Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, Evilatheist,

OK … you’re on…let’s take a look at logic…

Now, got to your post #804 where you make the following statement:

Thanks for the links. It’s definitely a controversial issue and there are also a lot of archeologists who think that the Bible is historically inaccurate. However, I thought your links made a great case that a lot of the events depicted in the Bible were true. But to me, it doesn’t really matter. Even if it could be proven that some of the key non-supernatural stories in the Bible were completely accurate, this would not provide evidence that Jesus was the son of God (Just as a book about a girl and her time-traveling unicorn would not be evidence that unicorns exist even if the other people, places, and events mentioned in the book all really existed).

You are commenting on 4 hyperlinks that have been sent dealing with science.

So, if I understand your statement correctly, truth does not matter. Here you are immediately granting that ancient records found in the Bible can actually be independently validated by ancient secular accounts of the same events - and then you dismiss it.

No, truth does matter. I accept that some of the people, places, and events in the Bible are historical. For example, we have pretty good evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. I don’t think anyone’s saying that every single thing mentioned in the Bible is made up. What is disputed is how many of the things in the Bible are historically accurate. I heard a compelling case made by an archeologist who argued that the Bible is historically unreliable and modern archeologists no longer think it is a valuable guide. I also think that your links made a compelling case. In order to find out what is true, I would have to do a careful overview of all the data. We obviously don’t have time to research every issue, and this issue does not particularly interest me. I do not think that it’s relevant to the question of whether God exists. A lack of evidence supporting many Biblical claims does not prove that Christianity is false any more than confirmation that some of the events in the Bible are true confirms that Christianity is true.

While you may find it convenient to equate the stories of Chist being the Son of God to a novel about a girl and time travel - no one is going to die for a fantasy. Do you know of anyone willing to die for this girl, time travel and her unicorn? And, while you may dismiss the Apostles as 12 crazy men without a life so that dying for a fantasy was simply inconsequential - thousands and thousands of Christians died under the rule of the pagan Roman emperors - and it could not erase Christianity.

People are perfectly willing to die for a fantasy as long as they don’t know it’s a fantasy.

A logical argument could not simply dismiss the supreme sacrifice made over and over again, under different tyrants - but, all with the same end: to abolish the message of Christ. No one dies for a myth. People do not die for the same myth century after century. Your little time traveling girl with the unicorn is not worth dying for - Jesus Christ is.

Have people died for Islam century after century?

Are you willing to die for Athieism? If put to the test, I pray for the Grace to die for Christ.

And, there lies the difference.

God bless

No, I wouldn’t die for Atheism. I don’t even really know what that means. Do you mean that I would die unless I pretended I was Christian or that I would lay down my life in the service of atheism?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to recognize we have reached the age of overwhelming depravity and total disregard for the respect of kindred and marital commitments in relationships, procreation and protection of new life, morality and above all, God. Our morality in general has been replaced with a degenerate emphasis in support of perversion. This has been incredibly foretold. For a country founded on Godly principles, the separation of Church and state has been distorted and abused beyond comprehension and a statistically overwhelming Christian population who claim to believe in God, Christ and salvation do not seem to recognize nor do they defend these principles in this decomposing society they live within. This is a country once proud of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and one would think the references to God within these documents pertaining to the rights of man “by the Creator” and the protection of life would hold value but it no longer applies unless it is convenient.

A person who does not believe in God or doubts the existence of God but doesn’t have the self-interest to seek conclusively the knowledge is self-condemning according to the teachings of the one God accepted by the faithful. Now it should reflect sensibility that if one doesn’t believe in God but has no credible support (which no one has) the instinct for survival should generate the interest to seriously seek that knowledge. The time will come when the ability to choose has expired. How close are we and in who’s lifetime is the question. God will not find the indecisiveness of man an excuse for Divine Mercy.

I don’t know what you mean by credible support, but I have sought knowledge of God.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Well you certainly hit the nail on the head.

You obviously think that I am the one who is not accepting reality and I think you are the one who is not accepting reality. If I felt cold and thought there was a warm shelter then I would gladly go inside.

