The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Subduction Zone]

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?

No, you did not present evidence. You do not even appear to understand the term. And are you serious? Paul described a vision, a dream, a psychotic episode. He never claimed to see Jesus.

There is no reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. You do not seem to understand that the Bible was formed hundreds of years after the event. Books that did not agree were tossed out. If you understood the history of your book over half of your questions would be answered for you. And at least half of the remaining ones would be answered if you understood the books.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

This is why you don't believe it?

Well for your information, I didn't used to pray for things like doing well on a job interview. I figured that's up to me to handle on my own. What I used to pray for were things for other people.

You seem to have forgotten about what we're talking about again. We're not talking about having prayers answered via having say, a positive job interview. And in fact, I find that rather silly and more of a product of random chance, or my own skills and abilities than some divine intervention.
We're actually talking about God presenting evidence of himself to us. I guess answering a prayer could be considered evidence for God in some instance, but I honestly, I don't find it all that convincing, given that prayers aren't answered any more or less than random chance.

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

The whole thing we've been talking about here this entire time is evidence for God. You've repeatedly said God's existence as creator of the universe is self-evident, which has apparently turned out to be an empty assertion.

"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?

I don't know why you're quoting scripture to me. But like I said in my last post, if the God you believe in actually does exist, then "he" would know exactly what kind of evidence would convince me of his existence, given that he can read my thoughts and see what's in my proverbial heart. Since I do not feel I have been provided with sufficient evidence to believe in said God, then I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about me, doesn't care if I believe in "him" or doesn't want me to know "he's" there.

If something is self-evident, as you've claimed, then presenting evidence for it should be a no-brainer. And yet here we are, still, with no evidence.

I am glad though, that you agree that your personal testimony isn't necessarily considered convincing evidence to anyone else.

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?

Yes, I guess you did miss something. We are currently in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" section of the RELIGIOUS DEBATES section of the site. It says so at the top of your screen. If you just want people to fawn all over you and accept every claim you make without question, maybe the debate section isn't really going to be your favorite place. You may not find it so inexplicable after all, if you'd only look up.

Also, let's not pretend that religious people don't have disagreements and debates over religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?"

Not sure how that answered the question.

 

[Looncall]

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?

It's pretty clear. Christianity is pretty clearly cobbled together from multiple other popular religions of the time and massaged to match old testament prophecies to boot. Also, the NT books are clearly not independent accounts but merely cumulative propaganda.

It's just a massive scam. There may have been a popular Jewish preacher, but the rest looks like a cynical scam.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

According to the gospels, excommunication was offered to followers of Christ, and the honest report was even most of Christ's closest followers fled the Romans when He was seized. I'm open if you have counter-documents to present here.

Further, the Jews and Christians did not separate in fellowship/synagogues until 70 AD and beyond. Jews promoting messiahs, false or true, faced Roman persecutions. Most scholars understand that the gospel and NT writers used pseudonyms. Feel free to present your counter-documents here, not your philosophical assertions.

AND "they were liars, not eyewitnesses, will require counter-documents or other proof logical, reasonable, science-minded rationalists can follow, not your philosophical musings.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Huh? Another skeptic stated that pastafarian adherents adhere to a religion, which is illogical for atheists to do.

And I call No True Scotsman on your True Christian definition.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Huh? Another skeptic stated that pastafarian adherents adhere to a religion, which is illogical for atheists to do.

Atheists don't believe in a God, that doesn't mean they can't belong to a religion.

Also, you're still avoiding the fact that you made a dishonest comparison.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you did not present evidence. You do not even appear to understand the term. And are you serious? Paul described a vision, a dream, a psychotic episode. He never claimed to see Jesus.

There is no reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. You do not seem to understand that the Bible was formed hundreds of years after the event. Books that did not agree were tossed out. If you understood the history of your book over half of your questions would be answered for you. And at least half of the remaining ones would be answered if you understood the books.

