A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2014, 10:51 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. The initial expansion of the space-time manifold released all the matter that would comprise the universe. The matter rushing apart consisted of such elementary particles such as negatively charged electrons, positively charged positrons, neutrinos and photons which are produced when an electron's higher orbital falls back to its normal orbit thus releasing a packet of energy from its fall from high energy to normal energy. This is how light is produced and all of this was taking place way before the formation of stars.

2. Steven Weinberg who has a Nobel laureate in physics describes this when he says: "At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousands million (10^11) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the center of even the hottest star...One type of particle that was present in large numbers is the electron, the negatively charged particle that flows through wires in electric currents and makes up the outer parts of all atoms and molecules in the present universe. Another type of particle that was abundant at early times is the positron, a positively charged particle with precisely the same mass as the electron. In the present universe positrons are found only in high-energy laboratories, in some kinds of radioactivity, and in violent astronomical phenomena like cosmic rays and supernovas, but in the early universe the number of positrons was almost exactly equal to the number of electrons. In addition to electrons and positrons, there were roughly similar numbers of various kinds of neutrinos, ghostly particles with no mass or electric charge whatever. Finally, the universe was filled with light. This does not have to be treated separately from the particles - the quantum theory tells us that light consists of particles of zero mass and zero electrical charge known as photons. (Each time an atom in the filament of a light bulb changes from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy, one photon is emitted. There are so many photons coming out of a light bulb that they seem to blend together in a continuous stream of light, but a photoelectric cell can count individual photons, one by one.) Every photon carries a definite amount of energy and momentum depending on the wavelength of the light. To describe the light that filled the early universe, we can say that the number and the average energy of the photons was about the same as for electrons or positrons or neutrinos...The proportions were roughly one proton and one neutron for every thousand million electrons or positrons or neutrinos or photons. This number - a thousand million photons per nuclear particle - is the crucial quantity that had to be taken from observation in order to work out the standard model of the universe. The discovery of the cosmic radiation background discussed in Chapter 3 was in effect a measurement of this number. - Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5

3. Speaking of the evidence for this immense light and energy present during the early expansion, Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

So from the above, we see that you are not only mistaken but that Genesis gives us a spot on account of the very early universe that scientists have only recently come to authenticate through empirical observation.

And just think, some ignorant goat-herder knew all of this thousands of years ago.

I wonder how he knew that? BlinkYes

That all seems terribly impressive when you first take a glance, but I remain unconvinced. You are obviously well read on the subject of the big bang and you make an excellent case for how The Big Bang caused both light and heat long before the existence of stars. Although this seems to vindicate your theory that the Genesis account is consistent with modern scientific knowledge, the appearance is superficial at best. One need only read on.

Genesis 1:1-3 Official King James Version
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The light from The Big Bang was not divided and then crafted like a piece of metal into "day". The light from the Sun is the only light which can be accurately described as "Day". Day and night only apply from the fixed perspective of Earth. There is no sense in an omniscient and omnipresent god simplifying such an immense creation from such a limited perspective. It is obvious to the lay critical reader that the author is referring to the sun, not light energy from a big bang he did not know existed. The author is referring to the same "light" in each verse, so we can be sure that the initial light, that was created before the stars, is the same light that is then divided and labeled so stupidly by the one being who ought to know better. It doesn't seem to matter that the Sun itself hasn't actually been created yet in the biblical account. Even when the stars are created, they are explicitly purposed to give Earth light.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now you are beginning to see why I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Christopher Hitchens said it better than I ever could in his book "God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything",

"Actually, the “leap of faith”—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a “leap” that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. This effort is actually too much for the human mind, and leads to delusions and manias. Religion understands perfectly well that the “leap” is subject to sharply diminishing returns, which is why it often doesn't in fact rely on “faith” at all but instead corrupts faith and insults reason by offering evidence and pointing to confected “proofs.” This evidence and these proofs include arguments from design, revelations, punishments, and miracles. Now that religion’s monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see these evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are."

