Dishonest Apologetics

[Cinette]

I’ve gotten a little frustrated with the amount of bad arguments that both Christians and atheists make when debating the existence of God. So here’s a question for both groups: do you stop using bad arguments once you find out that they’re flawed? Or do you keep using the argument anyway, hoping that the person you’re using it on won’t be smart enough to spot the flaw? Do the ends justify the means as long as you lead them to the right place, or is it more important to make honest arguments?
I would get bored with myself if I were to persist in an argument when I discover that my argument is flawed. It is also dishonest. The end never justifies the means.

By bad arguments, I mean those that are either logically invalid, or rest on very questionable assumptions.To be in pursuit of truth should be everybody’s aim. To persist with a flawed argument is a waste of time and boring. … The problem with this is that if an omnipotent God existed, he could have created everything with no effort whatsoever and could have created the entire rest of the universe just to give us something pretty to look at and explore.I think the universe is magnificent and we have no idea (except for some scientists) as to the purpose and use of what you might refer to as “lifeless” What appears to be lifeless may not be lifeless at all! Another atheist argument that I think is logically flawed is the statement that because evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs,Oh? Is that so? those religious beliefs must be false. I don’t see the logic in that. If God exists, he could simply have made us this way in order to make it easier to realize that he exists. God created us and considered that “we were good” However through a flaw in our being/character by which we were not satisfied with what he gave us we got greedy and wanted power to which we were not entitled. So it shows why people might believe in God even if he doesn’t exist, but it does not show that God is merely imaginary. I know that God exists when I look at creation, when I see the gifts He gave to man which enables man to build, compose, create, reason, and above all LOVE! When I consider these things I absolutely know that God does exist. Here is something which St Augustine said which stopped me in my tracks after I was always questioning everything - “* Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand*.”

• St Augustine
  Another common argument is that religious people have done very bad things in the past. This is very true - and continue to do so today!This does not show that their religion is false, just that members of any religion are humans, and have flaws.I consider your reasoning honest and correct Both atheists and Christians have been brutal murderers and both atheists and Christians have been generous humanitarians.True! I have known Atheists who have been self-sacrificing and who have suffered in solitary confinement on account of their values and their caring for humanity. I have fallen in love with an Atheist and married him!

 

[Cinette]

continuation…

As an atheist, I obviously think that many Christian arguments are flawed, and I’ll mention a couple of them. I would expect you to say that simply because for us who believe in God we need Faith and Faith is based in love and trust of Almighty God. We cannot explain many things but we believe them because of the love and trust. Probably sounds corny to you. Sometimes Christians say that their beliefs must be reasonable since so many people share their beliefs and atheists must be wrong since there are fewer of us.This is not a quantitative thing. A single person can be right about something and everybody else wrong. The problem is that popularity is not a good way of establishing what the truth is. Popularity is a deception. Christianity is no more or less true today than it was when it consisted of a few hundred people. True Islam does not become true if it far surpasses Christianity in adherents. True Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be trueThis is a difficult thing to do. However, is it so difficult for an Atheist to pray, “God if you exist reveal yourself to me!”. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe. Why not - just contemplate creation and how can you not be fascinated - see a new born child develop and grow and look how instinctively that child does things. One problem is that religion isn’t completely costless (going to mass, giving money to the church). So in order for the wager to work, there must be some evidence that Catholicism is true,Catholicism is fascinating, beautiful, wonderful, interesting, true - it possesses love and truth! otherwise we should give all our money to anyone who walks up to us on the street and says that he will somehow give us infinite happiness in exchange.We do find happiness in comforting and helping others. Since there are many contradictory religions, someone would have to consider every possible religion, and pick the one with the most evidence. That is easier than you think but I do not want to go into that now - I have only 20 minutes to make this posting and time is nearly up! …

I’m not saying that I’m immune from this, but when I find out that I made a bad argument, I figure out how to fix it or stop using it.I think I like you! So feel free to let me know if you think any of the arguments I just made are bad. Finally, I’m not trying to demean anyone; I’m just trying to figure out why people use bad arguments, and hopefully raise the level of debate so we can figure out which side has more support.If people are respectful we can have a very interesting discussion.