Now there are conditions, e.g., spinal cord injuries, where feelings and volunatry novements are not possible because the nerve and motor pathways to and from the brain are damaged. Not feeling temperature is one such problem - and these people have been severely injured when sitting on a hot park bench in the summer time, or pouring hot water on their hand instead of tea cup. Now, just because they do not feel the heat, pain, desire to move away from the hot object - does not mean that there tissue is free of injury. This is the problem - the tissue is damaged (e.g., 3rd degree burns) but, they do not feel pain - but the wound does not heal properly and gets infected…and patient dies!

Maybe you are having trouble feeling the real temperature.

Now, just saying, “I don’t believe…” does not negate its existence, anymore then saying i do not feel the burn does not make the burn go away. While you may demand a certain level of data to believe in God (and, really, it is all around you - if you would only look!) what will you demand to prove that hell exists. Now, floating alone on a cloud, taking harp lessions … may not turn you on! But, what about a steady diet of sulphur and brimstone as the eternal fires of hell constantly burn your soul and (after the general resurrection of the dead) give pain to your now risen flesh?

There is a ‘flip side’ to the rewards for following Christ…!

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If you study the history of science, you will find that the modern discipline of science was created for just that reason. And until the 20th century, the main purpose of the vast majority of scientists was directly tied into their Christian beliefs. Remember, when the senile old man named darwin released his first book, the Origin of the species in 1859, the idea of creation/science without the Biblical God was so rare and unacceptable, that darwin held back his theories until he was “forced” to release the book. (another scientist that darwin worked with was about to release his similar findings, and the first published gets the credit.) This was against the wishes of his Christian wife, and in fear of the church reaction.

{note: I used “senile” to describe darwin to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the “Descent of man” (1871), darwin propagates eugenics. Anyone who would endorse this most horrendous of endeavors is either senile or evil.}

I would be interested in hearing which passage from The Descent of Man you are referring to. When viewed in context, the passage which is often cited as evidence that Darwin supported eugenics shows no such thing. The following paragraph makes that point clear. Of course there could be another passage that I’m not aware of.

With the exception of ancient Greeks who considered science an intellectual exercise, not a practical application, from around 600 B.C., science originated in the 16th-17th century A.D… A main tenet is that science is a means of identifying the creator. Here are some examples:
Francis Bacon- considered the father of modern science—said “There are two books on which we should read. One was Scripture, the other the book of nature.”
Johannes Kepler- Celestial Mechanics — said scientists are “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time,-calculus and dynamics— is quoted as saying…”this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all and account of His Dominion He is wont* to be called Lord God.” And,
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

Other creation believing scientists include:
Louis Pasteur- bacteriology.
Lord Kelvin-energetics
Blaise Pascal-hydrostatics
Charles Babbage-computer science
Lord Joseph Lister-antiseptic surgery
Robert Boyle-chemistry
James Simpson-anesthesiology
Samuel Morse-telegraphy

So for 400 of the 500 years of science, by the vast majority of scientists, science is to honor our Creator.

However, now that we have a better understanding of the natural world and have natural explanations for many previously puzzling phenomena, the vast majority of scientists are atheists or non-believers.

For the universe to be eternal, there would have to be no molecular movement. This would create a “virtual heat death” and the creation and existence of life could not take place.

This need not be the case once you take things like quantum physics into account.

The proof of God’s existence supersedes the visible dimension.

Romans 1:18-20

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

His invisible qualities are love, kindness, mercy, grace, and all the other attributes we consider to be “good”. And, obviously, they are very real. Where did they come from? There is certainly no evolutionary process that can explain His divine attributes, which He shares with us.

Why don’t you think evolution can explain things like love and kindness? There are evolutionary explanations for things like altruism.

I did not say that science is a religion. Atheism is a religion. Saying that existence could have no God involved is a metaphysical, not scientific, perspective. God threw down the gauntlet when He wrote Genesis. So to address this topic with the “no God” theme, is a religion. It is a major controlling factor in all scientific discoveries.

By most definitions of ‘religion’, atheism is not a religion: answers.com/religion . However by other definitions it might be considered a religion. I never claimed that science disproved God.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

True. However, the creation of matter certainly isn’t one of them. Turn the table for a moment. If atheistic science could prove how matter could be created and exist outside of God, that would become the foundational truth for the atheistic scientists, wouldn’t it? So the argument is valid, it is just the answer that atheists don’t like.

I’m not sure that would be a foundational truth. But you are merely claiming that it is a good argument without giving any reason why. It may be true, but I don’t accept arguments just because they feel true to someone else.