While reading your apologist acrobatic attempt to claim science as a supporting "proof" for the bible I couldn't quite squash the thought of "Really? This is how far religion has sunk? What happened to faith and the bible standing on its own merits? Since when do the religious care about facts or evidence? I suppose this is what you have to resort to when you can't burn or silence the opposition any more.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The moon is a luminary i.e. a celestial body that casts light upon the earth. That is how the word מָאוֹר is used in the Hebrew scriptures in this context. It casts light on the earth which makes it a "light". The scripture never states that the moon is a celestial body that produces light via thermonuclear fusion. If it had said that, you would have a point.

In order to take a semantics game like this seriously, first I would have to accept that the infallible inspired work of god sacrifices its infallibility and inspiration upon translation. It begs the question, what are we all doing using our English translations? It might just be masochistic to consider how this god conceived and engineered the circumstances that allow for misunderstandings like this to happen in the first place. Thank Heaven for clarity.

I don't suppose it matters that the scripture never states that the Sun is a "celestial body that produces light via thermonuclear fusion" either? At what point are we to be reminded that according to the original Hebrew the Sun is only a "luminary"?

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I guess you are unaware that the doctrine of the trinity is not the doctrine that there are three Gods, but God in three persons? Facepalm

Awareness has failed to improve its explanatory power for me. Three beings in one, or one in three, they/he is still said to possess omniscience. God knows everything yet feels the need to express his own thoughts and ideas to himself as suggestions. Consistency apparently isn't necessary.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Adam and Eve were not created sick and commanded to be whole so this is a strawman.

Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, yet did so regardless when tempted with the prospect of gaining knowledge. If god truly wished for them to obey his commands he ought to have taken more care to create them devoid of curiosity and a yearning for knowledge. It is not in our nature to obey the Christian commandments, a pre-condition for which we can thank the creator who awaits us with the punishment he also designed. Isn't he versatile.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Prove it.

I don't have to. The burden of proof is something I have yet to witness a Christian understand. It is firmly upon your shoulders to prove the validity of your own damn myths. I remain unconvinced because of the lack of, or bad examples of, evidence. You would have to do some Herculean acrobatics to convince me of Creationism over contemporary science. Of course you would have to do it better than the ID crowd who managed to get shut down cold in the most religious western country on the planet.

Since I know that isn't going to be good enough for you, I will go ahead and prove it anyway.

"How can it be proven in one paragraph that this book was written by ignorant men and not by any god? Because man is given “dominion” over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified,because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia—the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new “Eden”—was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood,it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had “dominion” over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity. Even today, the balance between Homo sapiens and Louis Pasteur’s “invisible army” of microbes is by no means decided, but DNA has at least enabled us to sequence the genome of our lethal rivals, like the avian flu virus, and to elucidate what we have in common." -Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is also a fallacious appeal to authority. For while I will grant that Francis Collins is what we would both agree, a leading geneticist, and authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority, in this particular case is not a reliable argument for establishing facts.

It is clear that Francis Collins assumes certain things that are unproven when utilizing molecular timescales to arrive at the number of 10,000.

Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom points out:

"Evolutionary scientists have shown in mathematical simulations that to achieve the genetic diversity of modern humans the starting initial population would need to be greater than two people. Most estimates put the number around 10,000. However, as discussed previously, these studies are based on assumptions about the past. For evolutionary scientists, this includes assumed evolutionary relationships, assumed mutation rates, and assumed generation times (the time between parents and off-spring does not vary). They are arbitrarily assuming evolutionary processes to try to prove evolutionary processes, which is a fallacy. If the assumptions are wrong, then the mathematical simulations will not give an accurate initial population size necessary to generate today’s human genetic variation." -Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

In fact, far from being in dispute with the Bible, modern genetic discoveries actually support biblical history! This consistency is seen in the fact that the human genome—for all its diversity—actually has far less diversity than would be expected if humanity were really as old as evolutionists claim.

Dr. Purdom explains:

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent." - Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine). They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.” - Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, “Genetic Variation, Classification and 
‘Race’,” Nature Genetics 36 (2004):S28–S33.