cheers
Cinette

 

[gookykookypig]

As an atheist, I obviously think that many Christian arguments are flawed, and I’ll mention a couple of them. Sometimes Christians say that their beliefs must be reasonable since so many people share their beliefs and atheists must be wrong since there are fewer of us. The problem is that popularity is not a good way of establishing what the truth is. Christianity is no more or less true today than it was when it consisted of a few hundred people. Islam does not become true if it far surpasses Christianity in adherents… Another argument I sometimes hear is that someone you know was sick and recovered after you prayed for them. The reason why this doesn’t work as evidence of God is that some people will inevitably recover whether you pray for them or not. What would provide evidence of God is a study showing that people receiving prayers recovered faster than those who did not. However, so far no properly conducted study has discovered a significant effect.

.

These two Christian arguments,sir, are flawed in themselves and are not good to think of. I think it will be silly to include them in your illogical list.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Assume you go to the store to buy your first can of baked beans. What evidence do you have that the can of baked beans you just bought has baked beans in it?

Try shaking it ​

 

[Lampo]

Try shaking it ​

Do baked beans make a sound unique all to themselves?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If you’re open to reading recommendations (as it sounds you are), I’ve got to mention one of my very favorite books, C.S. Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy”. It is his spiritual autobiography from “cultural Christian” childhood to atheist adulthood to the conclusion that God exists, a conclusion that left him “perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.” How could anybody not want to read such a tale?

The book is not at all preachy as you might justly fear. It is simply a fascinating story on many levels. If you take pleasure in meeting other unique minds, you’ll take pleasure in reading Lewis’ story.

That does sound interesting. I’ll try to check it out at some point. Hopefully sooner rather than later, but realistically it will probably be a while until I get to it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Think how freeing it is to not have to always worry about the stopwatch ticking away your short life here on Earth, and being reunited with your family and friends in the next Life.Inner Peace is one of the benefits of being a believer .

To me honest, I’m actually not all that worried about it. I used to be a little more worried about it, but I’ve come to terms with it. Here are some of my thoughts on my own mortality:

I think one reason that atheism is so unpopular is a fear of death. Nobody wants to die. No matter how long our lives were, we would always want to live just a few more years. I have thought a lot about this, and to me, death is part of what gives life its value. If we lived forever, then there would be no incentive to work hard since we could put everything off until tomorrow. We could relax and have fun for the first billion years of our lives and then do everything we wanted to accomplish. And if we stopped slacking off, we could master every single skill and try every single job within the first trillion or so years. Infinity is a long time, and at some point we would have learned and done everything it is possible to learn and do in our finite universe. There would be no success and failure, because any success would eventually have been achieved anyway, and no failure would cost you anything. I would consider such a life much worse than the one we lead. So I really hate the fact that one day I will die, but I realize that I have a really exciting life ahead of me and I will treasure every minute of it.

 

[Cinette]

That does sound interesting. I’ll try to check it out at some point. Hopefully sooner rather than later, but realistically it will probably be a while until I get to it.

My ex-atheist husband attended a talk by Gerald Schroader, a Jewish Psysicist, and purchased his book Genisis and the Big Bang and later read his other book The Hidden Face of God. He believed in God even before his finished Genisis and the Big Bang. He began to attend Mass with me and after 11 years converted!

Not saying it will be the case with you because God is a God of surprises. There have been atheists who have come to believe in the most extraordinary ways! One by just walking into a Church (it was raining outside) was overcome and believed! Who knows, God might reach you while lighting a cigarette!!! LOL! You never know!

Blessings
Cinette

 

[anEvilAtheist]

EvilAtheist…I’m still interested in why you reject Kreeft’s arguments on those particular two that I pointed out. Thanks.

