Proof that Christianity is False

[tonsofquestions]

The main reason I came on this board was not to look for proof for Christianity. I came here because I thought I had discovered proof against Christianity, and wanted to see if that was true. Believe it or not, I am willing to believe in something even if I cannot prove it, so I don’t demand that rock solid evidence be presented in order for me to believe in Christianity. However, I will not believe in a religion if I have proof it’s not true, proof I thought I had. However, although I am still troubled by the methods the Gospel writers used in quoting the Old Testament, I am still willing to have faith, even if I can’t prove Christianity. However, as I said above, I will not believe in a religion if I have proof it’s not true.

My question than, is this. Do any of the non-christians on this board have anything you think is proof that Christianity is false? I am not looking for arguments that Christianity could conceivably not be true, but arguments why it isn’t true, if that makes sense. If so, please explain in as great detail as possible. Thanks!

 

[catching]

I am non-Christian on this board and i have no any proof against Christianity so I think there is nothing wrong in Christianity.

 

[CredoChris]

However, although I am still troubled by the methods the Gospel writers used in quoting the Old Testament,

What troubles you about the methods?

I’m curious, if you had evidence that Christianity were false, wouldn’t that evidence have to pass some standard to be proof. What standard would you use for that proof? What process would you put the evidence through to determine if it is proof?

 

[kall]

Well I am a Christian but it depends entirely on how you interpret several things. For instance, do you believe the Ark, the story of Adam & Eve, etc literally? Do you believe the earth is really only 6,000 years old?

Oh, and more thing, the burden of proof relies entirely on us as Christians. For instance, can you prove to me that Santa Clause is false? The answer is you can not, that doesn’t make it true (same for flying pigs or pink cows or whatever). Keep that in mind during your endeavors

Good luck

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It sounds like you really want to believe. While I think Christianity is wrong and the evidence points strongly against it, we all have to follow our own minds and hearts. The good news for you is that I have no definitive proof that every form of Christianity is wrong. It is impossible to disprove Christianity, just as it is impossible to disprove invisible unicorns. However, I do think that all forms of Christianity have contradictions, or force you to accept something that I think is absurd. In my opinion, the biggest problems for Christianity are the problem of evil and the doctrine of hell. It is possible to come up with a consistent set of beliefs, but every set of beliefs I have heard so far (even from top apologists) includes something I see as an absurdity (for example, that the Holocaust made the world better off, and there was no way for God to do the same amount of good with less harm). So I don’t think there’s one argument that disproves all of Christianity, but I do not think there is a reasonable way of reconciling all of the apparent contradictions. If you give me a set of beliefs about hell and evil, I can tell you why I think it is implausible.

I believe that everyone should take the time to consider whether or not their beliefs are contradictory. My personal opinion is that most intelligent people who approach the God question without bias and really dig deeply into the evidence on both sides will probably become atheists because that is where I feel the evidence leads. I know of many people who desperately wanted to believe and yet very reluctantly gave up their beliefs as they learned more and more.

I don’t know much about you, so I don’t know whether or not you’d be better off as an atheist. I know that many of the people who were dragged kicking and screaming away from Christianity (due to researching the evidence) ended up very content in their atheism and eventually felt it very liberating (after they got over an initial feeling of loss). But there are also people who rely so much on their faith that losing it would cause them profound sadness.

If you really want to preserve your faith in Christianity, I recommend that you listen to some debates by William Lane Craig (there’s tons of them online). Personally, I think he is dead wrong, and sometimes plays a little fast and loose with the facts, but I think his case for Christianity is better than any other I have heard. He also typically destroys the atheists that he is debating against because he has a lifetime of practice defending Christianity. If you want to remain a Christian, I also recommend checking out the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It’s a recently released compilation of the best arguments for the existence of God with chapters written by the greatest living proponents of each argument. I have not read it yet, but I hear it makes probably the best possible case for Christianity. It’s really expensive, but maybe you can borrow it from the library at some point.

If you want to challenge your faith, I also might be able to point you toward some good resources. In the end, I think it comes down to how much you want to make sure that your beliefs are true. If you want to be pretty sure that your beliefs are true, you have a lot of work ahead of you, because there’s a lot that you should read (from both atheists and Christians) before making up your mind. But if you feel that you currently have enough evidence/faith to continue believing in Christianity, go ahead. I think Christianity is wrong, but I don’t think any of us can really know what is true with 100% certainty. Good luck, and if you have any questions about anything, I’d be happy to try to answer them.