True. However we do know that God lives and how He brought the universe, and all things, into existence. His Word. The Bible tells us that He lives. Also, He spoke all things into existence. Both are His Word. On the seventh day He rested, and that was also the last day that matter was ever created. And until that scientific, religious, and ultimate truth can disproved, there is no foundation for any evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory deals only with the development of life after it already existed and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

There is only one argument that the atheists need to “win”. The creation of matter. With that proof, all atheistic theories have gained credibility. Without, they have none. It is that simple.

Not all atheists believe that the universe could have been created from nothing. Some believe that the universe is eternal and others believe that the universe has existed for all time and so never had to be created. It is easy to accuse someone else of holding beliefs that aren’t credible. But if you really think that atheism has no credibility, I would be very interested in hearing why.

Actually, we are. Whether you agree or not, our position is not only documented, but the only real possible answer. After God created (matter), it has been theoretically and factually impossible for any other possibility. If there is only one possibility, isn’t that evidence of a factual event?

Yes, and it would go beyond evidence; it would establish it as fact. But saying that atheism is impossible and then not justifying it is no different than me saying that I have an elegant disproof of God’s existence hidden in my pocket but I won’t share it. I do not accept that God exists merely because you say so.

My religion is Christianity. This discussion is on the creation of the universe by God. This is the same entity that the Jews,Muslims, and many cults believe in. So the question is whether there is a divine creator or not. All the foundational evidence is that there has to be. The dividing line here is God or no God. Beliefs that incorporate all followers as a part of God, are on your side. Only those who believe in One true God are on ours. The foundation of my theism is the creation. The foundation of my Christianity incorporates many other truths of God. Do I know that my religion is 100 % certain? I better, I am betting my life on it. Are you willing to bet your life that your non-belief is true?

It certainly is more appealing to think that living forever in heaven is possible. However, I am someone who cares if what I believe is true, and I cannot force myself to believe in something merely because I wish it were true. Also, it is not clear that if there is only one God, God would want us to behave exactly as Christianity dictates. It is theoretically possible that God may be an evil God and try to trick us into believing in Christianity and then punishing those that fall for it. There are countless other possible Gods. If we have no evidence of what God is like, raping someone is just as likely to give you an infinite reward as is giving to charity. So in the end, Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work and it all comes down to what evidence we have for a certain conception of God.

It is obvious that you are in high demand on this site. If you do decide to respond to this directly (for time constraints if nothing else) please take your time. It takes time to add the answers in your heart to the answers in your head. I will respond to your additional statements later, as I have already written a book. Just one more statement as “food for thought.” If the atheistic perspective is true, you are offering me a path to a lifetime in a box. If the Christian perspective is true, we are offering you a path to eternity in paradise. Not really a fair trade, is it?

In Christ Jesus,

m33

I think I responded to your basic points, but let me know if you think there’s something I missed or something you want me expand on.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Let’s look at a hypothetical:- What if the Biblical account of genesis is symbolic of this theory?? What if pre Big Bang existance IS God existance, Love extending and creating in a spiritual form of which we know nothing and of which has no visable proof or confinds of time. Then… say – (tongue in cheek) one of the ‘spirit’ creations of God wishing / or believeing the possibility of existance apart from God, just by thought alone, caused a catostrophic reaction like the spliting of the atom - ‘The Big Bang’ itself. What if this was the Original Sin the bible speaks of??? I’m just hypothesizing now. I’m of the belief (rightly or wrongly) that anything man CAN imagine is in reality possible and given time and technology CAN be realized in some form or degree. That is why we can think it in the first place. Does this sound stupid??? The bible is one of the first accounts of “What God is”. And if God exists and we are his creations, it would follow that He would impart knowledge of Himself to us. If God doesn’t exist then we are back to --Why the big bang? AND why the story of Genesis?? or of Dreamtime or of The Great White Spirit or of similar ancient stories in other cultures??? Could these be the seeds of rememberance planted within our essence of knowledge of God??

I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at here.

By the way, if you think that anything we can imagine is possible, do you think it is possible for man to kill God?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What you are saying about not receiving any light from this period. How is it that the Genesis account of the bible says that in the begining ??? there was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word said ‘let there be light’ and there was and the process continues on & on & on re: the bible account. My question is, How did early man know ANYTHING of physics etc. In the recently published book '‘God Actually’ The author states that the way Genesis accures is exactly the way today’s science believes things probably developed. How & where do you think this idea could possibly pop into primitive man without some intelligent spiritual imput?? Did they just GUESS it right??? These concepts would have been way beyond their knowledge. What are your thoughts??