I’m starting to think this thread is living up to its title…

I’m really really sorry. You all posted way more replies than I could handle. I am now going back through them and replying one by one. I will get to all of them, just not as fast as I would like. It’s hard to replies to so many people, especially since I try to put a decent amount of thought into my posts.

Again, sorry to everyone who’s posted so far for being so slow to respond. I’ve really enjoyed this discussion and I appreciate all of your posts.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Re the Opening Post, I have long been upset with dishonest and self-deceptive arguments in favor of God’s existence within my own Catholic faith. Everybody bows down to Aquinas’ “proofs” of God’s existence, but in the end they are patently invalid as “proofs.” If sheer “being” = a higher, logically prior “cause” so that there must be a God, then God’s sheer “being” = a higher, logically prior “cause” of God, Himself – i.e., a kind of “super-God.”

In other words, God’s Own “ultimateness” disproves the very argument claimed to be proof of God.

We can’t just say, “Oh, the argument doesn’t apply to God!!!” We have to have a proven reason why this would be true.

There is, however, a pretty good inductive argument for God’s existence. It’s based on the existence of prophetic typology in the Bible. Basically, it’s this: The Old Testament is jammed with symbolic structures called “typological word pictures” predicting Christ centuries before Christ came. Only a very real God could have arranged for that to occur. If someone is close-minded, the argument is easy enough to dismiss – “Oh, he has a wild imagination. He deceives himself into thinking that those prophetic things are there!” But, the person concluding that would be wrong, and the real problem isn’t wild imagination – it’s the close-mindedness of the one dismissing the claim.

Another inductive proof of God’s existence is something I call “the prayer experiment.” I’ll elaborate only if someone expresses an interest.

–Peter Dawson

Sorry for not replying to this earlier. I responded to most of this in another thread so I’ll try not to repeat what I already said. I do not think that this is something that can necessarily be dismissed out of hand, but I would need more than just some examples in order to believe it. It would have to be clear that the parts of the New Testament that we have reason to believe actually happened would have to be hinted at in the Old Testament in ways that are too strange to have happened by chance. Unless you could show that stuff like this occurred much more than would happen merely due to chance, I don’t know why this is any different than Theomatics (which doesn’t seem to work because the supposedly amazing patterns occur just as often in other books as in the Bible). If you compared the Bible to ancient texts with a similar style and saw that the Bible prophesized in this way far better than other texts, then you might have something. Citing a few passages may seem convincing to you, but so do some Theomatics examples, and people have used computer programs to show that those supposed patterns are not unusual.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Another inductive proof of God’s existence is something I call “the prayer experiment.” I’ll elaborate only if someone expresses an interest.

–Peter Dawson

I actually would be really interested in hearing about the prayer experiment.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Apparently, Kreeft admits to exactly what you said right up front. There are flaws. He says this in his last paragraph before he goes into the 20 arguments.

“Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal’s Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a “wager.” Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.”

I know. I had also read that paragraph. Just because some of the arguments were flawed, I did not assume that all of them were. I read each one and tried to see if his logic made sense. I came to the conclusion that there were problems with each of them. Although he recognizes that some are flawed, he does claim that some of the arguments do work.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Saint Augustine asked the questions, “If there is no God, why is there so much good? If there is a God, why is there so much evil?” The strongest argument against the existence of God is Augustine’s second question. I don’t think anyone has a completely satisfying answer to that question. We have a partial one. Ultimately, it’s going to come down to a leap of faith. I think we can explain why God permits evil easier than the atheist can explain why there is good.

I disagree. If there is no God to maximize the good, I would expect there to be some good, and some bad. But I guess that to some degree this comes down to how you define good. It’s hard to explain why good exists until I know what you mean by good.

 

[Lampo]

I disagree. If there is no God to maximize the good, I would expect there to be some good, and some bad. But I guess that to some degree this comes down to how you define good. It’s hard to explain why good exists until I know what you mean by good.

I like this one.

 

[crowonsnow]

Sometimes Christians say that their beliefs must be reasonable since so many people share their beliefs and atheists must be wrong since there are fewer of us. The problem is that popularity is not a good way of establishing what the truth is.

