The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

And Pastafarians make the same claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both claims are equally valid.

As a gedanken, what might be your response to someone who said:

How many converts were there to Christianity this week who were born in atheist homes or to adherents of other faiths? How many converts were there to Pastafarian who weren't already atheists?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then why are you trying to argue for solipsism? It wouldn’t be to avoid the point, would it?



What things would those be? Hearts pump blood.



How is an assertion about brain complexity evidence for God?



Metaphysics is a philosophical point of view. It’s not evidence.

These are just more assertions without evidence.

What is spirit? Can you demonstrate there is such a thing.

All you’re doing here is compounding more assertions on top of assertions.



How did you “put God to the test many times?” Is it something that you can share with others? If not, why do you think I should be convinced by it?

If the supernatural exists, it shouldn’t be that difficult to demonstrate. Pretty much anything else that exists is demonstrable in some way. Or is “supernatural” just a word people use to describe things they can’t understand?

I would go further and say that if a God exists and interacts with the universe in some way, that such a God should also be detectable by such actions.

Then why doesn’t he?

Humans wrote the Bible. So humans claimed that. And now you’re claiming it.



All I see here are excuses for the lack of good evidence for this God’s existence.

Back when I considered myself a Christian, I attempted to “got to Him” many times, but I got nothing in terms of “proof of existence.” And I’ve heard all this “Oh you just weren’t sincere enough” stuff and sorry, but I call BS. As I see it, this lack of evidence is the reason faith is brought into the picture in the first place. Because faith doesn’t actually require evidence.

If God does exist and wants me to believe in him, he should know exactly what evidence I would require in order to believe. I’ve never been provided with that. So I guess he doesn’t like me enough to convince me to believe in him, or maybe he’s just not there.

I thank you for finally attempting to provide evidence of your claim, at least. J

So they are convinced by some sort of evidence. That’s great for them and I have to take their word for it. But it does nothing to convince me. For something to be considered self-evident, it should be self-evident for everyone, not just for people who already believe the thing. That’s the problem with your claim.



I guess you could say your wife’s existence is self-evident and I thank you for demonstrating why that is, and why God’s supposed existence is NOT self-evident.



I still have no idea why you think I’m the solipsist here when you’re the one trying to use the argument.



So you think you know what God wants? That’s great, do you have evidence for this new claim you’ve made now?

And again, hearts pump blood. Do you have evidence that they do other things like use logic?

I'm sorry, but I see a disconnect--a large one--between your claim that you personally attempted to “get to Him” many times and your questioning me as to how I successfully tested God many times.

If you do not know how I tested God and how God responded to me or to the millions of born agains like me who tested prior to salvation, how can you claim with a straight face "been there, done that"? You should be telling me how I test God and why I'm wrong, not fishing with me for proof.

Again, I believe I've been more than clear, that if you choose to pursue Jesus, who can save and respond to testing IMHO, then please kindly do so by your free will, rather than constantly ask ME to prove GOD to you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not entirely correct. The earliest may have been written around 70 AD.

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-was-the-bible-assembled-363293Eventually,

Christian church leaders worldwide gathered to answer major questions, including which books should be regarded as "Scripture." These gatherings included the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381​

But, nevertheless, how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

Are you really asking or just being rhetorical? Because if I saw a miracle worker do all those things, then He rose from the dead and told me to preach, I would have repeated His stories and parables hundreds of times--just as I love Christ and have told my testimony hundreds of times, and have memorized entire books of the Bible and get them "right" years later!

And is it so hard to memorize such pithy statements like "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth!" Have you ever said anything so pithy? :0

 

[BilliardsBall]

Assuming Matthew wrote his gospel in 70 AD. It wasn't published for about 300 years later. By that time there was no one around to say or write:

Hey, wait a minute, I was there. That Jesus fella, he didn't feed no one. Him and a couple of his followers ate, but they sure didn't give us any.
​

In any case, by that time coming out and criticizing scripture likely got ya in big trouble.

​

Please cite your reference for this, since I'm aware that 1st and 2nd century writers quoted hundreds of Matthew verses, so that indeed, the entire NT could be reconstructed from their correspondence! They treated these quotations and nothing less than God's Word!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you ask a reasonable question. My responses:

1. If all the gospels were written in 90 AD, the difference between 90 and 33 CE is the same as someone today, alive, remembering 1961.

Not quite. For starters, there are plenty of written records we can use to corroborate accounts of 1961. For seconds, the average life expectancy of people around that time is between 20 and 30 years (SOURCES: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vh3pmAodawEC&pg=PA144&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lvfMrkqDbY0C&pg=PA2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false).