Well I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment in detail. But based on my reading of Genesis, it doesn’t seem particularly prescient.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This is probably the most singular persuasive argument for rejecting Atheism that I know. It is advanced by Fr. John Cihuk and Michael Novak and based upon the theological works of Hans Urs von Balthazar. You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/01/engaging-atheism/

In there somewhere is Penn (of Penn and Teller fame) speaking about receiving the gift of a book of Psalms from an Apologist. He’s a complete nitwit but out of the mouths of idiots comes the most important thing Christians need to know about Apologetics.

I read the article but it didn’t seem to give any good reasons to think that God exists. It made a lot of assertions but did not back them up. What did you find persuasive about the argument? Maybe I’m missing something, but it really doesn’t seem to provide any support for the belief that God exists.

If you are further interested I also uploaded an article on why atheists are atheists, the motives for atheism. You can find that here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

I read the article, but none of the reasons given applied to me at all. At least it wasn’t like some other attempts at explaining atheism that tried to say that people became atheists because of a poor relationship with their father (which is also not the case with me). But I’m perfectly willing to grant that there are many people who are athests for bad reasons, just as there are people who are theists for bad reasons.

Also a book review of The Language of God by Francis Collins. The review is by theoretical physicist Steven M. Barr and comments on the story of how and why the leader in the Genome Project came to believe in God.

That is here: payingattentiontothesky.com/book-review-the-language-of-god-by-francis-s-collins/

I read that review, as well as some other reviews of his book. It doesn’t seem like he gives any good reasons for believing that God exists. Maybe I’ll read it at some point, but there are a lot of other books that will probably present better arguments for theism which I want to read first.

All good stuff to spend some time with, unless you are just holding court here and rejecting all Apologetics outright.

Regards

DJ

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, Djeter,

Thank you for these excellent links.

God bless

I just want to warn you that I don’t think many atheists would find these persuasive at all. Maybe they’re good for reinforcing beliefs you already hold, but I don’t think they’d persuade anybody.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist, if you click on the thumbnail you will see that the source of energy is locatable and is absolutely necessary, in every phase of this particular example, as is with all things that require energy. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (just transformed from usable energy to unusable energy) - in this closed system we call the universe, then logically speaking, it must have come from some external energy source outside said closed system --right?

It is also logically possible that the universe (natural world) always existed, that the universe as a whole began at some point (since this principle is only known to hold within our universe), or that the universe is finitely old, but there is no first point.

In other words, where did the nuclear reactions in the sun come from? If you believe in the big bang, and the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then doesn’t it make more sense to believe that something put in motion all of this energy, rather then concluding that this big bang that led to all of the energy, in this closed system, was caused by non-energy, for lack of a better word. If the potential energy e.g., a raised weight, coiled spring, or charged battery, that exists in all objects because of its position, rather than its motion, needs an impetus to transform that potential energy into kinetic energy (the energy of motion) - then doesn’t it stand to reason that the big bang also needed an impetus to transform the potential energy of the big bang into kinetic energy? I mean, if I told you that my cars battery (potential energy) - started my car (kinetic energy) - on its own, you’d think I was kidding or nuts. LOL… Aren’t you kind of expecting us to believe the same thing regarding the source of energy (the battery) - for the universe? Something had to turn the key over, so to speak!

You seem to be attacking the theory that the universe had been a singularity for an infinitely long period of time and then suddenly expanded for no natural reason. I don’t claim to know exactly what happened, but I would consider something like this incredibly unlikely and do not think that it has many credible defenders. If this was not the theory that you were attacking then I do not see how your analogies apply.

But under both atheism and theism, you can keep asking “why?” In the end, I do not think the question of why there is something rather than nothing is any more answerable under theism than under atheism.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hey tqualey…you said:

You know, it takes so little to just look around and see that all of this precise interaction could not just ‘happen’. The fact that we have just had our next breath and heart beat should convince most that exchanging all of these chemicals just at the right moment - can not be ‘luck’.