What would you make of the fact that for any one religion there are more non-believers than believers? How strong an argument is this against deciding to practice any given religion?

I often claim that if you don’t think another alleged god is real then you’re atheist about that god. Therefore most people are 99.99% atheist when it comes to gods. Monotheism therefore becomes a form of atheism.

Theists tend to lump themselves all together when it’s convenient to do so, claiming that atheists are therefore wrong about whether gods are real. But how, if someone is claiming that another person’s god is not real, can one still hold that that other person is not atheist?

 

[twb1621]

I disagree.

Excerpts from prophecies of the Old Testament Fulfilled,

9-THE MINISTRY OF JESUS:
PROPHECIES FULFILLED
AND JESUS RETURNED IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT INTO GALILEE…AND HE TAUGHT IN THEIR SYNAGOGUES…AND HE CAME TO NAZARETH, WHERE HE HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP: AND, AS HIS CUSTOM WAS, HE WENT INTO THE SYNAGOGUE ON THE SABBATH DAY, AND STOOD UP FOR TO READ. AND THERE WAS DELIVERED UNTO HIM THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ESAIAS. AND WHEN HE HAD OPENED THE BOOK, HE FOUND THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN-Lk 4:14-17.
THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD GOD IS UPON ME; BECAUSE THE LORD HATH ANOINTED ME TO PREACH GOOD TIDINGS UNTO THE MEEK; HE HATH SENT ME TO BIND UP THE BROKENHEARTED, TO PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO THE CAPTIVES, AND THE OPENING OF THE PRISON TO THEM THAT ARE BOUND; TO PROCLAIM THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD-Isa 61:1,2;
AND RECOVERING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND-Lk 4:18. AND HE BEGAN TO SAY UNTO THEM, THIS DAY IS THIS SCRIPTURE FULFILLED IN YOUR EARS-Lk 4:21.
AND (Jesus) CAME DOWN TO CAPERNAUM…AND THEY WERE ASTONISHED AT HIS DOCTRINE…NOW WHEN THE SUN WAS SETTING, ALL THEY THAT HAD ANY SICK WITH DIVERS DISEASES BROUGHT THEM UNTO HIM; AND HE LAID HIS HANDS ON EVERY ONE OF THEM, AND HEALED THEM-Lk 4:31,32,40.
AND DEVILS ALSO CAME OUT OF MANY, CRYING OUT, AND SAYING, THOU ART CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. AND HE REBUKING THEM SUFFERED THEM NOT TO SPEAK: FOR THEY KNEW THAT HE WAS CHRIST…AND THE MULTITUDES MARVELED, SAYING, IT WAS NEVER SO SEEN IN ISRAEL-Lk 4:41; Mt 9:33.
THEN HE (Jesus) CALLED HIS TWELVE DISCIPLES TOGETHER, AND GAVE THEM POWER AND AUTHORITY OVER ALL DEVILS, AND TO CURE DISEASES-Lk 9:1.
And Jesus said, REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL-Mk 1:15. I TELL YOU, NAY: BUT, EXCEPT YE REPENT, YE SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH-Lk 13:3. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT YE BE CONVERTED, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, YE SHALL NOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN-Mt 18:3. VERILY, VERILY, I SAY UNTO THEE, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD. HE THAT BELIEVETH ON THE SON HATH EVERLASTING LIFE: AND HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT THE SON (the Word) SHALL NOT SEE LIFE; BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDETH ON HIM-Jn 3:3,36.