In light of the above it seems that your responses fail to demonstrate that the Bible is inaccurate in what it records.

Unless the scientific community has had a massive shift in evidence and I have been left uninformed, the bible has not been vindicated as literally true. Evolution is scientific fact with a literal mountain of evidence that has been conclusive and overwhelming for longer than you or I have been alive. Using what we know in order to predict what we do not, namely an estimate of original human beings, isn't in any way unscientific.

I am not a scientist, but I am well read enough to know that the kind of authors you are quoting are operating off of a pro-Christian agenda informed by their private membership and faith. We have seen an awful lot of this kind of quasi-intellectual Christian propaganda pushed by non-scientists or scientists with unrelated degrees all throughout the Creationism movements here in The United States. Even after all their efforts, I remain confidant in the consensus among the actual scientific community.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
23-06-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(22-06-2014 10:51 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. The initial expansion of the space-time manifold released all the matter that would comprise the universe. The matter rushing apart consisted of such elementary particles such as negatively charged electrons, positively charged positrons, neutrinos and photons which are produced when an electron's higher orbital falls back to its normal orbit thus releasing a packet of energy from its fall from high energy to normal energy. This is how light is produced and all of this was taking place way before the formation of stars.

2. Steven Weinberg who has a Nobel laureate in physics describes this when he says: "At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousands million (10^11) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the center of even the hottest star...One type of particle that was present in large numbers is the electron, the negatively charged particle that flows through wires in electric currents and makes up the outer parts of all atoms and molecules in the present universe. Another type of particle that was abundant at early times is the positron, a positively charged particle with precisely the same mass as the electron. In the present universe positrons are found only in high-energy laboratories, in some kinds of radioactivity, and in violent astronomical phenomena like cosmic rays and supernovas, but in the early universe the number of positrons was almost exactly equal to the number of electrons. In addition to electrons and positrons, there were roughly similar numbers of various kinds of neutrinos, ghostly particles with no mass or electric charge whatever. Finally, the universe was filled with light. This does not have to be treated separately from the particles - the quantum theory tells us that light consists of particles of zero mass and zero electrical charge known as photons. (Each time an atom in the filament of a light bulb changes from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy, one photon is emitted. There are so many photons coming out of a light bulb that they seem to blend together in a continuous stream of light, but a photoelectric cell can count individual photons, one by one.) Every photon carries a definite amount of energy and momentum depending on the wavelength of the light. To describe the light that filled the early universe, we can say that the number and the average energy of the photons was about the same as for electrons or positrons or neutrinos...The proportions were roughly one proton and one neutron for every thousand million electrons or positrons or neutrinos or photons. This number - a thousand million photons per nuclear particle - is the crucial quantity that had to be taken from observation in order to work out the standard model of the universe. The discovery of the cosmic radiation background discussed in Chapter 3 was in effect a measurement of this number. - Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5

3. Speaking of the evidence for this immense light and energy present during the early expansion, Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

So from the above, we see that you are not only mistaken but that Genesis gives us a spot on account of the very early universe that scientists have only recently come to authenticate through empirical observation.

And just think, some ignorant goat-herder knew all of this thousands of years ago.

I wonder how he knew that? BlinkYes

That all seems terribly impressive when you first take a glance, but I remain unconvinced. You are obviously well read on the subject of the big bang and you make an excellent case for how The Big Bang caused both light and heat long before the existence of stars. Although this seems to vindicate your theory that the Genesis account is consistent with modern scientific knowledge, the appearance is superficial at best. One need only read on.