I totally agree with you! I wish atheist, or any atheist for that matter, would explain to me just where all of this energy in the universe came from, and how it came to be! Discovering and defining LAWS of an unknown origin, that govern how the universe functions, is a far cry from finding the origins of these LAWS. Science has no clue where they came from! So, to placate themselves, they simply say that these laws, all of this boundless energy in the universe, “always existed,” removing the need to contemplate and consider the possibility of a creator outside the bounds of space and time. That to me seems rather disingenuous.

God bless

Is it so wrong to say that I don’t know how the energy came to be? Maybe it always existed, maybe it has existed for all time but time is finite, or maybe our entire universe is just a small part of the entire natural world. We’re constantly learning more about what our universe used to be like, and we don’t yet have all the answers. But I could turn this question around and say that you do not know why God exists or how he can be meaningfully good.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, TWB1621,

Actually, I would say that science is process of disproving one set of theories, replacing them with others and preparing to displace this set. “Scientific Truth” does not ‘own’ the shelf it is on … just merely renting the space until another tenant comes along! Anyone who really stakes his belief system on science is in this only for the short haul.
…
In the scheme of things, we are to work with the lights we have - and, that would include scientific lights, to arrive at a knowingly temporary view of a truth (lower case “t”) Now, this does not mean that scientic fact is worthless or without meaning - only that our understanding of it is subject to change… and, often times, without notice!

I agree with a lot of what you say, but not with your conclusions. For one thing, although scientific theories are constantly being revised, it seems incredibly unlikely that some of its most basic tenants will ever be overturned. Do you really think science may someday discover that the earth is actually flat or that water does not contain hydrogen and oxygen?! And I wouldn’t say that I am staking anything on science. I believe what I do because of the lack of good reasons to believe in Christianity. We all end up believing what we think is most likely to be true based on our limited knowledge.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hello Everyone!

So you are still at it hey?!

You might be interested in another thread on the same subject

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=351875

As for me I KNOW that God exists - I feel Him all the time and I see the evidence all around me.

Call me crazy - I don’t care

Blessings
Cinette

Yup, still at it.

I took a look at the other thread and I don’t think I really have anything to add. Also, it’s hard enough keeping up with this one thread.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Ok, so, I’m not a priest, or even overly educated person, but it might be something like this…

Everyday, you live by laws, right??? Your not allowed to steal, murder, etc. And your not required to give money at the mass, so the only thing that your religion, or God, is really asking of you that goes above and beyond what your normal daily duties might be is to believe in Him and get up and go to mass.

Mass is trivial. Most people dont WANT to get up and go to work 5 days a week, but hey, guess what, you have to. As an atheist, you dont believe in God- that could pose a bigger problem. If you chose not to go to work, you could lose your home, starve-whatever…But if you dont believe in God, whoa…now your talking about your salvation, your SOUL, ETERNITY…

My Brother is one of those extreme/logic/rational thinkers and I try my best to put things in that perspective, even though maybe I’m not the best at it? But I would think that, being the human life span is what? 100 years?? and the possibility of eternity is what? infinite??? Logically, even if you are incorrect, wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry?? How much harm is it going to cause your life, because you spent a couple hours each sunday learning about how to be a better person?? idk…just my opinion…and I wouldnt disregard any evidence, but from what I understand theres not any DEFINITE evidence for either side…

I myself personally have felt Him so theres no question in my mind…I hope one day you find Him within yourself too <3

Thanks for your post. I agree that going to mass isn’t that much of a sacrifice. My point was that I’d still want to have reasons to think that Christianity was true. If I grew up in another society, people may be confused about why I would take the risk of not believing in their God. Pascal’s wager could be used to justify belief in any God, even Gods that required me to kill members of my own family as human sacrifices. If I accepted that I could receive an infinite reward for an action, and didn’t know what actions would yield an infinite reward, then every single action would have infinite utility (because any given positive probability times infinity is infinity). The benefit of getting a glass of water would be infinite, as would the benefit of going to mass, as would the benefit of committing genocide. So absent any evidence for Christianity, I don’t see any reason to think I should try to be a Christian or alter my behavior. Of course there is some evidence for Christianity, but I think that most of it is circumstantial and would exist regardless of whether God existed. And I also think that there is some evidence against Christianity (the existence of evil and non-believers). Based on what I know, I think the evidence points against Christianity being true, although I realize that my own knowledge is limited. But I just don’t think that Pascal’s Wager achieves its goal of giving a rational reason for people to try to believe in Christianity even if they don’t think there are good reasons to think that Christianity is true.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Well you certainly hit the nail on the head.