There are no counter documents saying the events didn't occur.

Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?

3. There were many witnesses, but as a subset, some particular friends and collaborators with Jesus, who dared to write documents that were a death sentence with the Romans and expulsion from Jewish life. 12 different persons or teams of writers wrote documents in the NT. We can reframe your question reasonably to say, "Why did 12 people risk death to promulgate these documents?"

Because people at the time wrote all kind of religious documents. It's not enough to say "they were risking death, so their accounts must be true!".

4. That's quite a lot of extant ancient sources for an event(s), 39 documents written by 12 teams, and is more than comparable with any other ancient person--even those who held far more temporal power than Jesus.

Not enough to establish that specific instances of his life should be accepted unequivocally as historical fact.

How many copies of Homer are extant in the oldest copies?

If you wish to make very specific claims about Homer's life, do you not think it reasonable to require contemporaneous sources?

How many biographers of Julius Caesar do we have extant from the period?

Well, we retain quite a large number of works attributed to Caesar himself (http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html), as well as lots of contemporary historical accounts from Cicero, Sallust, Nepos, Catallus, Pollio and Virgil.

6. The extant documents are not only lengthy, detailed, but also, they are highly influential. People have responded to these documents for millennia--and though there is the type of polarization Jesus predicted in the documents, everything up to POTUS and SCOTUS are under scrutiny now for their comparisons to the Bible.

A document being influential does not indicate the truth of its specific claims. Hence why so many theological texts exist that have millions, even billions, of adherents, other than the Bible.

7. Jesus was not Julius, as I wrote. Why should we demand contemporaneous documents of Him?

Because people make very specific claims about their life, down to specific quotations, actions and beliefs. If you cannot corroborate any of this, you cannot assert it as historical fact. At most, you can conclude the existence of a figure called Jesus who played a pivotal role in the founding of the religious movement that came to be known as Christianity. Beyond that, it's basically heresay and storytelling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you ask a reasonable question. My responses:

1. If all the gospels were written in 90 AD, the difference between 90 and 33 CE is the same as someone today, alive, remembering 1961. There are no counter documents saying the events didn't occur. There was GREAT reason to make counter documents--the Romans and Pharisees were only two of the groups with a big agenda if the historical Jesus was also the Messiah. I date the gospels far earlier, but know many people today alive in 1961 as young adults who could capably write and think now.

That is a rather ridiculous standard. There are no "documents" denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. What you need to make a story credible is independent confirmation.

2. The sole counter document of any type from the period would be the Talmud, which as it warns Jews to avoid Christianity in the strongest possible terms, actually says Jesus's father wasn't Joseph, Jesus died on a cross at 33 1/2 on Passover, etc.!

There are actually no contemporary documents that support or oppose the existence of Jesus. All Gospels are at least a generation older. None of them are eyewitness accounts.

3. There were many witnesses, but as a subset, some particular friends and collaborators with Jesus, who dared to write documents that were a death sentence with the Romans and expulsion from Jewish life. 12 different persons or teams of writers wrote documents in the NT. We can reframe your question reasonably to say, "Why did 12 people risk death to promulgate these documents?"

No, there are stories of "many witnesses". Stories of witnesses are not witnesses. And your claims of death sentences needs substantiation. Eventually Christians were targeted because they became a problem. Before that they were ignored from as far as I can see.

4. That's quite a lot of extant ancient sources for an event(s), 39 documents written by 12 teams, and is more than comparable with any other ancient person--even those who held far more temporal power than Jesus. How many copies of Homer are extant in the oldest copies? How many biographers of Julius Caesar do we have extant from the period?

There are plenty of cults that have done so over the ages. But then you are desperate so you will keep repeating this rather weak claim.

5. The NT books aren't little birth certificates. They are massive undertakings. I wanted to study Romans better so I memorized it as I studied. In English, Romans is the equivalent of 26-plus Gettysburg addresses! I thanked God I didn't memorize Matthew or even longer books, as friends have done!

And the Harry Potter series is over five times longer than the entire New Testament. Why should that be impressive at all?

6. The extant documents are not only lengthy, detailed, but also, they are highly influential. People have responded to these documents for millennia--and though there is the type of polarization Jesus predicted in the documents, everything up to POTUS and SCOTUS are under scrutiny now for their comparisons to the Bible.

Polarization has always been a norm. As far as prophecies go that one is a nothing burger. People respond to all sorts of fiction. You are still grasping at straws.