Genesis 1:1-3 Official King James Version
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The light from The Big Bang was not divided and then crafted like a piece of metal into "day". The light from the Sun is the only light which can be accurately described as "Day". Day and night only apply from the fixed perspective of Earth. There is no sense in an omniscient and omnipresent god simplifying such an immense creation from such a limited perspective. It is obvious to the lay critical reader that the author is referring to the sun, not light energy from a big bang he did not know existed. The author is referring to the same "light" in each verse, so we can be sure that the initial light, that was created before the stars, is the same light that is then divided and labeled so stupidly by the one being who ought to know better. It doesn't seem to matter that the Sun itself hasn't actually been created yet in the biblical account. Even when the stars are created, they are explicitly purposed to give Earth light.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now you are beginning to see why I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Christopher Hitchens said it better than I ever could in his book "God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything",

"Actually, the “leap of faith”—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a “leap” that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. This effort is actually too much for the human mind, and leads to delusions and manias. Religion understands perfectly well that the “leap” is subject to sharply diminishing returns, which is why it often doesn't in fact rely on “faith” at all but instead corrupts faith and insults reason by offering evidence and pointing to confected “proofs.” This evidence and these proofs include arguments from design, revelations, punishments, and miracles. Now that religion’s monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see these evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are."

While reading your apologist acrobatic attempt to claim science as a supporting "proof" for the bible I couldn't quite squash the thought of "Really? This is how far religion has sunk? What happened to faith and the bible standing on its own merits? Since when do the religious care about facts or evidence? I suppose this is what you have to resort to when you can't burn or silence the opposition any more.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The moon is a luminary i.e. a celestial body that casts light upon the earth. That is how the word מָאוֹר is used in the Hebrew scriptures in this context. It casts light on the earth which makes it a "light". The scripture never states that the moon is a celestial body that produces light via thermonuclear fusion. If it had said that, you would have a point.

In order to take a semantics game like this seriously, first I would have to accept that the infallible inspired work of god sacrifices its infallibility and inspiration upon translation. It begs the question, what are we all doing using our English translations? It might just be masochistic to consider how this god conceived and engineered the circumstances that allow for misunderstandings like this to happen in the first place. Thank Heaven for clarity.

I don't suppose it matters that the scripture never states that the Sun is a "celestial body that produces light via thermonuclear fusion" either? At what point are we to be reminded that according to the original Hebrew the Sun is only a "luminary"?

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I guess you are unaware that the doctrine of the trinity is not the doctrine that there are three Gods, but God in three persons? Facepalm

Awareness has failed to improve its explanatory power for me. Three beings in one, or one in three, they/he is still said to possess omniscience. God knows everything yet feels the need to express his own thoughts and ideas to himself as suggestions. Consistency apparently isn't necessary.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Adam and Eve were not created sick and commanded to be whole so this is a strawman.

Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, yet did so regardless when tempted with the prospect of gaining knowledge. If god truly wished for them to obey his commands he ought to have taken more care to create them devoid of curiosity and a yearning for knowledge. It is not in our nature to obey the Christian commandments, a pre-condition for which we can thank the creator who awaits us with the punishment he also designed. Isn't he versatile.

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Prove it.

I don't have to. The burden of proof is something I have yet to witness a Christian understand. It is firmly upon your shoulders to prove the validity of your own damn myths. I remain unconvinced because of the lack of, or bad examples of, evidence. You would have to do some Herculean acrobatics to convince me of Creationism over contemporary science. Of course you would have to do it better than the ID crowd who managed to get shut down cold in the most religious western country on the planet.

Since I know that isn't going to be good enough for you, I will go ahead and prove it anyway.

"How can it be proven in one paragraph that this book was written by ignorant men and not by any god? Because man is given “dominion” over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified,because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia—the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new “Eden”—was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood,it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had “dominion” over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity. Even today, the balance between Homo sapiens and Louis Pasteur’s “invisible army” of microbes is by no means decided, but DNA has at least enabled us to sequence the genome of our lethal rivals, like the avian flu virus, and to elucidate what we have in common." -Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything

(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is also a fallacious appeal to authority. For while I will grant that Francis Collins is what we would both agree, a leading geneticist, and authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority, in this particular case is not a reliable argument for establishing facts.

It is clear that Francis Collins assumes certain things that are unproven when utilizing molecular timescales to arrive at the number of 10,000.

Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom points out:

"Evolutionary scientists have shown in mathematical simulations that to achieve the genetic diversity of modern humans the starting initial population would need to be greater than two people. Most estimates put the number around 10,000. However, as discussed previously, these studies are based on assumptions about the past. For evolutionary scientists, this includes assumed evolutionary relationships, assumed mutation rates, and assumed generation times (the time between parents and off-spring does not vary). They are arbitrarily assuming evolutionary processes to try to prove evolutionary processes, which is a fallacy. If the assumptions are wrong, then the mathematical simulations will not give an accurate initial population size necessary to generate today’s human genetic variation." -Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

In fact, far from being in dispute with the Bible, modern genetic discoveries actually support biblical history! This consistency is seen in the fact that the human genome—for all its diversity—actually has far less diversity than would be expected if humanity were really as old as evolutionists claim.

Dr. Purdom explains:

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent." - Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine). They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.” - Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, “Genetic Variation, Classification and 
‘Race’,” Nature Genetics 36 (2004):S28–S33.

In light of the above it seems that your responses fail to demonstrate that the Bible is inaccurate in what it records.

Unless the scientific community has had a massive shift in evidence and I have been left uninformed, the bible has not been vindicated as literally true. Evolution is scientific fact with a literal mountain of evidence that has been conclusive and overwhelming for longer than you or I have been alive. Using what we know in order to predict what we do not, namely an estimate of original human beings, isn't in any way unscientific.

I am not a scientist, but I am well read enough to know that the kind of authors you are quoting are operating off of a pro-Christian agenda informed by their private membership and faith. We have seen an awful lot of this kind of quasi-intellectual Christian propaganda pushed by non-scientists or scientists with unrelated degrees all throughout the Creationism movements here in The United States. Even after all their efforts, I remain confidant in the consensus among the actual scientific community.

Can I copy and paste this to our thread in the boxing ring and respond to it there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
It's not an "argument". Scholars know the origins of human texts are human. The extraordinary claim is they are something else. There is no evidence they are "something else". They fit perfectly historically with the history and values of the cultures which produced the texts. Any claim to their origins, other than human, is what has to be supported here. Human origins is the default position, (unless of course one is a Presupposisionalist, which once again you have demonstrated).

You have yet to provide an argument or evidence for your truth claim. You claim that the Old and New Testament texts are not divinely inspired.

Saying that scholars know that humans wrote and compiled the Old and New Testaments is simply stating the obvious. We all know this. To argue that this fact necessarily means that the texts are not divinely inspired is a non-sequitur. For the texts could be written and compiled by men (which we know is true) who were inspired by God to write and compile what they did (what you claim is not true but have given no arguments or reasons to think so).

Saying that the bible is not divinely inspired because it was written by humans is not an argument, it is a truth claim. You have to give some kind of argument or reason to think that this truth claim is true.

(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have explained nothing. At all.

I explained what DCT is. So this is false.


(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You've made a series of assertions with no support. I asked where your god GETS the CRITERIA to MAKE THE judgement about what is "maximally bla bla bla". All you did was restate your position. You did not answer the question, and the goal-posts were not moved. You can't answer the question, so you NEED to attempt evasion.

The criteria are the moral superlative attributes of God. God essentially is good, just, loving, compassionate, longsuffering etc. etc.

Now if you have some argument against DCT then let's hear it.



(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Don't bother. You failed at that. You're too delusional to admit what is right in front of you.

Saying I have failed at defending an argument for the existence of God is not a refutation of said argument. Nor does calling me delusional demonstrate that the arguments for God are bad.

(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lazy fucker. I am not asking for proof that your god exists.
I asked you to prove that the commands had a divine origin, and I asked what criteria your god used, and where she GOT them to decide how to formulate a divine command. You can't. So you evade.

Reference my sources on DCT and the various arguments for the existence of God.

(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  IF your deity meets the criteria for "all good", then SOMETHING ELSE always existed in REALITY, or the definition is meaningless, and she was not the originator of ALL of Reality. THAT is the point...

What reasons or arguments do you have for thinking the above to be true?