Now there are conditions, e.g., spinal cord injuries, where feelings and volunatry novements are not possible because the nerve and motor pathways to and from the brain are damaged. Not feeling temperature is one such problem - and these people have been severely injured when sitting on a hot park bench in the summer time, or pouring hot water on their hand instead of tea cup. Now, just because they do not feel the heat, pain, desire to move away from the hot object - does not mean that there tissue is free of injury. This is the problem - the tissue is damaged (e.g., 3rd degree burns) but, they do not feel pain - but the wound does not heal properly and gets infected…and patient dies!

Maybe you are having trouble feeling the real temperature.

Maybe, but in your example, it would be easy to demonstrate that person’s condition to them. You could explain it to them, show them how other people reacted to certain stimuli versus how they reacted, and show them video of people dying from various injuries. Even if they do not feel pain, you can teach them what causes pain in other people and prove to them that if they don’t try to avoid things that cause pain in other people, it is more likely that they will die. Similarly, if I had evidence that there are eternal negative consequences to non-belief then I would believe in God.

Now, just saying, “I don’t believe…” does not negate its existence, anymore then saying i do not feel the burn does not make the burn go away.

Of course it doesn’t, just as saying that God exists doesn’t make it so. He either exists or he doesn’t, regardless of what we say about it.

While you may demand a certain level of data to believe in God (and, really, it is all around you - if you would only look!) what will you demand to prove that hell exists. Now, floating alone on a cloud, taking harp lessions … may not turn you on! But, what about a steady diet of sulphur and brimstone as the eternal fires of hell constantly burn your soul and (after the general resurrection of the dead) give pain to your now risen flesh?

There is a ‘flip side’ to the rewards for following Christ…!

God bless

Just saying that there is evidence all around me doesn’t make it so. The universe is indeed incredible, but I haven’t seen anything that requires a supernatural explanation.

I don’t know what I’d “demand” to prove that hell exists. If I had evidence for the truth of Christianity than I guess I’d believe in some kind of hell. But I really haven’t found a good way of reconciling hell with omnibenevolence. Even if it was benevolent for God to deny people entry into heaven, I don’t see how an infinitely benevolent being could justify actively torturing people for eternity. Of course divine morality may be far different than our conception of morality, but then you have to see whether it can mean anything at all to call God good. In another thread I discussed God’s goodness, and I couldn’t find any explanations for how God’s goodness could really have meaning (based on the Euthyphro dilemma).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

You are going to give Nay-Sayers a bad name.

I just want to warn you that I don’t think many atheists would find these persuasive at all. Maybe they’re good for reinforcing beliefs you already hold, but I don’t think they’d persuade anybody.

I have this mental picture… of you are sitting in the emotional corner over there … saying, in effect, “There is no God and even if there were I would never admit to it!” Now, this is materially different from the original mental picture I had of you (in the same corner…) saying, “There is no God, but if there was evidence, I would beleive!” Now… you are probably wondering what happened for me to make this transition…?

It is that - no on have ever produced ENOUGH proof. And, while we could beat our breast and complain about our lack of ability in this area… the real issue, at least in my opinion, is there there could NEVER BE ENOUGH proof for this event (your belief) to happen. I did not jump at this conclusion wildly… nope! I came by it through deduction. If you were really interedted in resolving this matter - and, it was us who failed to provide the ‘right key’ to that lock you claim you want opened … you would have told us what it is that you need. This has not really happened - and I think the reason is that you simply do not know. So, every offered answer is wrong because ti does not match the answer you want to be right.

There is another possibility… and that is you are just playing a game with the group…

Now, I could tell you that I do not believe that the Empire State Building (ESB) exists. And, all of those reports of there being such a building are just myth, and al those pictures just ‘PhotoShop’ creativity, and all of that history is just the writings of dreamers. Nope, I am not going to believe the ESB exists until it uproots itself and comes to Spring, Texas for me to see. I am sure a lot of folks would come around and say that they had 'seen this building…" but that would not convince me because I have my mind made up - and have identified the only proof I will accept. What do you think of that?

God bless,

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

You are going to give Nay-Sayers a bad name.