 

[Kaninchen]

My question than, is this. Do any of the non-christians on this board have anything you think is proof that Christianity is false? I am not looking for arguments that Christianity could conceivably not be true, but arguments why it isn’t true, if that makes sense. If so, please explain in as great detail as possible. Thanks!

I can’t prove that the religion of the flying spaghetti monster isn’t true - as outsiders to any religion all we can really consider are questions of etiology and levels of likeliness when considering their ‘truth’ components.

Of course, being Jewish, one has the advantage of not viewing believers in other religions as being disadvantaged for not being Jewish so there’s not the same sense of urgency about talking to Christians (or Muslims) about the nature of their beliefs that they feel about convincing everybody else.

So, perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is whether you think that one branch of Christianity or another would be satisfying to your search for some kind of relationship with the ‘divine’ rather than a search for some kind of ‘ultimate truth’ which you’ll never be able to establish as being ‘ultimately true’.

 

[capablanca911]

The main reason I came on this board was not to look for proof for Christianity. I came here because I thought I had discovered proof against Christianity, and wanted to see if that was true. Believe it or not, I am willing to believe in something even if I cannot prove it, so I don’t demand that rock solid evidence be presented in order for me to believe in Christianity. However, I will not believe in a religion if I have proof it’s not true, proof I thought I had. However, although I am still troubled by the methods the Gospel writers used in quoting the Old Testament, I am still willing to have faith, even if I can’t prove Christianity. However, as I said above, I will not believe in a religion if I have proof it’s not true.

My question than, is this. Do any of the non-christians on this board have anything you think is proof that Christianity is false? I am not looking for arguments that Christianity could conceivably not be true, but arguments why it isn’t true, if that makes sense. If so, please explain in as great detail as possible. Thanks!

On roughly a related note, I once was heart broken to hear a refutation to St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument in the existence of God.

But then was relieved at a way to fix it.

For the curious:

1. God, by definition, is something which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is better for things that are good to exist in reality, than in the mind alone.
3. God exists in the conception or in the mind. Even the skeptic says in the “figment of the imagination.”
4. If God does not exist, we can conceive of a God that does exist–or, we can conceive of something greater (existing God) than the greatest possible thing that can be conceived (God).
5. This is a contradiction. To avoid the contradiction, we must forbid the conditional statement of God’s non-existence.
6. Therefore God exists.

Anselm’s contemporary Gaunilo came up with a reductio ad absurdum using a perfect treasure island counter-example. But if you insert the premise that it is possible for God to exist, then it eliminates Gaunilo’s objection.

For if it is possible for the perfect treasure island to exist, then you haven’t demonstrated absurdity in the reductio ad absurdum argument.

But if it is not possible for the perfect treasure island to exist, then it cannot be substituted for God because the form of the argument is contingent upon the premise “It is possible that God exists” which the statement would contradict. It’s simply not allowable.

 

[AIC]

If I can offer just one word of advice in your quest for the truth it would be this: Resurrection.

If the resurrection did not happen then Christianity is of no value and we can ignore everything in the gospels.

Therefore, I recommend keeping this as your focus; limit your search, initially at least, to considering all the evidence that exists for the resurrection.

 

[Holly3278]

Well I am a Christian but it depends entirely on how you interpret several things. For instance, do you believe the Ark, the story of Adam & Eve, etc literally? Do you believe the earth is really only 6,000 years old?

Oh, and more thing, the burden of proof relies entirely on us as Christians. For instance, can you prove to me that Santa Clause is false? The answer is you can not, that doesn’t make it true (same for flying pigs or pink cows or whatever). Keep that in mind during your endeavors

Good luck

Hey! Pink cows are for real!

http://img5.travelblog.org/Photos/37654/237612/t/1884498-Pink-cow-1.jpg

That said, there is no proof that Christianity is false. There is plenty of proof that Protestantism is false in one or more areas. However there is absolutely no proof that Catholicism, the true Christianity, is false!

 

[odopa]

I once saw someone’s signature on CAF that reads:

“To the one who has faith, no explanation is necessary, to the one without faith, no explanation is possible”

I think that summarises my contribution to this thread. Good luck though, many before you had tried to dispute the great religion and finally had succumbed when they had one -on -one encounter with the Divine. Who knows, you might have the Great One himself explain to you what christianity is all about.

