, mass exterminations, etc. The list is practically endless. And folx want to continue this same carelessness today in their Sunday school sermons, not realizing they're actually handing over a blank check of approval to those who would advocate the same. Most think they're just securing their passage to the next life, a notion which they've accepted as a primary value, a value outweighing the value of this life. But even this values quotient can be readily seen as the resignation from this life.

No. At their root, all theistic arguments make the same presumptive error. That is, of course, assuming the theism being asserted resembles to some degree the traditional universe-ruling consciousness. Arguments that you inevitably encounter that try to say you're making yourself into a god by rejecting their god-belief claims is farcically ridiculous, and not worth my time. Such arguments are nothing less than blatant equivocations.

No, not at all. In fact, the problem of infinities, if we should call it that, is more of a problem for the theist than for the non-theist. As an Objectivist, I reject the notion of an 'existent infinity' or 'existent infinite'. However, infinity as process is completely acceptable - it's just not ever going to be complete. The Objectivist Joel Katz has done some amazing research in this area in his articles on existence and cosmology from an Objectivist viewpoint. However, what should be noted here are several things. First, notice how the theist is always trying to invent a problem that the non-theist can allegedly not 'explain' without retreating to the theist's position. That's what the theist has in mind, any way. The theist thinks he can compel non-theists to accept his position by asserting that something in reality cannot make sense without the presumption of a theistic universe. Already, with the Argument from Existence, we see why this tactic is completely false, but what's important here is to see the ruse. No non-theist is actually attempting to posit an 'existent infinite' as the theist argues he is. At least no non-theist that I'm aware of.

The Objectivist position here is quite clear, since we begin with the recognition that existence exists. Existence is indeed finite in identity, but eternal in terms of time-measurement. Why is this? Here are the principles that determine this: First, to exist is to have identity. The Law of Identity, first identified by Aristotle - not Moses! - is the tautology A is A. A rock is not a river, but a rock. A tree is not a mountain, but a tree. A corollary to the Law of Identity is the principle that, should A exist, is must be A. If a rock exists, it must be itself - it must have the identity it has. These principles apply to all existence, to all the universe. Anything that exists must be part of the universe, and must have an identity, a finite identity. By finite identity I mean an identity which is restricted to itself. Existence by nature is limitation - an existent is limited to being itself, and no less and/or no more than itself. So, in this way, the Objectivist position is that existence is finite in identity.

However, when it comes to matters of temporality - an altogether different matter, Objectivists recognize that the universe - existence - is eternal. Eternal in the sense that the concept time does not apply to the entirety of existence as a whole. Time is the measurement of action, and action presupposes existence. There can be no action outside of existence. Time only applies within existence, and not to existence as a whole. There must be a relational standard for any measurement, including the measurement of time, such as the earth revolving around the sun. The universe as a whole has nothing to relate to outside itself - there is no 'outside' beyond the universe, there is simply no 'beyond the universe'.

But the theist, contesting these facts in order to support his hopeless god-belief claims, protests this recognition and accuses the non-theist of accepting the notion of an 'infinite existent', when in fact, that may not be the case at all, such as with the Objectivist position. But the theist continues to invent a problem - what I call a 'non-problem' - in that positing an eternal universe, the Objectivist argues inadvertently for an infinite series of events, and as such positing an 'infinite existent'. This is clearly false. Arguing that there is an infinite series of events - and arguing that this is problematic, even contradictory to previously accepted principles - is indeed a fabrication. This is where the theist is actually committing another equivocation - even a package-deal, although the theist himself is probably unaware of it. In this instance, the theist is attempting to equate 'event' - which is action in nature, with 'existent' - which is presupposed by action. There is a crucial difference here which the theist is attempting to smother by arguing that an eternal universe is problematic. It's clearly a ruse. Besides, such an argument inherits the task of defining 'event' and when an action qualifies as an 'event'. No theist that I know of has ever done this. But, indeed, it is crucial to his counter, if this is the course he wants to take. For instance, when does the rotation of the earth upon its axis go from qualifying as 'action' to becoming an 'event'? Is a day an 'event', or a series of 'events', or just a portion of a larger event, such as its revolution around the sun? And why cannot the earth continue spinning on its axis ad nauseum until the cows come home, and beyond, infinitely, or, more accurately, in the process of an infinite series of actions, however they are defined? You see, for the theist, it's not that cut and dry, is it?