AND GREAT MULTITUDES CAME TOGETHER TO HEAR, AND TO BE HEALED BY HIM…(Jesus) WENT INTO A CITY CALLED NAIN…NOW WHEN HE CAME NIGH TO THE GATE OF THE CITY, BEHOLD, THERE WAS A DEAD MAN (being) CARRIED OUT, THE ONLY SON OF HIS MOTHER, AND SHE WAS A WIDOW…AND HE (Jesus) CAME AND TOUCHED THE BIER (or coffin)…AND HE SAID, YOUNG MAN, I SAY UNTO THEE, ARISE (or get up). AND HE THAT WAS DEAD SAT UP, AND BEGAN TO SPEAK…AND THERE CAME A FEAR (or awe) ON ALL: AND THEY GLORIFIED GOD-Lk 5:15; 7:11,12,14-16.
AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HEARD HIM AND THE PUBLICANS, JUSTIFIED GOD, BEING BAPTIZED WITH THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. BUT THE PHARISEES AND LAWYERS REJECTED THE COUNSEL OF GOD AGAINST THEMSELVES, BEING NOT BAPTIZED OF HIM-Lk 7:29,30.
AND HE (Jesus) SAID TO THEM ALL, IF ANY MAN WILL COME AFTER ME, LET HIM DENY HIMSELF, AND TAKE UP HIS CROSS DAILY, AND FOLLOW ME-Lk 9:23.
AND I SAY UNTO YOU MY FRIENDS, BE NOT AFRAID OF THEM THAT KILL THE BODY, AND AFTER THAT HAVE NO MORE THAT THEY CAN DO. BUT I WILL FOREWARN YOU WHOM YE SHALL FEAR: FEAR HIM, WHICH AFTER HE HATH KILLED HATH POWER TO CAST INTO HELL; YEA, I SAY UNTO YOU, FEAR HIM-Lk 12:4,5.
AND HE (Jesus) SAID UNTO THEM, TAKE HEED, AND BEWARE OF COVETOUSNESS: FOR A MAN’S LIFE CONSISTETH NOT IN THE ABUNDANCE OF THE THINGS WHICH HE POSSESSETH…THEREFORE I SAY UNTO YOU, TAKE NO THOUGHT FOR YOUR LIFE, WHAT YE SHALL EAT; NEITHER FOR THE BODY, WHAT YE SHALL PUT ON. THE LIFE IS MORE THAN MEAT, AND THE BODY IS MORE THAN RAIMENT. FOR ALL THESE THINGS DO THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD SEEK AFTER: AND YOUR FATHER KNOWETH THAT YE HAVE NEED OF THESE THINGS. BUT RATHER SEEK YE THE KINGDOM OF GOD; AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU. FEAR NOT, LITTLE FLOCK; FOR IT IS YOUR FATHER’S GOOD PLEASURE TO GIVE YOU THE KINGDOM. SELL THAT YE HAVE, AND GIVE ALMS; PROVIDE YOURSELVES BAGS WHICH WAX NOT OLD, A TREASURE IN THE HEAVENS THAT FAILETH NOT, WHERE NO THIEF APPROACHETH, NEITHER MOTH CORRUPTETH. FOR WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS, THERE WILL YOUR HEART BE ALSO-Lk 12:15,22,23,30-34.
LET YOUR LOINS BE GIRDED ABOUT, AND YOUR LIGHTS BURNING; AND YE YOURSELVES LIKE UNTO MEN THAT WAIT FOR THEIR LORD, WHEN HE WILL RETURN FROM THE WEDDING; THAT WHEN HE COMETH AND KNOCKETH, THEY MAY OPEN UNTO HIM IMMEDIATELY. BLESSED ARE THOSE SERVANTS, WHOM THE LORD WHEN HE COMETH SHALL FIND WATCHING…BLESSED IS THAT SERVANT, WHOM HIS LORD WHEN HE COMETH SHALL FIND SO DOING-Lk 12:35-37,43.
STRIVE TO ENTER IN AT THE STRAIT GATE: FOR MANY, I SAY UNTO YOU, WILL SEEK TO ENTER IN, AND SHALL NOT BE ABLE-Lk 13:24.
AND THERE ARE ALSO MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH JESUS DID, THE WHICH, IF THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN EVERY ONE, I SUPPOSE THAT EVEN THE WORLD ITSELF COULD NOT CONTAIN THE BOOKS THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN-Jn 21:25.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