As a holder of a Bachelor's in NT studies from a secular university as well as someone with a personal interest, I can assure you the councils met to affirm what was already commonly accepted canon, and they used multiple affirmations to reject apocrypha (including, for example, the fact that secular Jews rejected the same inter-testament apocrypha. They didn't "make the canon" three centuries after Christ, rather, they affirmed canon and re-affirmed their mutual rejection of pseudopigrapha. (But don't worry, you won't ask me to provide evidence of this, such as letters written between the synod attendees testifying to these ideas).

The resurrection from the dead has been called the best affirmed ancient event, since we have 12 writers speaking of it--and you have offered not a shred of even an idea why 12 writers would risk martyrdom and expulsion to promulgate a religion limiting their own income and temporal power. Do you have a document that will "shut down the NT" for all of us millions of adherents or not?

Ad hom attacks against Paul, who has been called the most skillful apologist, writer and presenter of the ancient world, are of no benefit to you, other than to reaffirm the fact that atheists on forums only and always resort to demonizing their opponents--awful since you don't even believe in demons. Paul's "mad dream" led to thousands of converts in a few short years--and testimonies are recorded of intellectuals, leaders and even Roman persecutors of the Jews following the Christ based on Paul's preaching.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you did not present evidence. You do not even appear to understand the term. And are you serious? Paul described a vision, a dream, a psychotic episode. He never claimed to see Jesus.

There is no reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. You do not seem to understand that the Bible was formed hundreds of years after the event. Books that did not agree were tossed out. If you understood the history of your book over half of your questions would be answered for you. And at least half of the remaining ones would be answered if you understood the books.

AGAIN, what is this, the fifth time I've asked? If Paul was psychotic, why can we find 11 other writers and even pseudopigrapha speaking of the Christ deluded Paul falsely worshipped?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is why you don't believe it?

Well for your information, I didn't used to pray for things like doing well on a job interview. I figured that's up to me to handle on my own. What I used to pray for were things for other people.

You seem to have forgotten about what we're talking about again. We're not talking about having prayers answered via having say, a positive job interview. And in fact, I find that rather silly and more of a product of random chance, or my own skills and abilities than some divine intervention.
We're actually talking about God presenting evidence of himself to us. I guess answering a prayer could be considered evidence for God in some instance, but I honestly, I don't find it all that convincing, given that prayers aren't answered any more or less than random chance.


The whole thing we've been talking about here this entire time is evidence for God. You've repeatedly said God's existence as creator of the universe is self-evident, which has apparently turned out to be an empty assertion.

I don't know why you're quoting scripture to me. But like I said in my last post, if the God you believe in actually does exist, then "he" would know exactly what kind of evidence would convince me of his existence, given that he can read my thoughts and see what's in my proverbial heart. Since I do not feel I have been provided with sufficient evidence to believe in said God, then I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about me, doesn't care if I believe in "him" or doesn't want me to know "he's" there.

If something is self-evident, as you've claimed, then presenting evidence for it should be a no-brainer. And yet here we are, still, with no evidence.

I am glad though, that you agree that your personal testimony isn't necessarily considered convincing evidence to anyone else.


Yes, I guess you did miss something. We are currently in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" section of the RELIGIOUS DEBATES section of the site. It says so at the top of your screen. If you just want people to fawn all over you and accept every claim you make without question, maybe the debate section isn't really going to be your favorite place. You may not find it so inexplicable after all, if you'd only look up.

Also, let's not pretend that religious people don't have disagreements and debates over religion.

Thank you for your responses.

I'd like to summarize--correct me if I'm wrong.

You got down to the root of the God issue, by saying you weren't looking for answered prayer, you were looking for evidence from God. I did the same before my conversion, and find that a noble request. Scripture says God will indeed respond--although His timing isn't always ours. I've personally met many adults who met God and were converted decades after praying for evidence.

The problems I see include this: you expect I can somehow prove to you something that is self-evident to me but not to you. If you could do vice versa or if any human could, would there ever be debates or debate forums?

God can prove Himself to you. God says in the Bible that evidence and faith are a powerful combination. But you do realize you are asking me the impossible? Do you understand what a self-evident thing is as a concept? You can say, "I KNOW I'll win the lottery," and I can mock you all I like until you win it, right? But as we know, even following the lottery win we can write off your knowledge at will.