I have this mental picture… of you are sitting in the emotional corner over there … saying, in effect, “There is no God and even if there were I would never admit to it!” Now, this is materially different from the original mental picture I had of you (in the same corner…) saying, “There is no God, but if there was evidence, I would beleive!” Now… you are probably wondering what happened for me to make this transition…?

It is that - no on have ever produced ENOUGH proof. And, while we could beat our breast and complain about our lack of ability in this area… the real issue, at least in my opinion, is there there could NEVER BE ENOUGH proof for this event (your belief) to happen. I did not jump at this conclusion wildly… nope! I came by it through deduction. If you were really interedted in resolving this matter - and, it was us who failed to provide the ‘right key’ to that lock you claim you want opened … you would have told us what it is that you need. This has not really happened - and I think the reason is that you simply do not know. So, every offered answer is wrong because ti does not match the answer you want to be right.

There are some things that I think would convince me, and I’ve mentioned those before. For example, if all the cultures of the world had a tradition of God having proclaimed the same message to them at the exact same time in their native tongues, I would consider that good evidence of a God (another atheist criticized me for saying this and said that it could instead have been super-intelligent aliens, and I suppose this is correct, but I do not think we should rule out supernatural causes and I’m not sure that we should react differently if it was incomprehensibly powerful aliens). I also think that if there was a well documented case of a miracle that we were sure could not be explained naturally, such as the instantaneous regeneration of a limb. I could also be convinced if prayer studies showed significant evidence that Catholic prayers were effective. I could also be convinced by a solid philosophical argument. So there are a variety of things that would convince me. But I do not think that any of these have happened or exist. If I thought that there was some evidence out there that would persuade me that God probably existed, I would not still be an atheist. So the reason I don’t demand a certain kind of evidence is because I don’t know what evidence, if any, is out there. In the end, we all have to make the most out of what evidence there is, not what we wish there was. I want to believe in God if he exists, but do not want to believe in him if he does not exist.

There is another possibility… and that is you are just playing a game with the group…

Now, I could tell you that I do not believe that the Empire State Building (ESB) exists. And, all of those reports of there being such a building are just myth, and al those pictures just ‘PhotoShop’ creativity, and all of that history is just the writings of dreamers. Nope, I am not going to believe the ESB exists until it uproots itself and comes to Spring, Texas for me to see. I am sure a lot of folks would come around and say that they had 'seen this building…" but that would not convince me because I have my mind made up - and have identified the only proof I will accept. What do you think of that?

God bless,

I think that I could tell you the same thing about Bigfoot. The question is whether God is more like the Empire State Building or more like Bigfoot.

 

[BPW75]

If Christianity was false and Jesus was later mythologized, what are some archeological discoveries that could be made which you would see as strong evidence against Christianity?

His body?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

His body?

How would you identify the body as Jesus’? We can’t exactly DNA test it. Even if there was something identifying the grave of that of Jesus, how would you be sure that it was the same Jesus (as Jesus was a common name and archeologists have found dozens of tombs of people named Jesus from that time period)? Even if we could be sure that it was Jesus’ tomb, how would we know that the Jews didn’t later bury someone else in Jesus’ tomb in order to prevent people from converting to Christianity? So I think that even if we discovered Jesus’ tomb, I don’t think we could have good enough evidence that the body was Jesus’ for it to constitute strong evidence Christianity.

And I can’t think of any other possible discoveries which would disprove Christianity. So I don’t think that the lack of evidence disproving the biblical story is any evidence for it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Apparently no evidence is good enough!

Argue as you will… you have spent all of your time and talent building a wall against the possibility of ‘proof’. This is what I find so profoundly sad.

How would you identify the body as Jesus’? We can’t exactly DNA test it. Even if there was something identifying the grave of that of Jesus, how would you be sure that it was the same Jesus (as Jesus was a common name and archeologists have found dozens of tombs of people named Jesus from that time period)? Even if we could be sure that it was Jesus’ tomb, how would we know that the Jews didn’t later bury someone else in Jesus’ tomb in order to prevent people from converting to Christianity? So I think that even if we discovered Jesus’ tomb, I don’t think we could have good enough evidence that the body was Jesus’ for it to constitute strong evidence Christianity.

And I can’t think of any other possible discoveries which would disprove Christianity. So I don’t think that the lack of evidence disproving the biblical story is any evidence for it.

God bless