Furthermore, and this is the clincher, here's the irony for the theist! So quickly he's going to try to bicker about infinities and infinite existents, and lay down rules that they cannot exist, but meanwhile, he himself faces the genuine problem, for the theist is the one who in the end resorts to positing an infinite existent in the form of his ruling consciousness, which, he says, is the only resolution to the problem he's invented! God, they say, is infinite, yet, they argue, God exists! Go figure. Here the theist, who a moment ago argued that no infinite existents are possible, now posits an infinite existent himself as the answer to the problem! It's just another theistic reversal in which the mystic checkmates himself. A mystic always wants his cake, and to eat it, too. But the Law of Identity continues to stop him. No wonder most theists are so frustrated!

A very involving question, but you have to keep something in mind here, at all times. Most theists have an agenda, some on a personal, private level, and some have more of a large-scale, long-range political plan in mind. On the personal, private level, some theists merely want to protect the ideas they've been brought up to believe all their lives, or find some kind of comfort and security in them, notions of angels being their to guide them and keep them from harm, etc., without which they would just be at a loss as to how to deal with reality. These theists are usually more willing to be a bit more honest about their religious ideas, and - compared to their more rabid counterparts - will more readily admit to the fact that their religion is a matter of faith, that it cannot be demonstrated by rational means.

On the other hand, the more intellectual theists, theists who've adopted or constructed an entire regimen of philosophical ideas, not centering just on the metaphysics and epistemological issues of god-belief, but indeed the development of long-range political plans - some extremely detailed - which may include what they call "theonomic reconstruction" - basically, a plan to take over America and turn it into a fundamentalist Christian tyranny, a tyranny in which non-believers like you and I are to be subjected to the 'old law' of the patriarchs, a law that was originally intended for yahwists to begin with, but which reformers, like Jesus and Paul of the New Testament, rejected. Don't think that this allegation is a bit of a stretch - it isn't! There are folx - such as Howard Phillips of the US Tax Payers party, or Lou Sheldon and Larry Pratt - who want to see the government turned into a tyranny for "evil-doers" - basically, people who don't buy their bullshit. In her writings Ayn Rand was quick to point out the necessity of force as a corollary to faith. She was right.

So when it comes to assessing the motivations behind the theists insistence on pressing their issues, it really comes down to one thing: the pursuit of the unearned. In the case of the theist who's more concerned for his own personal emotional securities, the goal is unearned security, comfort and appeasement of the unearned guilt he's accepted. So long as he's arguing for his god-beliefs, whether or not he deep down really believes in them, he's convinced that he can feel secure in his delusion, and not worry about the continual pangs of guilt he experiences because he exists. For the religious political strategist, however, the goal is unearned political power, and the alleged means for the theist is a form of unearned knowledge, knowledge that he calls 'revelation', 'faith' or 'intuition'. It really is quite transparent.

Several years now.

It's been a long process in the brewing for some time now. I think the primary course of events that lead to my present vocation includes my experience as a Christian followed by my discovery of the Objectivist principles.

That depends on how one qualifies a Christian. I was brought up in a watered-down quasi-Protestant setting, where Christianity was for the most part just an afterthought. We were not church-goers by any means, and in general we did not give it any serious thought. In my early 20's, however, I became seriously involved as a Christian for under two years.

Extremely serious. At this time I learned the Bible - particularly the New Testament - forwards and backwards.

Certainly, quite a bit actually. Eventually, I would like to devote some more serious effort to my 'testimony' and perhaps publish it.

I certainly hope to. At this time, I'm looking into publishing on the internet, since I think that way I'll reach the most people in the shortest amount of time, and without any of the hassle of dealing with book distributors. Time is going by very quickly and I have lots to say.