**10-JESUS ENTERS JERUSALEM: **

PROPHECIES FULFILLED

HE HAD NO BEAUTY OR MAJESTY TO ATTRACT US TO HIM, NOTHING IN HIS APPEARANCE THAT WE SHOULD DESIRE HIM-Isa 53:2 NIV.
AND JESUS…SAID…BEHOLD, WE GO UP TO JERUSALEM; AND THE SON OF MAN SHALL BE BETRAYED UNTO THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND UNTO THE SCRIBES, AND THEY SHALL CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH, AND SHALL DELIVER HIM TO THE GENTILES TO MOCK, AND TO SCOURGE, AND TO CRUCIFY HIM: AND THE THIRD DAY HE SHALL RISE AGAIN-Mt 20:17-19.
REJOICE GREATLY, O DAUGHTER OF ZION; SHOUT, O DAUGHTER OF JERUSALEM: BEHOLD, THY KING COMETH UNTO THEE: HE IS JUST, AND HAVING SALVATION; LOWLY, AND RIDING UPON AN ***, AND UPON A COLT THE FOAL OF AN ***-Zech 9:9.
AND THEY BROUGHT THE COLT TO JESUS, AND CAST THEIR GARMENTS ON HIM; AND HE SAT UPON HIM. AND JESUS ENTERED INTO JERUSALEM, AND INTO THE TEMPLE-Mk 11:7,11.

**11-BETRAYAL AND ARREST OF JESUS: **

PROPHECIES FULFILLED

Then Judas WENT UNTO THE CHIEF PRIESTS, AND SAID UNTO THEM, WHAT WILL YE GIVE ME, AND I WILL DELIVER HIM UNTO YOU? AND THEY COVENANTED WITH HIM FOR THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER-Mt 26:14,15. As it is written, SO THEY WEIGHED FOR MY PRICE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER-Zech 11:12.
AND HE (Jesus)…KNEELED DOWN, AND PRAYED, SAYING, FATHER, IF THOU BE WILLING, REMOVE THIS CUP FROM ME: NEVERTHELESS NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE, BE DONE. AND THERE APPEARED AN ANGEL UNTO HIM FROM HEAVEN, STRENGTHENING HIM. AND BEING IN AN AGONY HE PRAYED MORE EARNESTLY: AND HIS SWEAT WAS AS IT WERE GREAT DROPS OF BLOOD FALLING DOWN TO THE GROUND-Lk 22:41-44.
And Jesus said unto His disciples, WHY SLEEP YE? RISE AND PRAY, LEST YE ENTER INTO TEMPTATION. AND WHILE HE YET SPAKE, BEHOLD A MULTITUDE, AND HE THAT WAS CALLED JUDAS, ONE OF THE TWELVE, WENT BEFORE THEM, AND DREW NEAR UNTO JESUS TO KISS HIM. BUT JESUS SAID UNTO HIM, JUDAS, BETRAYEST THOU THE SON OF MAN WITH A KISS?-Lk 22:46-48.
YEA, MINE OWN FAMILIAR FRIEND, IN WHOM I TRUSTED, WHICH DID EAT OF MY BREAD, HATH LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME-Ps 41:9.
THEN THE BAND AND THE CAPTAIN AND OFFICERS OF THE JEWS TOOK JESUS, AND BOUND HIM, AND LED HIM AWAY-
Jn 18:12,13.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