7. Jesus was not Julius, as I wrote. Why should we demand contemporaneous documents of Him? He was a humble "carpenter" who preached then died on a cross. Scholars believe in Bar Kokhba and other "messiahs" readily--and scholars accept the historical Jesus was baptized in water and crucified. Thousands of Jews were baptized and/or crucified, but Jesus is known by name for His documents.

You can't have it both ways. If he was just a humble carpenter than not having documents makes sense. If he was who you think he was there should be someone that wrote of him from that time. Supposedly countless "witnesses" to his miracles and yet they never caught the eye of any historian.

8. As a gedanken, I try to use the hypothesis method, to understand your perspective. I believe you think modern scholars get it now, and ancient people were more gullible regarding the Bible. I disagree because a) we see tremendous skeptics confront Christ in the NT and the prophets in the OT b) life spans were brief in the ANE and life was cheap under the Romans, who could crucify practically on a whim, and would toss out unwanted children and spouses. Do you think the ancients who lived in a bloody Israel would readily say, "SURE, some guy came back from the dead!" They saw people dead and buried far more often than modern westerners are exposed to mortality. Rather, we see a very vigorous skepticism everywhere from the Acropolis to the VERY real statement that when Jesus appeared to 500 followers, some trusted Him for salvation and some doubted (honestly) His resurrection.

Again, no witnesses to the resurrection. Only conflicting stories about it. People believe what they want to believe. Look at the success of quack nostrums today. And that is with freely available education. In a time without it with desperate people looking for some hope it is not unreasonable that such a cult would catch on.

I find the Bible credible, honest and reliable.

That is only because you do not know how to test it properly,.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please see my detailed reply elsewhere, but did you know some of the NT documents claim to be eyewitness accounts?

Let's try to be honest and not call them "documents". Which one claim to be eyewitness accounts? The works of Paul do not count. He admitted to not being an eyewitness. None of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Perhaps a minor epistle or two. But a lot of those are psuedepigrapha. Which books are eyewitness accounts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a gedanken, what might be your response to someone who said:

How many converts were there to Christianity this week who were born in atheist homes or to adherents of other faiths? How many converts were there to Pastafarian who weren't already atheists?

Hardly a fair comparison. If I reversed it and asked how many people each religion lost Christianity would be the clear loser.

 

[SkepticThinker]

King James Bible
And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.

Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water that we may drink " And Moses said to them, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?

'So now we call the arrogant blessed; not only are the doers of wickedness built up but they also test God and escape.'"

Uh oh.

 

[Audie]

Uh oh.

Yep, I'd say bb is in for it, after all the times
he has tested god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sorry, but I see a disconnect--a large one--between your claim that you personally attempted to “get to Him” many times and your questioning me as to how I successfully tested God many times.

I'm not sure why. I've prayed many times throughout my early life. Never got an answer.

If you do not know how I tested God and how God responded to me or to the millions of born agains like me who tested prior to salvation, how can you claim with a straight face "been there, done that"? You should be telling me how I test God and why I'm wrong, not fishing with me for proof.

Umm, I actually did ask you how you test for God. I also asked for evidence of this god's existence.

How would I know what tests you've done to confirm God to yourself? I've been pointing out that if you can't share the evidence that God exists with me, how can I be convinced by it? It may be convincing to you, and that's fine. But how can it be convincing to me? Because you keep making assertions that this God exists.

Again, I believe I've been more than clear, that if you choose to pursue Jesus, who can save and respond to testing IMHO, then please kindly do so by your free will, rather than constantly ask ME to prove GOD to you.

This is a debate forum. We're debating claims.

You've been claiming that something is self-evident. Then when pressed for evidence of something so obvious, you have nothing to offer. So how self-evident can it really be? That's been my point since the start.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not quite. For starters, there are plenty of written records we can use to corroborate accounts of 1961. For seconds, the average life expectancy of people around that time is between 20 and 30 years (SOURCES: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vh3pmAodawEC&pg=PA144&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lvfMrkqDbY0C&pg=PA2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false).


Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?


Because people at the time wrote all kind of religious documents. It's not enough to say "they were risking death, so their accounts must be true!".


Not enough to establish that specific instances of his life should be accepted unequivocally as historical fact.


If you wish to make very specific claims about Homer's life, do you not think it reasonable to require contemporaneous sources?


Well, we retain quite a large number of works attributed to Caesar himself (http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html), as well as lots of contemporary historical accounts from Cicero, Sallust, Nepos, Catallus, Pollio and Virgil.


A document being influential does not indicate the truth of its specific claims. Hence why so many theological texts exist that have millions, even billions, of adherents, other than the Bible.