Love and Peace.
Odopa

 

[anon5216]

The main reason I came on this board was not to look for proof for Christianity. I came here because I thought I had discovered proof against Christianity, and wanted to see if that was true. Believe it or not, I am willing to believe in something even if I cannot prove it, so I don’t demand that rock solid evidence be presented in order for me to believe in Christianity. However, I will not believe in a religion if I have proof it’s not true, proof I thought I had. However, although I am still troubled by the methods the Gospel writers used in quoting the Old Testament, I am still willing to have faith, even if I can’t prove Christianity. However, as I said above, I will not believe in a religion if I have proof it’s not true.

My question than, is this. Do any of the non-christians on this board have anything you think is proof that Christianity is false? I am not looking for arguments that Christianity could conceivably not be true, but arguments why it isn’t true, if that makes sense. If so, please explain in as great detail as possible. Thanks!

I’m not so sure this is even a meaningfully useful line of inquiry.

Why do you even care one way or the other?

Religions and spiritual traditions are frequently referred to as “paths”, with the ultimate destination being something Divine.

IF you are interested in actually reaching that destination - rather than merely trying to intellectually prove or disprove the official description of whatever spiritual “path” you’re investigating,
try finding living individuals (or biographies of historical individuals) who at least appear to have reached that ultimate destination.

Since Christianity seems to be of interest to you, rest assured there are plenty of biographies of historical individuals to investigate. (There are surely living examples as well, if you’re willing to look for them).

Investigate their claims and their “travel diary”.
If it checks out to your satisfaction, follow that spiritual “path” - but with the realization that your results are still your own personal responsibility.

In any case, mere membership in a club of ‘believers’ in a particular ‘path’ can guarantee you nothing of actual spiritual substance - even if some people have actually reached the goal via that ‘path’.

 

[cranster]

I know of many people who desperately wanted to believe and yet very reluctantly gave up their beliefs as they learned more and more.

.

I’ve given this matter some thought. Is it still worth it to believe if in the end we all disappear into oblivion? I would have to say YES! The reason I would still follow Jesus is the positive effect of peace, joy, and fulfillment in my life through receiving the Sacraments, and prayer far outweigh the emptiness I’ve found found in the past when living a Godless life.

As St. Augustine said, “My soul will not rest until it rests in Thee”.

 

[VociMike]

Oh, and more thing, the burden of proof relies entirely on us as Christians. For instance, can you prove to me that Santa Clause is false? The answer is you can not, that doesn’t make it true (same for flying pigs or pink cows or whatever). Keep that in mind during your endeavors

This is a common misconception. The point that both atheists and believers start from is that they exist, and the universe exists (and if you reject the existence of the universe, you still have to deal with your own existence). Thus both groups have an equal burden of proof to account for this existence. It’s not enough for either group to say “you haven’t given me enough evidence to support your account”. They also have to make the case that they have more evidence to support their account, whatever it may be.

And if they say “we just can’t (or don’t) know” then the only rational course of action is that they must live their lives as though God existed.

 

[VociMike]

I know of many people who desperately wanted to believe and yet very reluctantly gave up their beliefs as they learned more and more.

And yet we know of people who desperately wanted not to believe, and yet very reluctantly gave up their non-belief as they learned more and more. I know you assume that the situation you describe only goes one way, but it does not. (hint…hint…have you started reading “Surprised by Joy” yet…hint…hint…)

BTW, a many Protestants make a similar assumption, that the only path between Catholicism and Protestantism is Catholics leaving the Church to become Protestants, and they are very surprised (and often flustered) to learn that there are a great many Protestants leaving that fold to become Catholics.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

And yet we know of people who desperately wanted not to believe, and yet very reluctantly gave up their non-belief as they learned more and more. I know you assume that the situation you describe only goes one way, but it does not. (hint…hint…have you started reading “Surprised by Joy” yet…hint…hint…)

BTW, a many Protestants make a similar assumption, that the only path between Catholicism and Protestantism is Catholics leaving the Church to become Protestants, and they are very surprised (and often flustered) to learn that there are a great many Protestants leaving that fold to become Catholics.