For another case in point, when you think it about deeply, you must admit it is self-evident to you that you exist. But a solipsist will look you in the eye and say, "You are a figment of my imagination." At that stage, you will find you cannot offer ANY evidence to MAKE the solipsist trust that you exist.

And so you ask me to prove to you God exists--something I do routinely and easily--except to people who are highly self-willed. I think you can see why!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not sure how that answered the question.

I'l sum for you--that were a good half-dozen reasons for official documents to exist denying Christianity. It's not an argument from silence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's pretty clear. Christianity is pretty clearly cobbled together from multiple other popular religions of the time and massaged to match old testament prophecies to boot. Also, the NT books are clearly not independent accounts but merely cumulative propaganda.

It's just a massive scam. There may have been a popular Jewish preacher, but the rest looks like a cynical scam.

Here are what the Christians received for promoting their new faith:

* Martyrdom from Rome
* Exclusion from Jewish life
* Self-limited income, sex, power, etc.
* Derision from others (still happening millennia later)

Please list here all the benefits to faking this scam:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'l sum for you--that were a good half-dozen reasons for official documents to exist denying Christianity. It's not an argument from silence.

Your logic still falters at the foot of the question. Why would any civilization produce papers proclaiming that events didn't happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the gospels, excommunication was offered to followers of Christ, and the honest report was even most of Christ's closest followers fled the Romans when He was seized. I'm open if you have counter-documents to present here.

Running when the cops show up is natural and not an example of persecution. Try again.

Further, the Jews and Christians did not separate in fellowship/synagogues until 70 AD and beyond. Jews promoting messiahs, false or true, faced Roman persecutions. Most scholars understand that the gospel and NT writers used pseudonyms. Feel free to present your counter-documents here, not your philosophical assertions.

If you can't be honest and reasonable there is no point in continuing.

AND "they were liars, not eyewitnesses, will require counter-documents or other proof logical, reasonable, science-minded rationalists can follow, not your philosophical musings.

Thanks.

Please, you were being dishonest earlier in your use of a newly discovered word. That they were not eyewitnesses accounts is well known by modern scholars. And when you Gish no links are needed, merely correction will do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a holder of a Bachelor's in NT studies from a secular university as well as someone with a personal interest, I can assure you the councils met to affirm what was already commonly accepted canon, and they used multiple affirmations to reject apocrypha (including, for example, the fact that secular Jews rejected the same inter-testament apocrypha. They didn't "make the canon" three centuries after Christ, rather, they affirmed canon and re-affirmed their mutual rejection of pseudopigrapha. (But don't worry, you won't ask me to provide evidence of this, such as letters written between the synod attendees testifying to these ideas).

The resurrection from the dead has been called the best affirmed ancient event, since we have 12 writers speaking of it--and you have offered not a shred of even an idea why 12 writers would risk martyrdom and expulsion to promulgate a religion limiting their own income and temporal power. Do you have a document that will "shut down the NT" for all of us millions of adherents or not?

Ad hom attacks against Paul, who has been called the most skillful apologist, writer and presenter of the ancient world, are of no benefit to you, other than to reaffirm the fact that atheists on forums only and always resort to demonizing their opponents--awful since you don't even believe in demons. Paul's "mad dream" led to thousands of converts in a few short years--and testimonies are recorded of intellectuals, leaders and even Roman persecutors of the Jews following the Christ based on Paul's preaching.

Let's try to keep the false claims to a minimum. If you want evidence then quit using Gish Gallops. It is an improper debating technique. Your claims of a degree are belied by your own ignorance of the Bible and inability to debate properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

AGAIN, what is this, the fifth time I've asked? If Paul was psychotic, why can we find 11 other writers and even pseudopigrapha speaking of the Christ deluded Paul falsely worshipped?

We observe the same when it comes to other religions. You are merely ignorant of those. People supporting each other's religious delusions is common.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you for your responses.

I'd like to summarize--correct me if I'm wrong.