**12-TRIAL OF JESUS: **

PROPHECIES FULFILLED

AND THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND ALL THE COUNCIL SOUGHT FOR WITNESS AGAINST JESUS TO PUT HIM TO DEATH; AND FOUND NONE. FOR MANY BARE FALSE WITNESS AGAINST HIM, BUT THEIR WITNESS AGREED NOT TOGETHER-Mk 14:55,56. For it is written, FALSE WITNESSES DID RISE UP; THEY LAID TO MY CHARGE THINGS THAT I KNEW NOT-Ps 35:11. THE HIGH PRIEST…ASKED JESUS, SAYING, ANSWEREST THOU NOTHING? WHAT IS IT WHICH THESE WITNESS AGAINST THEE? BUT HE HELD HIS PEACE, AND ANSWERED NOTHING. AGAIN THE HIGH PRIEST ASKED HIM, AND SAID UNTO HIM, ART THOU THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE BLESSED? AND JESUS SAID, I AM…THEN THE HIGH PRIEST RENT HIS CLOTHES, AND SAITH, WHAT NEED WE ANY FURTHER WITNESSES?..AND THEY ALL CONDEMNED HIM TO BE GUILTY OF DEATH-Mk 14:60-64.
AND THE MEN THAT HELD JESUS MOCKED HIM, AND SMOTE HIM-Lk 22:63. And SPIT IN HIS FACE AND STRUCK HIM WITH THEIR FISTS. OTHERS SLAPPED HIM AND SAID, “PROPHESY TO US, CHRIST. WHO HIT YOU?”-Mt 26:67 NIV.
AND THE WHOLE MULTITUDE OF THEM AROSE, AND LED HIM UNTO PILATE-Lk 23:1. AND WHEN HE WAS ACCUSED OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND ELDERS, HE ANSWERED NOTHING. For it is written, HE WAS OPPRESSED, AND HE WAS AFFLICTED, YET HE OPENED NOT HIS MOUTH: HE IS BROUGHT AS A LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER, AND AS A SHEEP BEFORE HER SHEARERS IS DUMB, SO HE OPENED NOT HIS MOUTH-Isa 53:7. THEN SAID PILATE UNTO HIM, HEAREST THOU NOT HOW MANY THINGS THEY WITNESS AGAINST THEE? AND HE ANSWERED HIM TO NEVER A WORD; INSOMUCH THAT THE GOVERNOR MARVELED GREATLY-Mt 27:12-14.
PILATE ANSWERED…THINE OWN NATION AND THE CHIEF PRIESTS HAVE DELIVERED THEE UNTO ME: WHAT HAST THOU DONE?-Jn 18:35.
AND AS SOON AS HE KNEW THAT HE BELONGED UNTO HEROD’S JURISDICTION, HE SENT HIM TO HEROD, WHO HIMSELF ALSO WAS AT JERUSALEM AT THAT TIME. THEN HE QUESTIONED WITH HIM IN MANY WORDS; BUT HE ANSWERED HIM NOTHING. AND THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND SCRIBES STOOD AND VEHEMENTLY ACCUSED HIM-Lk 23:7,9,10. AND HEROD WITH HIS MEN OF WAR SET HIM AT NOUGHT, AND MOCKED HIM, AND ARRAYED HIM IN A GORGEOUS ROBE, AND SENT HIM AGAIN TO PILATE-Lk 23:11.
FOR OF A TRUTH AGAINST THY HOLY CHILD JESUS, WHOM THOU HAST ANOINTED, BOTH HEROD, AND PONTIUS PILATE, WITH THE GENTILES, AND THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, WERE GATHERED TOGETHER-Acts 4:27. And THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE RULERS AND THE PEOPLE…CRIED…CRUCIFY HIM, CRUCIFY HIM-Lk 23:13,21. THEN…THE PEOPLE…SAID, HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN-Mt 27:25. AND PILATE GAVE SENTENCE THAT IT SHOULD BE AS THEY REQUIRED-Lk 23:24. And HE (Pilate) HAD JESUS FLOGGED, AND HANDED HIM OVER TO BE CRUCIFIED-Mk 15:15 NIV.
THE SOLDIERS TWISTED TOGETHER A CROWN OF THORNS AND PUT IT ON HIS HEAD…AND…STRUCK HIM IN THE FACE-Jn 19:2,3 NIV. AGAIN AND AGAIN THEY STRUCK HIM ON THE HEAD WITH A STAFF AND SPIT ON HIM-Mk 15:19 NIV."
source;
parentalguide.com/Documents/Jesus_Desk/Jesus_birth_life_death_res.htm

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Care to explain why you reject the first one? - Argument from Change?