Because people make very specific claims about their life, down to specific quotations, actions and beliefs. If you cannot corroborate any of this, you cannot assert it as historical fact. At most, you can conclude the existence of a figure called Jesus who played a pivotal role in the founding of the religious movement that came to be known as Christianity. Beyond that, it's basically heresay and storytelling.

You ought to ponder what I write before replying so soon. For example, you repeat this canard:

"Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?"

The Pax Romana hadn't quite made peace in Roman-occupied Israel. There were constant messianic pretenders and violence between factions and against the Romans. There were thousands crucified under Rome at the time. Jesus according to the gospels was undoing the peace--both Jewish and Roman authorities wanted to stop Christianity in its tracks.

Your canard shows you know next to zero--no offense--about Roman or ANE history. After all the Romans sought to stamp out Christianity for centuries. Additionally as mentioned, Messianic expectation was quite high in Israel--another "Messiah", Bar Kokhba, fought an extended war against Rome.

In the 1st century, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews across the Empire and in Israel, were following a new way, a new sect. Their beliefs contradicted very specific teachings of the ruling elite and the Jewish monarchy. People were claiming a resurrection from the dead--as both Jewish and Roman commentators of the period report.

You tell me "Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not quite. For starters, there are plenty of written records we can use to corroborate accounts of 1961. For seconds, the average life expectancy of people around that time is between 20 and 30 years (SOURCES: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vh3pmAodawEC&pg=PA144&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lvfMrkqDbY0C&pg=PA2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false).


Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?


Because people at the time wrote all kind of religious documents. It's not enough to say "they were risking death, so their accounts must be true!".


Not enough to establish that specific instances of his life should be accepted unequivocally as historical fact.


If you wish to make very specific claims about Homer's life, do you not think it reasonable to require contemporaneous sources?


Well, we retain quite a large number of works attributed to Caesar himself (http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html), as well as lots of contemporary historical accounts from Cicero, Sallust, Nepos, Catallus, Pollio and Virgil.


A document being influential does not indicate the truth of its specific claims. Hence why so many theological texts exist that have millions, even billions, of adherents, other than the Bible.


Because people make very specific claims about their life, down to specific quotations, actions and beliefs. If you cannot corroborate any of this, you cannot assert it as historical fact. At most, you can conclude the existence of a figure called Jesus who played a pivotal role in the founding of the religious movement that came to be known as Christianity. Beyond that, it's basically heresay and storytelling.

You ought to ponder what I write before replying so soon. For example, you repeat this canard:

"Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?"

The Pax Romana hadn't quite made peace in Roman-occupied Israel. There were constant messianic pretenders and violence between factions and against the Romans. There were thousands crucified under Rome at the time. Jesus according to the gospels was undoing the peace--both Jewish and Roman authorities wanted to stop Christianity in its tracks.

Your canard shows you know next to zero--no offense--about Roman or ANE history. After all the Romans sought to stamp out Christianity for centuries. Additionally as mentioned, Messianic expectation was quite high in Israel--another "Messiah", Bar Kokhba, fought an extended war against Rome.

In the 1st century, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews across the Empire and in Israel, were following a new way, a new sect. Their beliefs contradicted very specific teachings of the ruling elite and the Jewish monarchy. People were claiming a resurrection from the dead--as both Jewish and Roman commentators of the period report.

You tell me "Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is a rather ridiculous standard. There are no "documents" denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. What you need to make a story credible is independent confirmation.

There are actually no contemporary documents that support or oppose the existence of Jesus. All Gospels are at least a generation older. None of them are eyewitness accounts.


No, there are stories of "many witnesses". Stories of witnesses are not witnesses. And your claims of death sentences needs substantiation. Eventually Christians were targeted because they became a problem. Before that they were ignored from as far as I can see.



There are plenty of cults that have done so over the ages. But then you are desperate so you will keep repeating this rather weak claim.



And the Harry Potter series is over five times longer than the entire New Testament. Why should that be impressive at all?



Polarization has always been a norm. As far as prophecies go that one is a nothing burger. People respond to all sorts of fiction. You are still grasping at straws.



You can't have it both ways. If he was just a humble carpenter than not having documents makes sense. If he was who you think he was there should be someone that wrote of him from that time. Supposedly countless "witnesses" to his miracles and yet they never caught the eye of any historian.



Again, no witnesses to the resurrection. Only conflicting stories about it. People believe what they want to believe. Look at the success of quack nostrums today. And that is with freely available education. In a time without it with desperate people looking for some hope it is not unreasonable that such a cult would catch on.


That is only because you do not know how to test it properly,.