You got down to the root of the God issue, by saying you weren't looking for answered prayer, you were looking for evidence from God. I did the same before my conversion, and find that a noble request. Scripture says God will indeed respond--although His timing isn't always ours. I've personally met many adults who met God and were converted decades after praying for evidence.

The problems I see include this: you expect I can somehow prove to you something that is self-evident to me but not to you. If you could do vice versa or if any human could, would there ever be debates or debate forums?

God can prove Himself to you. God says in the Bible that evidence and faith are a powerful combination. But you do realize you are asking me the impossible? Do you understand what a self-evident thing is as a concept? You can say, "I KNOW I'll win the lottery," and I can mock you all I like until you win it, right? But as we know, even following the lottery win we can write off your knowledge at will.

For another case in point, when you think it about deeply, you must admit it is self-evident to you that you exist. But a solipsist will look you in the eye and say, "You are a figment of my imagination." At that stage, you will find you cannot offer ANY evidence to MAKE the solipsist trust that you exist.

And so you ask me to prove to you God exists--something I do routinely and easily--except to people who are highly self-willed. I think you can see why!

Then your claim is not self-evident. Finally, we've made it to the answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As a holder of a Bachelor's in NT studies from a secular university as well as someone with a personal interest, I can assure you the councils met to affirm what was already commonly accepted canon, and they used multiple affirmations to reject apocrypha (including, for example, the fact that secular Jews rejected the same inter-testament apocrypha. They didn't "make the canon" three centuries after Christ, rather, they affirmed canon and re-affirmed their mutual rejection of pseudopigrapha. (But don't worry, you won't ask me to provide evidence of this, such as letters written between the synod attendees testifying to these ideas).

The resurrection from the dead has been called the best affirmed ancient event, since we have 12 writers speaking of it--and you have offered not a shred of even an idea why 12 writers would risk martyrdom and expulsion to promulgate a religion limiting their own income and temporal power. Do you have a document that will "shut down the NT" for all of us millions of adherents or not?

Ad hom attacks against Paul, who has been called the most skillful apologist, writer and presenter of the ancient world, are of no benefit to you, other than to reaffirm the fact that atheists on forums only and always resort to demonizing their opponents--awful since you don't even believe in demons. Paul's "mad dream" led to thousands of converts in a few short years--and testimonies are recorded of intellectuals, leaders and even Roman persecutors of the Jews following the Christ based on Paul's preaching.

By whom??

 

[Skwim]

As a holder of a Bachelor's in NT studies from a secular university as well as someone with a personal interest, I can assure you the councils met to affirm what was already commonly accepted canon, and they used multiple affirmations to reject apocrypha (including, for example, the fact that secular Jews rejected the same inter-testament apocrypha

As good as a BA in NT studies may be, it's hardly a basis for an unsupported assurance. If you want to make a case for your assertion you'll have to provide evidence, or at least scholarly support.

The resurrection from the dead has been called the best affirmed ancient event, since we have 12 writers speaking of it--and you have offered not a shred of even an idea why 12 writers would risk martyrdom and expulsion to promulgate a religion limiting their own income and temporal power.

Assuming you stand behind the conclusion of the others you quote here, in what sense do you mean it's "the best affirmed"? "Best"can have a lot of different meanings.

.

.

 

[Audie]

Ad hom attacks against Paul, who has been called the most skillful apologist, writer and presenter of the ancient world, are of no benefit to you, other than to reaffirm the fact that atheists on forums only and always resort to demonizing their opponents--awful since you don't even believe in demons. Paul's "mad dream" led to thousands of converts in a few short years--and testimonies are recorded of intellectuals, leaders and even Roman persecutors of the Jews following the Christ based on Paul's preaching.

Joseph Smith got a lot of followers too.

As for "Paul", his obviously phony snake story pretty
much makes puts anything else he says suspect.

Of course, you will brush that off as another so called "Ad hom".

If, of course, you were on trial for your life and a
prosecution witness were a known perjurer, paid
to testify against you,you'dnot want defense to mention that, coz it would be like, an ad hom. Right?

Something like the "snake story" does not bother you?