Here’s my response to Kreeft’s first argument. Again, sorry for the delay, but sometimes real life intervenes and I don’t get to make as many posts here as I would like. I expanded a little bit upon the problem I saw when I first read his argument. First of all, there does seem to be evidence of things changing forms without an external cause. In radioactive decay, atoms change into other atoms randomly and without external stimuli. I anticipate some people saying that quantum mechanics could eventually be proven wrong. Sure, any scientific theory, no matter how well established, could someday been proven wrong, but it is currently the best theory we have, and it has been repeatedly confirmed (or at least not disconfirmed) by test after test. Now clearly, at the scale of people and trees and puppies, everything has we see change seems to have an external cause (depending on how you define cause). However, just because things behave a certain way at our size does not mean that they behave the same way at the atomic level. For example, just because we do not have personal experience with the weak nuclear force, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. If personal experience was a reliable guide to all situations, we could easily dismiss the seemingly idiotic notion that things moving very fast get bigger and travel through time, yet that too is well established by science.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If you want, how about #5 too? - The Design Argument.

Again, sorry about the delay. Here’s my response to Kreeft’s design argument. I agree with his first point that “the universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility.” I am constantly in awe of the beauty and wonderful complexity of our universe. With the second point, my only objection is that he doesn’t define chance here. I agree that the universe probably just is, without a divine planner, but without knowing how he defines chance, it is hard to know whether I agree. I think it is a big theistic assumption to say that it is impossible for the universe to adhere to any laws at all without God. For example, it seems silly to assume that things like the law of non-contradiction could not exist without God and that without God some rocks could be both rocks and non-rocks at the same time. Theists certainly have not proven that this law could not exist without God. So there could be a variety of laws that the universe must be consistent with, even if there is no God. If chance means random events, consistent with the natural laws, then I think chance is probably the best explanation for why things have played out as they did. But if chance means that EVERYTHING is completely random and the universe adheres to no natural laws, then I do not think that chance is an adequate way of describing why things have happened as they did and I think that Kreeft is presenting a false dilemma by saying that these are the only two options.

Another problem is with his statement that “It is surely up to nonbelievers to produce a credible alternative to design.” Just because primitive man had no idea why the stars moved across the sky doesn’t mean that a person who claimed that they move that way because God was continuously pushing them across the sky must have been right. Science is continually finding out more about the world, and just because we currently don’t have a natural explanation for something doesn’t mean that we never will. The burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. If I claimed that invisible unicorns exist, it would be unreasonable to ask you to prove that they don’t. Shifting the burden of proof like this is a special case of the argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Kreeft says that “For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened “by chance” is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without order.” I pretty much agree, and this is why atheists cannot prove that it happened by chance. With only one data point, it is probably impossible to prove how likely, or unlikely, our universe was to arise by natural means. But just because some atheists dogmatically assert that it happened by chance and cannot prove it, does not mean that theism wins by default. I do not claim to know why everything happened the way it did, but since countless things that were previously attributed to God and had no plausible natural explanation are now known to have a natural explanation, I think it is most likely that the cause of other unknowns is not God. To convince me otherwise would require more than the argument that the hardcore atheists can’t prove their theories either.

“Hasn’t the Darwinian theory of evolution shown us how it is possible for all the order in the universe to have arisen by chance?” Here Kreeft seems to be attacking a straw man (either that or he talks to unbelievably unintelligent atheists). The theory of evolution clearly only covers how life evolved since that very first life form, and has nothing to do with cosmology. The same thing applies to the second and third responses. I have met unintelligent atheists, but the atheist questions he answers are just unbelievable. I agree with his responses to them and I think it would be hard not to.

I’d be interested in hearing your feedback on my responses to his first and fifth arguments. If I’m wrong, I’d like to know it. After hearing so many flawed arguments that attempt to show that God probably exists, I doubt that there is a good one. But if I find one, I’ll definitely have to reevaluate my religious beliefs.