Since your canards match almost exactly Immoral Flame's response, you can see my reply. I might add the obvious, like the NT writers faced martyrdom from Rome and expulsion from their religious and social community as Jews, and J.K. Rowling didn't, but I'll just leave it as:

I'm not surprised you offer no consideration of any of my points, because you are like an M&M, with a crunchy, hard exterior. I pray you are soft inside.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let's try to be honest and not call them "documents". Which one claim to be eyewitness accounts? The works of Paul do not count. He admitted to not being an eyewitness. None of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Perhaps a minor epistle or two. But a lot of those are psuedepigrapha. Which books are eyewitness accounts?

I've presented evidence to you and others before of the gospels being eyewitness accounts. And actually, Paul claimed to have been an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ--you may have heard of Paul's Damascus Road conversion. How can you critique the Bible without knowing one of its most basic stories?

If Paul was making up Christianity, why did 11 other NT writers all talk about similar Christian doctrines?

If Paul was making up Christianity, who was the Jesus of Nazareth who rose from the dead, and why did He rise from the dead?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hardly a fair comparison. If I reversed it and asked how many people each religion lost Christianity would be the clear loser.

How can atheists be members of a religion?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not sure why. I've prayed many times throughout my early life. Never got an answer.


Umm, I actually did ask you how you test for God. I also asked for evidence of this god's existence.

How would I know what tests you've done to confirm God to yourself? I've been pointing out that if you can't share the evidence that God exists with me, how can I be convinced by it? It may be convincing to you, and that's fine. But how can it be convincing to me? Because you keep making assertions that this God exists.



This is a debate forum. We're debating claims.

You've been claiming that something is self-evident. Then when pressed for evidence of something so obvious, you have nothing to offer. So how self-evident can it really be? That's been my point since the start.

Respectfully, I do not believe as literal your statement:

"I've prayed many times throughout my early life. Never got an answer."

As a matter of fact, mere chance if God doesn't exist should have gotten you some yes answers to prayer, as well as no responses. "God, I want to get this job interview done well," should work once every few interviews or so if you follow me.

So, what do you mean by "an answer"?

"How would I know what tests you've done to confirm God to yourself? I've been pointing out that if you can't share the evidence that God exists with me, how can I be convinced by it? It may be convincing to you, and that's fine. But how can it be convincing to me? Because you keep making assertions that this God exists."

I don't think it's actually possible for my anecdotal testimony(s) to convince anyone. That's not a scriptural stance--the scriptures teach people may be drawn by testimony but encounter God personally before salvation--and I'm reminded of John 4, where it says:

39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of His words many more became believers. 42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the World.”

Why would you settle for anything I have to recount to you when you feel disappointed that God didn't get to you "your answer" yet?

And this statement I find inexplicable:

"This is a debate forum. We're debating claims."

This is religious forum, where religious people show love, tolerance and respect for one another, and share experiences. Did I miss something when I signed on? Is this ReligiousDebatingForums.com?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You ought to ponder what I write before replying so soon. For example, you repeat this canard:

"Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?"

The Pax Romana hadn't quite made peace in Roman-occupied Israel. There were constant messianic pretenders and violence between factions and against the Romans. There were thousands crucified under Rome at the time. Jesus according to the gospels was undoing the peace--both Jewish and Roman authorities wanted to stop Christianity in its tracks.

Your canard shows you know next to zero--no offense--about Roman or ANE history. After all the Romans sought to stamp out Christianity for centuries. Additionally as mentioned, Messianic expectation was quite high in Israel--another "Messiah", Bar Kokhba, fought an extended war against Rome.

In the 1st century, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews across the Empire and in Israel, were following a new way, a new sect. Their beliefs contradicted very specific teachings of the ruling elite and the Jewish monarchy. People were claiming a resurrection from the dead--as both Jewish and Roman commentators of the period report.

You tell me "Why would documents be produced saying that events didn't occur?"

The question still stands. You've said absolutely nothing to address it. You've also ignored the entire rest of my post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since your canards match almost exactly Immoral Flame's response, you can see my reply. I might add the obvious, like the NT writers faced martyrdom from Rome and expulsion from their religious and social community as Jews, and J.K. Rowling didn't, but I'll just leave it as:

I'm not surprised you offer no consideration of any of my points, because you are like an M&M, with a crunchy, hard exterior. I pray you are soft inside.

The idea that early Gospel writers faced death is a "canard". It is another myth of Christians. You are conflating the later persecution of some Christians with a continuous persecution, that did not happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can atheists be members of a religion?

So now that you realize that you were wrong you play word games. A true Christian would admit his error and move on.