I wasn’t assuming it only went one way (and I will read Surprised by Joy at some point). I think it’s very possible to read yourself into Christianity, just as it’s possible to read yourself into atheism. And I’m sure the same is true between Catholicism and Protestantism. I think a lot of it depends on what you read and how you approach it. I bet you think that most people who approach the Catholic/Protestant question without bias and read extensively will become Catholic. I feel the same way about atheism.

 

[masterjedi747]

On roughly a related note, I once was heart broken to hear a refutation to St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument in the existence of God.

But then was relieved at a way to fix it.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was never a valid proof to begin with… Aquinas made that pretty clear.

For the curious: 1. God, by definition, is something than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is better for things to exist in reality, than in the mind alone.
3. God exists in the conception or in the mind. Even the skeptic says in the “figment of the imagination.”
4. If God does not exist, we can conceive of a God that does exist–or, we can conceive of something greater (existing God) than the greatest possible thing that can be conceived (God).
5. This is a contradiction. To avoid the contradiction, we must forbid the conditional statement of God’s non-existence.
6. Therefore God exists.

You’re still not getting around Aquinas’ objection:

*… granted that by the name ‘God’ everyone understands “that than which a greater cannot be thought of”, it does not follow that there is “something than which a greater cannot be thought of” in the nature of things *.

For… from the fact that what is indicated by the name ‘God’ is conceived by the mind , it does not follow that God exists, except in the intellect. Whence it is not necessary either that “that than which a greater cannot be thought of” exists, except in the intellect. And from this it does not follow that there is “something than which a greater cannot be thought of” in the nature of things *.

And so no inconsistency** is involved in the position of those who think that God does not exist: for no inconsistency is involved in being able to think of something greater than any given thing in the intellect or in reality, except for those who concede that there is “something than which a greater cannot be thought” of in the nature of things.

Put simply, steps 5 and 6 above do not follow. Buy a copy of Anselm’s Proslogion, and work through the argument yourself. The only conclusion that Anselm can draw from his premises is that “that than which a greater can not be conceived” must be conceived to exist in reality. There really is no justification for jumping from “in the mind” to “in the nature of things (i.e. in reality)”… it just looks like there could be, if you’re not careful.

As Ralph McInerny once said: “There are two groups of philosophers: those who still think that St. Anselm’s argument works, and those who can clearly see that it does not.” *

 

[VociMike]

I wasn’t assuming it only went one way (and I will read Surprised by Joy at some point). I think it’s very possible to read yourself into Christianity, just as it’s possible to read yourself into atheism. And I’m sure the same is true between Catholicism and Protestantism. I think a lot of it depends on what you read and how you approach it. I bet you think that most people who approach the Catholic/Protestant question without bias and read extensively will become Catholic. I feel the same way about atheism.

Can’t argue with anything here. You’re a rather level-headed atheist, I must say - hardly evil at all.

 

[tonsofquestions]

I’m going to bump this one time, just to see if anyone who hasn’t seen it yet might have something to add.

 

[Shredderbeam]

This is a common misconception. The point that both atheists and believers start from is that they exist, and the universe exists (and if you reject the existence of the universe, you still have to deal with your own existence). Thus both groups have an equal burden of proof to account for this existence. It’s not enough for either group to say “you haven’t given me enough evidence to support your account”. They also have to make the case that they have more evidence to support their account, whatever it may be.

And if they say “we just can’t (or don’t) know” then the only rational course of action is that they must live their lives as though God existed.

Why is that?

 

[budgie2]

I cannot prove that God exists or that God does not exist as if God is all powerful he could hide his presence from me. Therefore I cannot prove the existence of God either way but if God exists he can reveal himself to me. You would have to ask Jesus to reveal himself to you. This is how you could pray.
Please God, if you are there, give me proof of the Resurrection, the transubstantiation, the divinity of Christ and other things which you doubting about. It is within God’s power to hide himself from you or to reveal himself to you however it may also be that you’re not accepting or looking for God that is around you. If you look at the beauty in the world, how can it be created by an unintelligent or random force such as the Theory of Evolution? How can something which is random and unintelligent create intelligent beings such as humanity? I am intelligent so I must have been designed by something which is greater. This does not prove Christ and you may have to ask Jesus for proof in the same way as doubting Thomas or just look at the behaviour of Christians and see if they live according to Christ’s teaching and a better life to those with no faith.