(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  She does not exist.

Now you have moved to Hard or Gnostic atheism. You made a truth claim. You say God does not exist. Now what arguments or evidence do you have for this assertion?

(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you assert with no evidence.

False. I have provided several arguments for the existence of God.

(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why would a perfect deity need to be "glorified" ?

Who said He needed to be glorified. I most certainly did not say that.


(21-06-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How could a human add something to the glory of a perfect being ?
Who said a human being could? I certainly did not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to provide an argument or evidence for your truth claim. You claim that the Old and New Testament texts are not divinely inspired.

Saying that scholars know that humans wrote and compiled the Old and New Testaments is simply stating the obvious. We all know this. To argue that this fact necessarily means that the texts are not divinely inspired is a non-sequitur. For the texts could be written and compiled by men (which we know is true) who were inspired by God to write and compile what they did (what you claim is not true but have given no arguments or reasons to think so).

Saying that the bible is not divinely inspired because it was written by humans is not an argument, it is a truth claim. You have to give some kind of argument or reason to think that this truth claim is true.

The burden is on you to provide evidence that they were divinely inspired because the default position is that anything written down is not divinely inspired. You are the one making the literally extra-ordinary claim.


(23-06-2014 03:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now you have moved to Hard or Gnostic atheism. You made a truth claim. You say God does not exist. Now what arguments or evidence do you have for this assertion?

If you wanted hard gnostic arguments saying that God does not exist then you could have debated me in the boxing ring. Instead you refused using the excuse that it was impossible to absolutely prove one way or another.

This is another example of you being inconsistent which is a typical trait of a troll.

P.S God does not exist
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
23-06-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Quote:You have yet to provide an argument or evidence for your truth claim. You claim that the Old and New Testament texts are not divinely inspired.

Saying that scholars know that humans wrote and compiled the Old and New Testaments is simply stating the obvious. We all know this. To argue that this fact necessarily means that the texts are not divinely inspired is a non-sequitur. For the texts could be written and compiled by men (which we know is true) who were inspired by God to write and compile what they did (what you claim is not true but have given no arguments or reasons to think so).

Saying that the bible is not divinely inspired because it was written by humans is not an argument, it is a truth claim. You have to give some kind of argument or reason to think that this truth claim is true.


You are once again trying to shift the burden of proof.
You claim the Bible is divinely inspired by god.
This presupposes that god exists in the first place.
If you want proof of a truth claim, you must first prove your claim that god exists, then prove that the bible was inspired by that god, until you can do that, you have no grounds to stand on for demanding anyone prove anything to you.
Do you still not understand this Fucko?
Until you can prove your truth claim that god exists, there is no reason to discuss anything that presupposes gods exists!

ETA: Mathilda beat me to it. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
23-06-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 03:32 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  [quote]Until you can prove your truth claim that god exists, there is no reason to discuss anything that presupposes gods exists!

Tell this to Bucky. He is the atheist who is asking me to explain the basis for God's commands.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 05:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  [quote='pablo628' pid='597677' dateline='1403559142']
Quote:Until you can prove your truth claim that god exists, there is no reason to discuss anything that presupposes gods exists!

Tell this to Bucky. He is the atheist who is asking me to explain the basis for God's commands.

I asked you. Again you're avoiding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 03:22 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  If you wanted hard gnostic arguments saying that God does not exist then you could have debated me in the boxing ring. Instead you refused using the excuse that it was impossible to absolutely prove one way or another.



I do not believe it is possible to prove the existence or non-existence of God with 100% certainty.

That is not going to keep me from requiring atheists to support the truth claims they make.

He said God does not exist, so I want some evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 05:13 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 05:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Tell this to Bucky. He is the atheist who is asking me to explain the basis for God's commands.

I asked you. Again you're avoiding.

Review my arguments in their respective threads at your leisure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(23-06-2014 05:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 05:13 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I asked you. Again you're avoiding.

Review my arguments in their respective threads at your leisure.

Nah, I've hit my bullshit quota for today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: