Atheist Tuesday: Damning Proof

113 CommentsAtheist Tuesday, Pastor's P.O.V.

I cannot prove the existence of God.

There. I said it.

But let me be clear: I can point to evidence that suggests a Creator.

With that said, I’ve given up trying to convince unbelievers that God exists for one main reason: They will never believe because they’ve made up their minds that there is no God. They cannot believe because their belief system does not allow them to.

Oh, I’ve tried, gosh, how I’ve tried…all to no avail.

I’ve tried observational evidence: “Look at the sky on a black, starry, Hill Country night away from the Austin light pollution. Can you really say that there is no God?”

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Hear the smirking?

I’ve tried evidence from creation: “Did this whole universe just pop into existence by random chance over time? If I set a Coke can on the ground, will it somehow evolve into a car given enough years?”

See the folded arms and rolling eyes?

I’ve tried The Builder Argument: “Every building has a builder, every painting has a painter; so, too, creation has a Creator!”

They’re laughing at me….

I’ve tried the classic Watchmaker Argument: “Since the complex inner workings of a watch necessitate a watchmaker, the complex design of the world we live in necessitates a Designer.”

Dodge those rotten eggs.

What, then, what would be considered a good argument worthy of all these all-too-smart-atheists?

Believe it or not, no argument at all.

yoda

I had an epiphany, an AHA! moment. Call it a revelation, the lightbulb going off over my head thing: Why do I even need to prove God’s existence at all?

If I actually proved the existence of God, a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, conclusive, here-He-is-in-the-flesh type of proof, it would be very, very unfortunate for the unbeliever. Horrible. Awful.

Why?

Because the Bible clearly says, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

I would be doing my refuse-to-believe friends a great disservice—it might be a sin—if I were to prove God’s existence.

Why?

If they believed in God because of my proof, they would still be dead in their sins and disobedience—damned!—even though they believed, because their belief didn’t come by faith.

If they refuse to see the evidence, why would I want to condemn them with proof?

Damning proof.

Comments (113)

  1. Joey

    Reply

    I think you actually make a good point here. Christianity comes down to faith. People like Ray Comfort never talk about faith. They use arguments like the Watchmaker’s Argument which fails on so many levels because inanimate objects are not the same as living biological organisms.

    I can’t speak for other Atheists, but this is the only thing that really irritates me about Christianity, when Christians try to act like their set of beliefs is based on logic. There are over 20 different dating methods that have proved the Earth is billions of years old, the fossil record clearly shows that lesser organisms evolved into more complex organisms without a single anomaly, and the Bible is full of scientific and historical errors. None of this matters to Christians though, because faith trumps facts.

    I just wish Christians could understand how hard it is for “the lost” to take that humongous leap of faith.

  2. Garrett

    Reply

    You really enjoy the “I just can’t convince you!” fall back, eh? Regardless of topic, you just scurry to that position. It’s generally your second response to anything, and yet we atheists don’t seem to use that excuse. Curious…very curious.

    There’s no presupp here: there are still many gaps for an intelligent creator to exist. Evolution, the big bang and so forth do not eliminate the possibility of a creator being. It IS, however, becoming increasingly likely that YOUR intelligent creator is not likely. Even if he were, he doesn’t seem like one worthy of our worship.

    From here, we go to faith. It’s very obvious the Bible is erected to keep you, the believer, trapped. Blind faith is encouraged, outsiders are demonized (literally!) and critical thought is off-limits.

    Don’t feel too bad, Steve: science doesn’t deal in proofs either. But, unlike you, we do deal in evidence. Not shoddy “builder” arguments, but actual evidence.

    The fact is this: you have no proof. You don’t even have evidence. If you did have proof, you’d be better off to show us. You’ve already said we can’t be convinced by evidence, so we’re already doomed to Hell. Showing us absolute proof of God, while damning us, would probably encourage a few atheists to convert and spread the faith. Key word being “faith,” as we obviously would also have proof that, well, proof is damning.

    But, you don’t have it. You got nothing. This post is the pathetic clinging of a man who can’t even defend his faith against a college drop-out. No, Steve, I’m not really that smart or wise: I’m just refuse to be ignorant where I can help it.

  4. perdita

    Reply

    Okay – that made me laugh. And I’m glad you realize that there is no evidence for your faith. Nothing wrong with that!

    —
    They will never believe because their presupposition is that there is no God.

    Ah, no. That isn’t the case at all. I started out as a believer. But I found that the universe appears to be completely devoid of gods, ghosts, angels, demons, magical pixies, etc.

    They cannot believe; their belief system does not allow them to.

    Well, yes. I cannot will myself to believe in things that have no supporting evidence (astrology or homeopathy, for example). I cannot will myself to believe in things that contradict reality (magical pixies). I tend to be skeptical of most claims – not just god claims. Maybe this is a fault, and that email from Nigeria was legit.

    If I were to actually prove God’s existence, a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, conclusive, here-He-is-in-the-flesh! type of proof, it would be very, very unfortunate.

    You know, I’m not holding the bar that high. Something around reasonable doubt would be okay.

    If they can’t see the evidence, why would I want to stumble them with proof?

    Steve – you have no evidence. You have faulty arguments. I believe Garrett and Nohm have shown you why these are considered faulty.

    I would be doing my atheists friends a great dis-service—it would almost be a sin—if I were to prove God’s existence

    That was great!

    • Steve Sanchez

      Reply

      Perdita,

      I’m glad you liked the post. But one small correction: I may not provide you with proof, but there are a heck of a lot of evidences for God.

      Thanks.

  5. Kaitlyn

    Reply

    Sooo…. God doesn’t like skeptics? Oh well. How do you suggest you convert atheists if you’re not even allowed to try to prove the existence of God? Prove the authority of scripture? I doubt that would work. You could try biblical prophesy, but there problematic verses like:

    Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

    Canaan is an extinct language.

    Bible prophesy doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and some “prophesies” were written after the predicted event took place. I guess you can make a case for Israel though, but that’s grasping at straws since one could easily make the case that it was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Thanks for posting this regardless. And good luck with your newly found epiphany. Hope you find it useful.

  6. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve wrote: “With that said, I have given up trying to convince our atheist friends that He exists for one main reason”

    You have no actual evidence to present?

    I’ll say again to you what I said to Thomas: arguments are not evidence. Arguments are used to show how the evidence supports your claims.

    You have not presented evidence; you have only presented arguments, and bad ones at that that you haven’t even researched the history and criticisms of them.

    To whit: “I’ve offered the wonderfully brilliant Builder Argument (“Every building has a builder, every painting has a painter”). William Paley’s Watchmaker argument was pooh-poohed”

    This is exactly my point about you not researching these arguments, Steve. The “wonderfully brilliant” (seriously? How so?) Builder argument is the exact same thing as Paley’s Watchmaker argument.

    THEY ARE THE SAME ARGUMENT.

    They are the same syllogism. That you don’t immediately recognize that fact blows my mind… almost as much as your continued insistence that you are somehow able to read our minds.

    To whit: “They cannot believe; their belief system does not allow them to.

    Bull, Steve. Plain, unadulterated bull.

    I don’t have “a belief system”. The closest thing to that is “secular humanism”. Now, please show me where I have ever claimed that I cannot believe.

    Until I do such a thing, please stop with this mind-reading garbage, because you’re awful at it.

    Steve wrote: “I’ve presented convincing evidences from creation”

    No, you definitely have not. At best you’ve presented well-worn arguments for creation, but I can’t think of a single time that you’ve actually presented evidence.

    Steve wrote: “I’ve offered the wonderfully brilliant Builder Argument (“Every building has a builder, every painting has a painter””

    1. Please explain what’s so “wonderfully brilliant” about Paley’s Watchmaker argument, with all of its lovely fallacies, slightly reworded.

    2. I’ve pointed out to you before: show me a building that has a single builder. Buildings have builders. If you want to talk about paintings, did the painter make the brushes? The paints? The canvas? We’re still talking about multiple creators at best, and I find it hard to believe that you’d want to argue for polytheism, yet you do.

    3. Who made the raw materials for the buildings and the paintings? Are you suggesting in your analogy that God used pre-existing materials for His creation? Somehow, I doubt that.

    4. But here’s the main problem: what do a painting, a building, and a human being have in common? You’re making the analogy, so please show me what these things have in common that would allow you to make the analogy. Buildings don’t give birth to baby buildings. Do you understand why that point is important?

    Whether you call it the “wonderfully brilliant” (hardly so… especially since you don’t respond to its multiple logical fallacies) Builder argument or Paley’s watchmaker argument, it’s the same darn thing.

    Steve wrote: “Lee Strobel’s books derided (“The Case for a Creator,” The Case for Faith,” “The Case for Christ”)”

    While completely ignoring why those books were derided. I gave very clear reasons why I thought those books are worthless. You, on your own, can easily find chapter-by-chapter fiskings (i.e., detailed criticisms) of those books online. But you never seem to do so, and that speaks more loudly to me than anything else you write.

    Steve wrote: “and apologists like Greg Koukl and others were scarcely considered worthy of these too-smart-atheists.”

    Talk about derision now, Steve. “Too-smart-atheists”? Is it an insult to call someone smart? But this statement by you comes to closest to a lie, but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just assume that this is a classic case of both projection and cognitive dissonance.

    Why? Because I explained, in detail a few months ago, just everything that Greg got wrong in an article that you pointed me to.

    So to claim that he was “ignored” is a bit on the dishonest side.

    Maybe the problem is that you listen to liars, Steve. If you ask me, that’s my answer. All of these people that you follow are lying liars, every time they speak on how other people think, or do farce interviews like Lee Strobel does. I mean, do you understand just who Strobel picks to interview in his books??

    Steve wrote: “I understand now.”

    I don’t think you could be further from the truth there.

    Steve wrote: “If I were to actually prove God’s existence, a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, conclusive, here-He-is-in-the-flesh! type of proof”

    What a blatant, dishonest straw-man. Steve, NO ONE HAS ASKED FOR THIS. We have asked for evidence, not beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof. Heck, scientific theories are never “beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof”, yet you know how us heathens feel about them, right?

    Evidence, Steve. Present some. The arguments can come when you show how the evidence supports your claims, and not a second before.

    And you still can’t read minds.

    “If they can’t see the evidence”

    So present some already. None of this hand-waving garbage of repeating the word “design” a few times; we also think life was designed, we just think that design was done through random mutations and natural selection. Give us actual evidence that you have researched (stop laughing guys), and then show how the evidence supports your claims.

    Lastly, Steve, please do me a favor and stop making up stuff that you wish we would say. That straw-man of yours has been beaten up hard enough already.

  7. Weemaryanne

    Reply

    Goodness, what I’ve been missing….

    Garrett, pardon my presumption, but are you the same Garrett who used to post – quite awhile ago now – at Atheist Central / Soap Box / Comfort Food? And then de-converted by way of Irukandji’s little-used blog?

    If not, please ignore me. I only ask because that Garrett has been frequently in my thoughts since then….

  8. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    It is sad but at the same time a faith builder to see all of the atheist/agnostics/whatever you want to be labeled act the way you do. On the side of sad, because at this point hell is your destiny (because of your fruits. I do not declare I know the human heart through and through 100%. Only God knows that). On the side of faith builder, it is because all of you are acting just as the Bible accurately predicted.

    I would like to comment on this that Steve said: “I would be doing my atheists friends a great dis-service—it would almost be a sin—if I were to prove God’s existence.”

    I would like to point out the ending of the comment, “if I were to prove God’s existence.” God’s existence has been proven, but it has not been proven 100%. Guess what there is nothing on this earth that can be proven 100% through historical, factual, logical, reasonable based evidence. What percentage does the evidence for God reach? I would say somewhere in the 90’s (between 95 and 99%). Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that seals the deal and brings everything together with the evidence for God. This is based on faith, a faith based on evidence.

    Overall great post Pastor Steve! God bless!!!

    -Thomas

    P.S.—And please remember that though we broke the Ten Commandments (we‘ve all told a lie at some point, taken something that does not belong to us (a thief), taken God‘s name in vain (blasphemy) and/or hated someone and committed murder in our heart), Jesus Christ has paid the fine through his life’s blood. His death on the cross along with his resurrection sealed satan’s and death’s defeat. We are guilty in God’s courtroom (that’s hell for eternity), but Jesus settled the fine to give us heaven for eternity. Now Jesus commands all people to repent and put their trust in Jesus to save them. Please do that today and God will grant you eternal life by forgiving your sins. Not because of me, not because of you, but because of Him and who He is. A God that gives us what we do not deserve. Please repent and trust Jesus. Today is the day of salvation.

  9. W B McCarty

    Reply

    Steve, faith isn’t based on ignorance. Faith is an act of trust that’s _based on knowledge_. If faith were truly based on ignorance, you should immediately cease proclaiming the Gospel and giving reasons to believe it. But, as you know, Scripture specifically commands us to be ready to give reasons for our belief in Christ.

    Please continue to share knowledge in season and out. It’s up to your listeners to decide whether or not to trust the knowledge that you communicate. But, without the knowledge, they haven’t the opportunity.

    Blessings,

  10. Nohm

    Reply

    Thomas wrote: “What percentage does the evidence for God reach? I would say somewhere in the 90’s (between 95 and 99%)”

    It’s fun to just make up percentages, isn’t it?

    Unfortunately, in the real world, percentages are supposed to actually mean something. There’s math that goes into calculating them.

    Just how exactly did you calculate “between 95 and 99%”?

    See, in the real world, Thomas, saying, “oh, I just made that up” can get you fired.

    And you guys wonder why we have a hard time believing what you say.

  11. Nohm

    Reply

    And YET AGAIN I’ll point out that Steve and Thomas keep saying that there’s a whole lot of evidence out there…

    and yet they don’t actually present any of it.

  12. Nohm

    Reply

    Thomas, how exactly are we acting?

    I want actual evidence and quotes, not taken out of context.

  13. Kaitlyn

    Reply

    Thomas Moore, thank you for your input, but I respectfully disagree that “God’s existence has been proven.” Most theologians and theists would disagree as well. Belief in God is a matter of faith, and no one has provided any evidence beyond personal anecdotes.

    I understand how you can look at the world and conclude that God made all that. It’s human thinking to personify what we see around us. After all, we make everything we use, so it’s easy to think that maybe someone made the Earth and the Sun as well. However, everything from the smallest photon to the largest star is formed by a well-understood process.

    Much is unknown about the universe, and you may try to fill in these gaps with God, but that is not evidence for God’s existence. Arguments not backed up by evidence fail to achieve a standard basis for belief.

    Think about this for a second:
    All birds are red
    Ducks are birds
    Therefore all ducks are red.

    This example is perfect in logic, but because there is no evidence to support the claim that all birds are red. It’s inherently flawed due to lack of evidence.

    In many ways, Steve is right. Belief in God is not based on arguments, but on faith and faith alone. Some of us lack faith, and that’s fine. The same is true about having faith. Having faith is fine. But we must understand that something isn’t proven to exist simply because we believe in it.

    Take care,
    – Kaitlyn

  14. Garrett

    Reply

    No, Wee, this is Azou from SMRT. I didn’t want to upset Steve with my anonymity.

  15. Bike Bubba

    Reply

    Well, if you want evidence for creation, consider for starters that the actual erosion from the Colorado River would have carved the Grand Canyon in thousands of years, not millions…..there is a big contradiction between many of the “old earth” assumptions necessary for Darwinian evolution to work (or Gouldian for that matter) and some of the actual measurements we take.

    Never mind the 2nd theory of thermodynamics and Augustine’s argument; if indeed the principle of entropy holds, an infinitely old universe (a beginning implies a Beginner) should have reached stasis an infinite time ago.

  16. Kaitlyn

    Reply

    Bike Bubba said
    “the actual erosion from the Colorado River would have carved the Grand Canyon in thousands of years, not millions.”

    By all estimates I know of, it took millions of years. You’ll notice that parts the Colorado River make an ‘S’ shaped pattern which is indicative of slow moving water. Can you link to a secular source like Time or National Geographic that says the Canyon was formed in thousands not millions of years?

    Even still, if it was created in 3 days, I don’t see how that proves the existence of God.

    Bike Bubba said:
    “Augustine’s argument”

    Teleological arguments for the existence of God are ridiculous. Complexity does not mean there’s a designer. And even if you do accept all the premises, it still doesn’t prove the existence of God, but rather an intelligent designer which could be anything.

    Bike Bubba said:
    “An infinitely old universe”

    This is a straw man. I believe the Universe to be 14.5 billion years old.

    Bike Bubba said…
    “a beginning implies a Beginner”

    How so? This is a unsupported statement. Does the beginning of a river need a river digger? Does the beginning of a cloud through require a cloud factory? Does the beginning of a star require a star workshop? Of course not. Man-made things require people to build them while every natural product understood so far has a natural explanation. Why would the big bang and the beginning of the Universe be any different? That’s special pleading.

  17. Nohm

    Reply

    Bike Bubba wrote: “Well, if you want evidence for creation, consider for starters that the actual erosion from the Colorado River would have carved the Grand Canyon in thousands of years, not millions”

    You should immediately inform every geologist you know, because somehow, with all of their experience, they haven’t figured this out yet… but you have!

    Why is it that the vast, vast majority of professional geologists, from all sorts of religious backgrounds, completely disagree with you?

    Have you done the math, or is this just something you read somewhere without ever looking up what other geologists have to say about such a claim?

    That’s not evidence for creation, anyways. If it was true (and it ain’t), it’s at best evidence for a young earth.

    Young earth != creation

    Bike Bubba wrote: “there is a big contradiction between many of the “old earth” assumptions necessary for Darwinian evolution to work (or Gouldian for that matter) and some of the actual measurements we take.”

    You claim that there is a big contradiction, but you don’t mention what it is.

    Also, let’s say you completely show that evolution is false… that does nothing to support your own claims.

    Bike Bubba wrote: “Never mind the 2nd theory of thermodynamics…”

    I am going to bet right now that you’ve never actually taken a thermo class. You’re talking about stuff you haven’t studied, and I know you haven’t done the math, because you wouldn’t say something like that if you did. And it’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not Theory; there’s an important distinction there, and it’s not “one is proven and the other isn’t”.

    Bike Bubba: “a beginning implies a Beginner”

    And a “beginner” need not be intelligent.

  18. Paul Latour

    Reply

    Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

    Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

    John 20:28-29

  19. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Hey Nohm- For the verses in the Bible that are connected to unbelievers look at:
    Mark 15:29-32
    Luke 11:29-30
    John 12:37-40
    Romans 1:18-22

    And here is another for good measure: Matthew 18:1-4

    God bless,
    Thomas

  20. perdita

    Reply

    Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

    Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

    John 20:28-29

    If they believed in God because of my proof, they would still be dead in their sins and trespasses—damned!—even though they believed, because it didn’t come by faith.

    So… Thomas is damned?

  23. perdita

    Reply

    But one small correction: I may not provide you with proof, but there are a heck of a lot of evidences for God.

    So you say. What do they say? Pics or it didn’t happen?

  24. Paul Latour

    Reply

    perdita,

    Believing in God was not the issue for Thomas. He already did, wholeheartedly. He was a Jew.

    It just wasn’t normal for people to come back to life after suffering the lengths to which Jesus did under prolonged torture , being nailed to a cross, dying a slow and painful death and being buried in tomb. Wouldn’t you not have been a bit bewildered? I would have.

    One has to take into consideration, as well, that this occurred before Pentacost when the Holy Spirit opened the eyes and hearts of Christ’s apostles, enabling them to fully appreciate what Jesus talked about all along but because of their human and spiritual fraility, there were not empowered as such before.

    It’s a supernatural thing.

  25. Mike F

    Reply

    One question: have you ever read an explanation of how blood clots when you get a cut? It is described in Michael Behe’s book as well as other sources. The process appears to be one of these irreducible situations (that is several events must happen for it to work). To me this process could not have come about as an event of evolution. Personally I think researchers in the evolution track need to look for explanation of things like this and how they fit into the theory of evolution (I know you will say it is a fact).

  26. perdita

    Reply

    Sorry – that sounds more snarky than I meant.

    As I said before – I’m skeptical about a whole lot of things, not just claims for God. And unfortunately, I do need good evidence before I can be convinced of something – especially if that something is inconsistent with my experience of reality.

  27. perdita

    Reply

    Paul –

    Believing in God was not the issue for Thomas. He already did, wholeheartedly. He was a Jew.

    I see what you’re saying.

    It just wasn’t normal for people to come back to life after suffering the lengths to which Jesus did under prolonged torture , being nailed to a cross, dying a slow and painful death and being buried in tomb. Wouldn’t you not have been a bit bewildered?

    Well, that could sort of describe where I’m at. I don’t see the supernatural working in our natural world and, like Thomas, I’m asking for evidence. But you’re saying because I’m not already a believer I don’t get any. Can you see how that sort of sounds like a cop-out? Shouldn’t the truth be able to withstand my scrutiny?

  28. Garrett

    Reply

    Ditto to what? We’re not claiming an invisible, all-power being rules over us arbitrarily. Put up or shut up, Steve.

  29. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Mike F,

    “have you ever read an explanation of how blood clots when you get a cut?”

    Do you know what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005?

    “It is described in Michael Behe’s book as well as other sources.”

    “Other sources”, heh. Seriously, don’t you remember what happened in Dover?

    “The process appears to be one of these irreducible situations (that is several events must happen for it to work).”

    I’m starting to think you don’t know what happened in Dover in 2005.

    “To me this process could not have come about as an event of evolution.”

    Oh, I wasn’t aware that you worked as a biologist. If so, I would have thought you would know what happened in Dover in 2005.

    “Personally I think researchers in the evolution track need to look for explanation of things like this and how they fit into the theory of evolution (I know you will say it is a fact).”

    Wow, I’m shocked… SHOCKED I say… that you would try to read my mind (eye-roll). Mike, I’m thinking that you don’t understand the difference between a fact and a theory, so I’ll explain:

    There is the fact of evolution. Allele frequencies change over time in breeding populations. That’s a fact.

    There is the current theory of evolution. That’s the part that some of you don’t like. A theory is used to explain facts. How do allele frequencies change in breeding populations over time? A falsifiable explanation that makes testable predictions for this is the theory.

    Furthermore, theories do not become laws. A law is used to make predictions, but it doesn’t explain how it works. A theory explains how it works (like Newton’s laws of gravity vs. the current theory of gravity).

    But let’s get back to your previous statement, that you think “researchers in the evolution track” (i.e., biologists) need to look for explanations of this.

    And on that note, I can safely say that you don’t know what happened in Dover in 2005.

    Sorry, I was mostly having fun at your expense there, Mike. But it just frustrates me when someone speaks on something when it’s obvious that they’ve done no research on it. How do you say “people should look into it” when you haven’t even looked into seeing if people are looking into it.

    Because they have.

  30. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi perdita,

    Paul Latour is talking about “Doubting Thomas”, from the Bible.

    Not the Thomas who comments at this blog.

  31. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Steve,

    Although I wish that you would reply to my earlier comment re: Builder Argument/Paley’s Watchmaker, I do want to point out an error I made in that comment.

    I wrote: “So to claim that he was “ignored” is a bit on the dishonest side.”

    I apologize for writing this. You never claimed that he was ignored. You said: “apologists like Greg Koukl and others were scarcely considered worthy of these too-smart-atheists.”

    My larger point still stands that I think it’s clear that I thought it was worthy enough to read, consider, and reply to you about what Greg wrote. But I apologize for claiming that you made a claim that you actually did not make.

  32. Nohm

    Reply

    Lastly, if we should all just go with faith and not worry about evidence, then why should I believe what you believe instead of what a Muslim believes? It’s faith either way, and neither group provides me with evidence of their claims.

  33. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Here’s a blanket answer to my “evidence-less” atheist friends: I believe i have presented a lot of evidences for the existence of God. Many others have presented a lot of evidence (please read this post again). You may not consider it valid evidence, but we (the authors and apologists aforementioned) do.

    Next Tuesday I will explain why you can’t see it.

  34. Bike Bubba

    Reply

    Notice the mockery of my comments; usually when I want to figure out who is losing the argument, I look for ad hominems.

    But if we like to look at actual evidence, then maybe we’d better take a look at the annual evidence. Annual sediment removal by the Colorado River–removal impeded currently by the dams on the river–is said to be 100 million tons, or about 10^8 cubic meters or so.

    http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/16-1/future.html

    Given an actual volume of about 4 trillion cubic meters, this would indicate that if the Colorado River indeed is the prime carver of the canyon, it would have taken only about 40,000 years or so, not millions, to be carved.

    Now getting less than 40k years with flood geology is no problem. Getting from 40k to 40 million, however, requires a bit more doing.

    And regarding Behe, the trial notes are not representative of real knowledge; yes, if you set the ground rules so that no nonmaterialistic arguments are allowed, the testimony will come out exactly as it is linked.

    If, on the other hand, we emulate Steven Jay Gould and ask ourselves how we could get a number of fortuitous things to come together to get a new species or flagellum. While Gould despised Behe’s hypothesis, his “punctuated equilibrium” is simply another way of trying to resolve the same difficulty Behe saw; we simply do not see the rate of genetic mutation/change needed to bring these factors together that we ought to if we are to rely on this random change to produce new species and features.

    And hence Behe’s hypothesis is reasonable and eminently testable; can, say, the flagellum work without a certain portion of its constituent parts, and does it confer any advantage in survivability without a number of them?

  35. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Nohm I just quickly wanted to commit on what you said here: “It’s fun to just make up percentages, isn’t it? Unfortunately, in the real world, percentages are supposed to actually mean something. There’s math that goes into calculating them. Just how exactly did you calculate “between 95 and 99%”?

    This was a estimation that I made from the time I have studied the evidence and proofs for the existence of God for almost 8 years now. You are correct in saying that percentages are calculated through mathematical information. I probably should have used a different term instead of percentages. But it was the only thing that came to mind that would convey what I was talking about in regards to the amount of proof there is for the existence of God. So it was not a percentage based on mathematical deduction, but an estimation given by me from my years of studying on the evidence for the existence of God. I know for you that will probably mean nothing in the end. But there is my explanation. God bless.

    -Thomas

    P.S.—And please remember that though we broke the Ten Commandments (we‘ve all told a lie at some point, taken something that does not belong to us (a thief), taken God‘s name in vain (blasphemy) and/or hated someone and committed murder in our heart), Jesus Christ has paid the fine through his life’s blood. His death on the cross along with his resurrection sealed satan’s and death’s defeat. We are guilty in God’s courtroom (that’s hell for eternity), but Jesus settled the fine to give us heaven for eternity. Now Jesus commands all people to repent and put their trust in Jesus to save them. Please do that today and God will grant you eternal life by forgiving your sins. Not because of me, not because of you, but because of Him and who He is. A God that gives us what we do not deserve. Please repent and trust Jesus. Today is the day of salvation.

  36. Nohm

    Reply

    Steve wrote: “I believe i have presented a lot of evidences for the existence of God.”

    Okay, maybe we’re talking past each other.

    Steve, can we at least agree that arguments are not evidence? If so, then what evidence did you present? You don’t have to explain it, please just point me to it, because I’ve now re-read this thread a few times and I just don’t see it.

    It’s not whether or not I consider it valid, Steve. It’s that I haven’t seen you present any of it, period!

    “Next Tuesday I will explain why you can’t see it.”

    Because it’s written in invisible ink? Seriously, Steve, where did you present evidence? I’m not trying to mock you here, I honestly don’t see where it happened.

    The only way that your last comment makes any sense is if you somehow think that arguments are evidence. Is that what you think? I don’t want to assume so negatively of you, so I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

  37. perdita

    Reply

    Steve, please re-read what Nohm said about evidence v. argument. The builder argument is an argument, not evidence.

  38. Dennis Liebregt

    Reply

    Hey Steve your blog is starting to look like Atheist Central…
    It makes for some interesting reading that’s for sure.
    Also makes me wonder how anyone can keep coming back to these blogs, claim to be open minded, and yet continue to call themselves an “Atheist”. That they would be able to hold to the theory of evolution over a Creator is completely mind boggling. That out of chaos (big bang) came all this amazing harmony and the magic ingredient = time?
    I mean after you blog about this day after day like these Atheist love to do – doesn’t there come a point that you realize you are not an atheist at all but an agnostic? And that you just don’t believe in the God of the Bible? That would be an honest start I would think. Yet there still seem to be some die hards out there that refuse to even take that step of being honest and just say: “I don’t know” So they continue to puff themselves up with knowledge but in all their wisdom God still calls them fools and rightfully so.
    The irony in this is that about 4 years ago I would probably be cheering Nohm on and instead I find myself cheering on the Christians.
    Praying that one day Nohm would find himself in that same position I found myself in which is to acknowledge that yes there is indeed a God and to realize you are actually accountable to this God!
    I can tell you one thing Nohm – the evidence is certainly there (any Christian on this blog would happily testify to that) you are just going about it wrong. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Also yes it will take faith but not blind faith. There is one thing that Christianity has over ALL the other religions (including the Muslims) and that is a risen Savior! All the other religions there is something that man must do or can do to somehow get to heaven, it’s all works based. Only in Christianity do we realize that we can’t do anything to somehow earn salvation. That is what sets Christianity apart from all the other faiths.
    Christ has done it all for us. When He said: “It is finished” that’s exactly what that meant.
    Unfortunately what Steve says is true and when I read through the Bible it only backs it up. If we were able to provide “proof” to those that don’t believe in God – it would only be damning proof at best.
    As Scripture says: even the demons believed and trembled…
    Those fallen angels KNOW God exists and yet rebelled against Him.
    Humanity since Adam and Eve have been rebelling against Him.
    Very interesting indeed. Because even if you give Atheist’s proof of God’s existence – they would still continue to live in sin. They would still continue to rebel that is unless they finally opened their spiritual eyes and realize that we are more than just flesh and blood. It’s clear to me that the road that leads to life is indeed narrow and there are few that find it – but wide is the road that leads to destruction.
    To me personally the biggest proof for the existence of God is what He has done in my own life. Changing the person I was and truly giving me a new heart and new desires. Reading the bible you can see these changes happening to everyone that finally “sees” Christ – like Saul of Tarsus, like doubting Thomas, like the apostles when they were called.
    The proof for God is in changed lives. The miracle is that God would save a wretch like me. The miracle is that He would do the same to all those that profess to be Atheist if only they would humble themselves, repent of their sins, and have faith and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You can debate, argue, until you are blue in the face but it won’t change one thing. God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. He is the only one that in all of creation can say: “I am”
    all the rest of us are at best “has beens” here today – gone tomorrow.
    10 out of 10 will die – what happens next? This is where the Atheist have so much more faith than Christians… to the Atheist: nothing you just decompose – lights out. To the Christian: Judgment and Heaven or Hell.
    Guess that is the motivation to keep blogging eh? What if there is some truth to this Christianity? That’s because we as Christians don’t just “believe” God we KNOW God. It makes it very easy. It can happen to you as non-believers but it won’t come by this magic proof some of you are looking for. It won’t come by arguing with Christians either.
    Back to what Steve said: you disqualify yourself from finding this truth by your pre-supposition that there is no God. Step 1 – admit you don’t know and therefore are Agnostic NOT Atheist. That’s a big first step to take you to the road of salvation (if it is God’s will to lead you down the road)
    I pray that it would be for each and every one of you that visit Steve’s blog.

  40. Garrett

    Reply

    We don’t consider it valid evidence because other evidence refutes it quite handily. It really isn’t evidence for GOD either (the earth’s age has to do what with proving GOD?). You never seem to get back with us to defend your precious evidence, but instead insist we can’t see it.

    And next Tuesday you will post Bible verses, without validating the Bible in any way, shape or form. There Steve: I save you some of your precious time.

  41. Garrett

    Reply

    Bubba, here is some Logical Fallacy 101 for you.

    An Ad Hom attack is not just insulting someone. It is using the insult as the argument.

    “You’re a jerk and therefore wrong.” is an ad hom fallacy.

    “You’re wrong for reason A and a jerk for bringing it up.” is not. Rude, perhaps, but not an ad hom.

    All the YEC I have heard do not peg the Earth at 40,000 years old (generally 6,000-10,000), so they might have a bone to pick with you there! You are also assuming a linear loss of sentiment each year, whereas it could have taken many years to reach that rate of loss (not to mention human intervention). Again, it’s good to see SOMEONE try, but this doesn’t show evidence of God. A large flood might be a decent piece of evidence, but one piece of evidence isn’t enough. It’s not proof, after all.

  42. Nohm

    Reply

    Bike Bubba wrote: “Notice the mockery of my comments; usually when I want to figure out who is losing the argument, I look for ad hominems.”

    Point out a single ad hominem argument that was used against you.

    An ad hominem argument is like this: “you’re dumb, so your argument is not correct.”

    Note that no one used such an argument against you.

    [Snipping ignorance of geology, because if what he wrote was true, think of all of the advances! Yet geologists from a wide variety of religious backgrounds don’t agree with you. Neither does the math, for that matter. Hint: you’re missing a few variables.]

    Bike Bubba wrote: “And regarding Behe, the trial notes are not representative of real knowledge; yes, if you set the ground rules so that no nonmaterialistic arguments are allowed, the testimony will come out exactly as it is linked.”

    Uh, that’s not at all what happened. Where were “ground rules so that no nonmaterialistic arguements are allowed”? Please show where these were presented.

    Do you understand that I was pointing to Behe’s own testimony on the stand?

    Bike Bubba wrote: “if we are to rely on this random change to produce new species and features.”

    Straw-man. Natural selection is not random change, and is not claimed to be so.

    Bike Bubba wrote: “And hence Behe’s hypothesis is reasonable and eminently testable; can, say, the flagellum work without a certain portion of its constituent parts, and does it confer any advantage in survivability without a number of them?”

    So, I take it that you haven’t read the transcripts of Behe’s time on the stand either. Bike Bubba, here’s the thing… the whole flagellum thing was brought up at the trial and it was shown why Behe’s definition of “irreducible complexity” is non-falsifiable, and completely useless.

    Have you spent any time whatsoever researching how it could confer any advantage in survivability without a number of its parts? Because people have, Bike Bubba; it’s been done already. Heck, it was done in Dover five years ago.

    Look up “flagellum” and “mouse trap”

    You could have looked this up yourself.

    Yet you speak on things that you haven’t researched.

    Seriously, why do this? Because that’s why I mock you.

    Lastly, Bike Bubba wrote: “Now getting less than 40k years with flood geology is no problem.”

    Okay, let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that you’re right.

    Physics has a slight problem with your hypothesis.

    So again, I’ll ask you all… when you talk about things that I’ve studied for years and you get them blatantly wrong (and I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying you’re getting the claims wrong), how can I possibly think you’d be right about things I don’t know about?

  43. Nohm

    Reply

    To clarify:

    Not an ad hominem: “You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

    Is an ad hominem: “You have no idea what you’re talking about, so your argument is wrong.”

  44. Nohm

    Reply

    Thomas wrote: “But it was the only thing that came to mind that would convey what I was talking about in regards to the amount of proof there is for the existence of God.”

    And yet, again again again, you still don’t present any of these “proofs”.

    Note: “proof” only exists in math and alcohol. I haven’t asked for proof; I’ve asked for evidence.

  45. Garrett

    Reply

    Dennis is amazing. Let’s partake:

    “Hey Steve your blog is starting to look like Atheist Central…
    It makes for some interesting reading that’s for sure.”

    -We really do try.

    “Also makes me wonder how anyone can keep coming back to these blogs, claim to be open minded, and yet continue to call themselves an “Atheist”. That they would be able to hold to the theory of evolution over a Creator is completely mind boggling. That out of chaos (big bang) came all this amazing harmony and the magic ingredient = time?”

    -Because we actually are open-minded. Your religion actively works to keep you closed to alternatives. I fail to see the universe being all that “harmonious,” but the Big Bang is a popular hypothesis.

    “I mean after you blog about this day after day like these Atheist love to do – doesn’t there come a point that you realize you are not an atheist at all but an agnostic? And that you just don’t believe in the God of the Bible? That would be an honest start I would think.”

    -I am an agnostic atheist, as proving any all-powerful being(s) absolutely false is very difficult. However, until I see evidence otherwise, I will live my life under the assumption that there are no gods.

    “Yet there still seem to be some die hards out there that refuse to even take that step of being honest and just say: “I don’t know” So they continue to puff themselves up with knowledge but in all their wisdom God still calls them fools and rightfully so.”

    -Uh, many of us here have stated that we don’t know a great many things. The beginning of the universe is hotly debated, and the origins of life on earth has yet to be cemented. You’re just cranky that we don’t rush off to your god. I’m hardly knowledgeable, by the way.

    “The irony in this is that about 4 years ago I would probably be cheering Nohm on and instead I find myself cheering on the Christians.
    Praying that one day Nohm would find himself in that same position I found myself in which is to acknowledge that yes there is indeed a God and to realize you are actually accountable to this God!”

    -The I Was an Atheist strategy seems popular around these parts!

    “I can tell you one thing Nohm – the evidence is certainly there (any Christian on this blog would happily testify to that) you are just going about it wrong. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Also yes it will take faith but not blind faith. There is one thing that Christianity has over ALL the other religions (including the Muslims) and that is a risen Savior! All the other religions there is something that man must do or can do to somehow get to heaven, it’s all works based. Only in Christianity do we realize that we can’t do anything to somehow earn salvation. That is what sets Christianity apart from all the other faiths.”

    -You guys love talking ABOUT evidence, but never present any. We just got poor Bubba talking about the Grand Canyon’s age.

    “Christ has done it all for us. When He said: “It is finished” that’s exactly what that meant.
    Unfortunately what Steve says is true and when I read through the Bible it only backs it up. If we were able to provide “proof” to those that don’t believe in God – it would only be damning proof at best.”

    -Why does your god act so strange? You act like he wants us to avoid Hell and proceeds to do silly stuff like this.

    “As Scripture says: even the demons believed and trembled…
    Those fallen angels KNOW God exists and yet rebelled against Him.
    Humanity since Adam and Eve have been rebelling against Him.
    Very interesting indeed. Because even if you give Atheist’s proof of God’s existence – they would still continue to live in sin. They would still continue to rebel that is unless they finally opened their spiritual eyes and realize that we are more than just flesh and blood. It’s clear to me that the road that leads to life is indeed narrow and there are few that find it – but wide is the road that leads to destruction.”

    -Why did God designed so many of his creations with design flaws so bad that he throws them in torture pit for eternity? I thought he was intelligent?

    “To me personally the biggest proof for the existence of God is what He has done in my own life. Changing the person I was and truly giving me a new heart and new desires. Reading the bible you can see these changes happening to everyone that finally “sees” Christ – like Saul of Tarsus, like doubting Thomas, like the apostles when they were called.
    The proof for God is in changed lives. The miracle is that God would save a wretch like me. The miracle is that He would do the same to all those that profess to be Atheist if only they would humble themselves, repent of their sins, and have faith and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You can debate, argue, until you are blue in the face but it won’t change one thing. God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. He is the only one that in all of creation can say: “I am””

    -But…Ray says the “improve your life!” deal is a load of crock! One that leads to false conversions! YOU TOLD ME YOU READ HIS BLOG, DENNIS. Oh, and that’s a personal revelation. It’s hardly something we can measure or test for accuracy. What if you’re just delusional?

    “all the rest of us are at best “has beens” here today – gone tomorrow.
    10 out of 10 will die – what happens next? This is where the Atheist have so much more faith than Christians… to the Atheist: nothing you just decompose – lights out. To the Christian: Judgment and Heaven or Hell.”

    -This is going to segue into Pascal’s, isn’t it?

    “Guess that is the motivation to keep blogging eh? What if there is some truth to this Christianity? That’s because we as Christians don’t just “believe” God we KNOW God. It makes it very easy. It can happen to you as non-believers but it won’t come by this magic proof some of you are looking for. It won’t come by arguing with Christians either.”

    -What if Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Hinduism, Druidism, Satanism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology and so on are right? What if the true god is actually a malevolent jerk that only sends atheists to paradise? I’m not going to convert on a hunch that I may avoid 1 of hundreds of possible hells. So make your case.

    “Back to what Steve said: you disqualify yourself from finding this truth by your pre-supposition that there is no God. Step 1 – admit you don’t know and therefore are Agnostic NOT Atheist. That’s a big first step to take you to the road of salvation (if it is God’s will to lead you down the road)
    I pray that it would be for each and every one of you that visit Steve’s blog.”

    -Few of us carry such a presupposition. We don’t believe in any gods because no evidence has been established for any. You’re just saying that because, ultimately, you got nothin’.

  46. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Dennis,

    Dennis wrote: “Also makes me wonder how anyone can keep coming back to these blogs, claim to be open minded, and yet continue to call themselves an “Atheist”. ”

    Most likely because you use a different definition of the word “atheist” than we do. For one, there’s no need to capitalize it.

    You most likely define it as “someone who says there is no God.”

    We define it as “someone who currently lacks belief in God(s).”

    This is why I prefer to call myself a nontheist or a secular humanist; there’s less confusion over the definitions we’re using.

    My point is that if you’re looking for people who actually claim “there is no God”, good luck, because they are a very tiny minority of the people who call themselves “atheists”. For example, I doubt that a single atheist in this thread here would claim “there is no God.” I’ve gone on record repeatedly that I don’t (and won’t) make that claim.

    Dennis wrote: “That they would be able to hold to the theory of evolution over a Creator is completely mind boggling.”

    As opposed to the majority of Christians in the world who accept both. I think you misunderstand what the theory of evolution explains. It explains how life has diversified once life began. Your talk of a Creator would come long before that.

    Therefore, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

    To clarify (and seriously, why can’t people do research for a change): the theory of evolution in no way shape or form deals with how the universe began or even how life began on earth. It only deals with how life has diversified ONCE WE HAVE LIFE. Yeesh.

    Dennis wrote: “That out of chaos (big bang) came all this amazing harmony and the magic ingredient = time?”

    I take it that you haven’t studied emergent properties. Check out fractals sometime. And I wasn’t aware that a universe that is largely lethal to life is somehow “harmony”.

    Time isn’t magic. Creating a universe by breath, and making the sun after the light… that’s magic.

    Dennis wrote: “I mean after you blog about this day after day like these Atheist love to do – doesn’t there come a point that you realize you are not an atheist at all but an agnostic?”

    This again is a result from us using different definitions.

    Dennis wrote: “And that you just don’t believe in the God of the Bible? ”

    Why should we?

    Dennis wrote: “Yet there still seem to be some die hards out there that refuse to even take that step of being honest and just say: “I don’t know””

    Awww, c’mon man! These irony meters cost around $50 each! Please stop writing things that cause them to explode. 🙂

    Seriously though, point me to a single die hard in this thread that refuses to do so.

    Just to help you out, this is me: “I don’t know whether or not there’s a God.” But I’ll still call myself an atheist, due to the whole definition thing. If it makes it easier for you, just call all of us nontheists.

    Dennis wrote: “So they continue to puff themselves up with knowledge but in all their wisdom God still calls them fools and rightfully so.”

    Well, that’s nice. I like the “puff themselves up with knowledge” part, as if that’s a bad thing. Which I’m thinking it just might be to some of you, given my experiences.

    Dennis wrote: “I can tell you one thing Nohm – the evidence is certainly there”

    Amazing. A Christian on Steve’s blog talks about evidence, and yet doesn’t present any. I never saw that coming. 😉

    Dennis wrote: “All the other religions there is something that man must do or can do to somehow get to heaven, it’s all works based.”

    And… that’s somehow a bad thing?

    Dennis wrote: “Only in Christianity do we realize that we can’t do anything to somehow earn salvation.”

    And… that’s somehow a good thing?

    Regardless, all of that is irrelevant without the evidence that people keep talking about yet don’t present.

    Dennis wrote: “Very interesting indeed. Because even if you give Atheist’s proof of God’s existence – they would still continue to live in sin.”

    Wooosh, I was almost worried we’d get through an entire post without someone acting like they can read minds. Plus, are you sinless? Is “I sin because I am sinner, and so I repent” vastly different from “living in sin”?

    Dennis wrote: “They would still continue to rebel that is unless they finally opened their spiritual eyes and realize that we are more than just flesh and blood.”

    I am so glad that I nixed the idea of making a drinking game out of how many times the Christians here attempt to do mind-reading. I would be hammered, yikes!

    Are the “spiritual eyes” like the Hindu “third eye”?

    Dennis wrote: “To me personally the biggest proof for the existence of God is what He has done in my own life.”

    Wow! A subjective un-falsifiable un-testable anecdote!

    Muslims do the same.

    Dennis wrote: “Reading the bible you can see these changes happening to everyone that finally “sees” Christ – like Saul of Tarsus, like doubting Thomas, like the apostles when they were called.”

    They do the same in the Quran, and in every piece of fiction I’ve read. If you have a writer, then the characters can react however the writer wants them to.

    Think of Katherine in “Taming of the Shrew”.

    Dennis wrote: “Guess that is the motivation to keep blogging eh?”

    Nah. I like talking with people who fascinate me. The Christians here fascinate me.

    Dennis wrote: “What if there is some truth to this Christianity?”

    Then I would want to get with the program. It’s important that my beliefs and opinions reflect reality. If there’s truth to Christianity, then I want to get with that.

    But… well, I am currently of a different opinion. But it can be changed.

    Dennis wrote: “Back to what Steve said: you disqualify yourself from finding this truth by your pre-supposition that there is no God.”

    Yay! Horrible mind-reading attempt! Who in this thread has claimed that they hold such a presupposition? I’ve explicitly said that I don’t hold that.

    I don’t know if there is a God or not. It is my opinion that believers in Him use the worst arguments I’ve seen and will go to any length to avoid presenting evidence of their claims. In my work, that would get you fired in a second.

    So, as I’ve said before, it’s not that I reject God, but that I reject your claims.

    Dennis wrote: “Step 1 – admit you don’t know and therefore are Agnostic NOT Atheist.”

    And step 1 to YOU – admit that you do absolutely no research on the people who you lecture to about word definitions. If you had, you would have known about the way atheists define the words “agnostic” and “atheist”. This is easily-found information. That you would lecture us about what the word supposedly means shows that you haven’t bothered to actually find out what we think.

    Shorter version: you’re killing that straw-man. You’re not dealing with what we’re actually writing. You’re arguing against imaginary atheists.

  47. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Nohm- Here is an interesting article on the comparison of the Bible and the Qur’an. This is a first step into understanding the superiority of Christianity over Islam. It is an issue you have brought up several times. I know you will have much to say. God bless!

    Is the Qur’an Credible?

    “According to Islam, the Qur’an is not only credible; it is God’s only uncorrupted revelation. Thus, according to Muslim scholars, if it is to be compared with anything in Christianity it is to be compared with Christ rather than the Bible. In truth, however, the Bible can be demonstrated to be divine rather than human in origin. The same cannot be said for the Qur’an. Moreover, unlike the Bible, the Qur’an is replete with faulty ethics and factual errors.
    First, unlike the Qur’an, the Bible is replete with prophecies that could not have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument among liberals against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that various passages were written later than the biblical texts indicated because they recounted events that happened sometimes hundreds of years after they supposedly were written. They concluded that subsequent to the events, literary editors went back and “doctored” the original nonpredictive texts. But this is simply wrong. Careful research affirms the predictive accuracy of the Scriptures. Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber all others. Many of these prophesies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill—such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Matt. 1:1‑2; Acts 3:25); His birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:1‑6); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12; Matt. 27:38; Luke 22:37); the piercing of His hands and feet on the cross (Ps. 22:16; John 20:25); the soldiers gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18; Matt. 27:35); the piercing of His side (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34); the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Ps. 34:20; John 19:33–37); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9; Matt. 27:57‑60).
    In sharp contrast, predictive prophecies demonstrating the divine origin of the Qur’an are conspicuous by their absence. While the Qur’an contains a number of self-fulfilling prophecies such as Muhammad’s prediction that he would return to Mecca (Sura 48:27), this is very different from the kinds of prophecies outlined above. Other prophecies such as Muhammad’s prediction that the Romans would defeat the Persians at Issus (Sura 30:2‑4) are equally underwhelming. Unlike the biblical examples presented above this prophecy is not fulfilled in the far future and thus can be easily explained through good guessing or an accurate apprehension of prevailing military conditions.
    Furthermore, the Qur’an is replete with questionable ethics—particularly when it comes to the equality of women. For example, in Sura 4:3 Muhammad allegedly received a revelation from God allowing men to “marry women of your choice, two, three, or four.” Ironically, in Sura 33:50 Muhammad receives a divine sanction to marry “any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her.” Thus while other men were only permitted to marry up to four wives, Allah provided Muhammad with a divine exception for his marriage to at least 12 women—including Aishah, whom he married at the tender age of 11 (see the Life of Muhammad by Muhammad Husayn Haykal). Also troubling is the fact that the Qur’an allows men to “beat” (lightly) their wives in order that they might “return to obedience” (Sura 4:34). When we compare the personal morality of Muhammad in the Qur’an with that of Jesus in the Bible, the difference is remarkable. The Qur’an exhorts Muhammad to ask “forgiveness for thy fault” (Sura 40:55). Conversely, Christ’s ethics with regard to every aspect of life—including his treatment of women—was so unimpeachable that He could rightly ask: “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” (John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5).
    Finally, unlike the Bible the Qur’an is riddled with factual errors. A classic case in point involves the Qur’an’s denial of Christ’s crucifixion. This denial, chronicled in Sura 4:157, is explicit and emphatic: “They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them…for of a surety they killed him not.” In reality, however, the fatal suffering of Jesus Christ as recounted in the New Testament is one of the most well-established facts of ancient history. Even in today’s modern age of scientific enlightenment, there is a virtual consensus among New Testament scholars, both conservative and liberal, that Jesus died on a Roman cross. Recent archaeological discoveries not only dramatically corroborate the Bible’s description of Roman crucifixion but authenticate the biblical details surrounding the trail that led to the fatal torment of Jesus Christ—including the Pilate Stone and the burial grounds of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over the religious trials of Christ. These discoveries have been widely acclaimed as a compelling affirmation of biblical history. Not only so but the earliest Jewish response to the death and burial of Jesus Christ presupposes the reality of the empty tomb. Instead of denying that the tomb was empty, the antagonists of Christ accused His disciples of stealing the body.
    One final point should be made. The Qur’anic denial of Christ’s crucifixion has led to a host of other errors as well. From a Muslim perspective, Jesus was never crucified and, thus, never resurrected. Instead, in Islam, God made someone look like Jesus and the look-alike was mistakenly crucified in His place. The notion that Judas was made to look like Jesus has recently been popularized in Muslim circles by a late medieval invention titled The Gospel of Barnabas.
    In short, the distance between the Muslim Qur’an and the Christian Scriptures is the distance of infinity. Not only does the prophetic prowess of the Bible elevate it far above the holy books of other religions, but as new archeological nuggets are uncovered the trustworthiness of Scripture as well as the unreliability of pretenders is further highlighted. Faulty ethics and factual errors demonstrate that the Qur’an is devoid of divine sanction. In sharp distinction, ethics and factual evidence demonstrate that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin.
    — Hank Hanegraaff

    NOTES
    1. Adapted from Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Book (Nashville: J. Countryman, 2004).
    2. All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.
    For further study, see Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002).

  49. Nohm

    Reply

    My ultra-short reply to Thomas’ cut-and-paste:

    That article doesn’t even attempt to deal with the scientific miracles of the Qur’an.

    I have a guess as to why: the writer that you cut-and-pasted had no knowledge of them, because…

    wait for it…

    he did sloppy research.

    I also have to chuckle when a Bible-supporter tries to call out the Qur’an on “questionable ethics”.

    Really now?

    1 Samuel 15:3 has something to say about that.

    And yes, Garrett, I now have a forehead-shaped depression in my palm. Oww.

  50. Dennis Liebregt

    Reply

    Hi Garret

    Thank you for your comments and for correcting me on my assumption that those posting here were atheist. I also would like to point out that never was I an atheist in my life as I would agree with you and Nohm that I just didn’t see any evidence for this Christian God I would hear about. To me before I was saved my theory as far as an after life was concerned is that the lights go out and that’s all she wrote.
    My views on morality, purpose of life, afterlife, changed with the wind and were constantly changing so I don’t think I was any different there from the rest of humanity. After all we’re all just trying to figure out what it’s all about no?
    When you say you got nothin’ is absolutely 100% correct.
    Me, Dennis, I have absolutely nothing – less than nothing I would say.
    It’s Jesus Christ, it is God that has it all. That’s all I can do is point you guys to the cross of Jesus Christ and pray that God would do the rest.
    God gives us freewill and so you do have a choice in this life what you do with the cross of Christ. In other words what do you do with Jesus and with His claims? That’s really all the evidence, proof, claims I need to make (and they are NOT mine!) Jesus provided the proof and backed up the claims he made by performing miracles, and by dying on the cross for you and me and then rising again on the 3rd day.
    You mention that I was giving a “God will improve your life” message but that’s simply not true. As a matter of fact when I came to Christ – my life did not “improve” at all. My family to this day thinks I have become some kind of brainwashed, holy roler. I used to be very close to my 2 younger brothers but since I have become a Christian they both have completely backed away. One even said he’s “lost a brother”
    Garret – I would never tell anyone that coming to Christ will improve your life because it’s simply not true. More than likely your faith will be tested through different kinds of trial which is what the Bible promises.
    Those trials will produce and grow your faith so they are actually a blessing – go figure. I really don’t have anything to add that you haven’t already heard countless times.
    I will finish by saying that I am praying for you Garrett that God would reveal himself to you as you continue your search for truth.

  51. Dennis Liebregt

    Reply

    Hi Nohm

    Wow you sure did a great job dissecting my comment!
    As I told Garrett I apologize and thank you for correcting me on your views and that you are not “atheists” the way as I define that word.
    In response to your post I would say that the evidence being presented is not the evidence you are looking for. In other words: changed lives, Bible verses, creation pointing to a Creator, etc are not considered evidence for some reason. Or maybe you do consider it evidence but then dismiss it? Not sure.
    Also yes it is a VERY GOOD thing that Christianity is NOT works based and is an important distinction to make. The evidence you ask why this is a good thing? Well that’s because we ARE sinners and God demands perfection which will never happen in our fallen state. I know I just lost you because you don’t believe in my source (the Bible) but I will give you the explanation anyways. If I stand before God on judgement day which the Bible says we will – and I stand there on my own merit and works what do you think will happen? A big scale gets brought out my good and bad gets weighed? Or I can somehow by doing works bribe God? So it’s important to note in your search for truth what each religion and belief is claiming. As far as I know it’s only in Christianity that we acknowledge that it is God the Father who did it all for us by sending His son Jesus Christ to die in our place. He did it all for us. No amount of good you think you do has any bearing on your salvation. None. That’s why we as Christians say that the “other religions” are false as they still rely on our own good works to earn salvation.
    Also to clarify “spiritual eyes” I believe that we as people have our flesh (arms, legs, brain, etc) we also have a soul (what makes each of us unique, personality, etc) and we have a spirit (connected to our soul) and our connection to God. The reason you don’t believe the things of God is that your spirit is dead to the things of God. That’s what I meant with spiritual eyes.
    I encourage you Nohm to keep searching for this evidence and truth and I will be praying for you to find it. It’s encouraging to read that your opinion on Christianity is open to change. You are already a step ahead of me when I was an un-believer. An interesting thought I have had since I became a believer:
    If I don’t believe in God why did I blaspheme His name? I used to shake my fist up in the air and say “why God”? And the next minute walk around thinking there is no God. Looking back I realized I DID know God all along! There is power in the name of Jesus Christ – that people use it in blasphemy, the debates it has caused, etc. is proof of that.
    Anyways – I will keep praying for you and will look up what you mentioned about fractals and emergent properties sounds interesting.

  52. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Nohm thank you for reading the article I posted. I assume you read it. Two commits on the scientific miracles of the Qur’an that you posted.

    1. The miracles stated in link to the article really are not “miracles.” The definition of a miracle is something “supernatural.” Something that occurs outside of the natural (the Bible fulfills the category for “miracle“ primarily because of fulfilled prophecies. Also the scientific information in the Bible pre-dates anyone knowing that information, for example: science of old once said that air was weightless. Later on science realized that air does have weight. The Bible had already attested to this in Job 28:25 [Job being the oldest book of the Bible]. Science once said that the earth sat on a large animal. Science eventually realized that the earth is free floating in space. The Bible already had the information in Job 26:7. There are just a few examples). Those things mentioned in the article were more common knowledge at the time (roughly the 600‘s. The time of the Qur‘ans conception or taken from the Bible). The closest thing I can think of is embryology. But as we know from history many Muslims were known scientists. It is possible that through there research at the time they discovered the very beginnings of embryology. Maybe you know more about this Nohm?

    2. The Bible had already existed hundreds and hundreds of years before the Qur’an even came on the scene. This is why anyone who has read some of the Bible and then reads some of the Qur’an can see there are similarities between the two. Much of the Qur’an was copied from the Bible. At least the main ideas of the Qur’an come from the Bible. But then there is much of the Qur’an that comes from the mind of Mohammad and the angel that deceived him (2 Cor. 11:13-14). This is where the Qur’an and the Bible separate. The Bible is truly divine rather than human in origin. Men were the pen that God used to write the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21).

    I would also like to commit on the 1 Samuel 15:3. There are parts of the Bible that are hard to swallow. This was a command from God at a particular time to a particular people. It is not a command to believers today. There are those who think that disciples of Jesus should live by the Israelite laws of the Old Testament for example. But those laws are not for us TODAY. They were for the Hebrews/Israelites at a particular time and place. Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). All people who repent and put their trust in Jesus automatically fulfill all the laws of the Old Testament because of Jesus.

    I pray that helps maybe j u s t a little bit.

    God bless,

    Thomas

  54. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Dennis,

    I’ll try to reply to your comment later, but I wanted to hit on this first:

    “If I don’t believe in God why did I blaspheme His name?”

    I have no idea.

    “I used to shake my fist up in the air and say “why God”?”

    I have no idea why you would do this, since only a believer would do this. It’s not something I’ve ever done since I lost my faith.

    Lastly, as to “creation pointing to a Creator“, here’s the problem: when you call it “creation”, you’re assuming your conclusion. That’s a no-no. We only call things “creation” when we know that they’ve been created. In other words, you’re starting with your conclusion, and then working backwards. You have to first show that the universe is a creation before that statement can hold any weight.

    It would be like me saying “alien-made waves require an alien to make them”. Not only is the statement redundant, but I’m assuming my own conclusion (“requires an alien to make them”) in the premise (“alien-made waves”).

    Makes sense?

  55. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Mike F,

    I linked it in the comment I wrote to you (near the end), but here it is again:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

    Behe brought up both the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade during the case, and he got OWNED.

    Behe’s description of “irreducible complexity” is: if you take a part away, the thing no longer works in the exact same way as before, which is a fundamentally useless definition that is used only to try to define ID into existence. That was all handled during the court case.

    What the actual definition of “irreducible complexity” is: if you take a part away, the thing can no longer work in any way shape or form, even if that’s a completely different shape or form, or it does something completely different. The problem here is that this is purely an argument from ignorance; it’s saying “we don’t know how it happened, so it couldn’t have happened”.

    And how many times has the human race been shown to be abundantly wrong about that? I’d answer “far too many times to count”.

    So IC is either a useless definition that means nothing or a logical fallacy. Either one is worthless.

  56. Nohm

    Reply

    Mike F,

    For more info on what happened in Dover in 2005, please view this. I would even encourage you to read the transcripts, as I did every day when it was going on:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_v._Kitzmiller

    It was the day that ID died, pretty much. Now, of course, if someone presents evidence and then a testable theory for ID, I’m certainly listening. But what happened there is that it was shown that the ID promoters were lying liars who lied.

    “Breathtaking inanity” and all that.

  57. Nohm

    Reply

    Thomas,

    They (scientific miracles of the Qur’an) are considered miracles to Muslims because, in their words, only a supernatural being (i.e., God) could have known of these issues, due to the lack of technology at the time.

    I really don’t feel, at least right now, to go into each of the Biblical prophecies you listed. All I can tell you is that I have major problems with each one of them. Not emotional problems; logical problems.

    You also wrote: “There are parts of the Bible that are hard to swallow.”

    That’s irrelevant. It’s not that it’s hard for me to swallow it (since it’s not exactly the only time something like that happens in the OT, that verse is just my personal favorite of the genocidal requests), it’s just that I find it a bit silly for a Bible-supporter to point at the speck in the Muslim’s eye (i.e., “questionable ethics” in the Qur’an) and ignore the beam in the Bible, which has many ethics that aren’t just “questionable” today; they’re downright abhorrent.

    Killing everyone in an area, including the animals, for what the humans ancestors did 400 years before? Really? THAT was your God’s best solution? Not to do anything to the Amalekites who actually did bad stuff 400 years before, but wait 400 years and then kill ’em all?

    What did the babies do? What did the goats do?

    Questionable ethics? You can’t say that with a straight face, right?

  58. Nohm

    Reply

    Thomas wrote: “But as we know from history many Muslims were known scientists. It is possible that through there research at the time they discovered the very beginnings of embryology. Maybe you know more about this Nohm?”

    I think that the Muslims are incorrect about their so-called prophecies in the exact same way that people like yourself are incorrect about the so-called prophecies of the Bible.

    So yes, I completely agree that there are non-supernatural explanations for “scientific miracles of the Qur’an”. The thing is, I think that exact same thing about “prophecies of the Bible”.

  59. Patrick

    Reply

    Christians have “in the flesh proof” in Jesus Christ and the lives he’s changed through faith in him.

    Science measures what is available to measure. Science proves what is available to prove. Science investigates…

    Christians interpret the scriptures. Christians belief allows them to nterpet.

    It bears nothing but contention when science tries to interpet scripture and Christians try to investigate science to prove each other wrong.

    What is certain is everything that we see is a shadow of what we do not see.

    Science gives knowledge which is power.

    The Scriptures give wisdom which is control.

    The reality is you cannot have both.

  60. BathTub

    Reply

    The most hilarious thing about ‘irreducible complexity’ is that it was was a prediction of Evolutionary Theory.

    From the 1920s.

    It’s called the Mullerian two-step.

    1. Add something.
    2. Make it necessary.

  61. Bike Bubba

    Reply

    Since Nohm asked for some examples of his personal attacks:

    From Nohm: “You should immediately inform every geologist you know, because somehow, with all of their experience, they haven’t figured this out yet… but you have!”

    That’s also “appeal to authority,” another basic logical fallacy.

    Also from Nohm: “I am going to bet right now that you’ve never actually taken a thermo class.”

    Ad hominem, and I aced my thermo class, if you care to know, and a standard understanding of it is that…it forms an arrow of time implying a beginning. Yes, Nohm, you ARE using the ad hominem argument liberally by substituting your calumnies (often slanderous) for actual evidence.

    Again, I can usually recognize the side losing the argument by who uses the personal attacks. And here is a real definition, not Nohm’s:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    My dictionary gives the same lesson. Sorry, Nohm, not only are you making a lot of ad hominem fallacies, you’re having trouble defining the term.

    Regarding the issue of teleological arguments, yes, a beginning does imply a Beginner. Even if we accept a Big Bang event at 14.5 billion years ago, where was all that matter and energy prior to that event? Why did it occur 14.5 billion years ago, and not 14.5 trillion or 70 quadrillion years ago?

    Unless Someone spoke that matter and energy into existence, the probability of things happening at a time convenient for us to exist is….

    ….zero.

  63. Mike F

    Reply

    Nohm, thanks for the explanation and references. I am limited on time at the moment, but I will look at them when I get a chance.

    For now we will just have to agree to disagree. Believe me when I say I respect your views even though they differ from mine.

    Peace, Mike …

  64. Nohm

    Reply

    Bike Bubba, you’re pointing out places where I mocked you.

    Mocking is not an ad hominem fallacy.

    And… you aced thermo, yet you were talking about the “2nd theory of thermodynamics”? Really?

    Pull the other one, please.

    And “slanderous”? Oh, you’re tickling my ribs here!

    “Unless Someone spoke that matter and energy into existence, the probability of things happening at a time convenient for us to exist is….

    ….zero.”

    I assume you can show me the probability calculations you did to come to this conclusion, right?

    Of course not.

    Bike Bubba, I mock you because you are talking out of your rear. You have done little research in what you are talking about. You didn’t respond to my questions to you.

    So, enjoy! 🙂

  65. Garrett

    Reply

    Weird, Bubba’s link is Nohm’s definition. It’s like…Nohm actually KNOWS what an Ad Hom attack is!

    Nohm did not say “You never took a Thermodynamics class, and thus are wrong.” He said “You must have never taken a Thermodynamics class, because you have X, Y and Z incorrect.”

    Also, GOD seems strangely immune to you creator requirement. I guess you have to have a magic man exception clause to keep the faith.

  66. Whateverman

    Reply

    Bike Bubba wrote the following: That’s also “appeal to authority,” another basic logical fallacy</b

    Christians always appeal to authority, and thus, logical fallacies are to be embraced. Correct?

  67. johnny hopkins

    Reply

    first of all evolution did and does happen. its all around us, and if you dont see it youre blind in more than one way. second the creation story is completely fictitious. are you telling me that you actually believe that GOD built this place and put us here first what about the other 14.5 billion years in between the big bang and your existance? and what about those dinosaur bones we keep finding? how did those get here. the Big Bang did happen. whether youre christian, muslim, buddhist, or athiest it happened. it didnt just happen for some of us and for others we just kinda skipped over that part. third whether youre christian or not youve gotta stop telling people how to live their lives. i gave you my beliefs, and ive read all of yours, but its the pushing that kills me. what works for some people may not work for others and thats fine theres no reason to worry about that. we’re all gonna find out sooner or later.

    and thomas the bible is FULL of factual errors. theres no way around it. anything written that long ago is bound to have errors. but please do not call christianity superrior to islam, because in that you are calling yourself superrior to the muslim people. these people who god gave as much right to be here as us. you are not superior. you are equal and equal you shall remain. that is intolerance in every sense of the word.

    one mans saint is another mans devil.

  68. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    From this blog that you have wrote johnny you prove how blind you are to so many areas: religion, science, history and archeology (I will say that I do agree that the Big Bang happen, if you have a Big Bang it only makes sense that there is a Big Banger i.e. God. Read the beginning of Genesis, the Big Bang theory is science catching up with what the Bible has already been saying for thousands upon thousands of years. For a very long time before the Big Bang theory science said that there was no beginning to the universe, the universe just always existed. The Big Bang theory of course shows that to be inaccurate). Your hatred and anger is what is making you blind, deaf and dumb. Please repent and turn to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Where you were once blind, deaf and dumb you will now see, hear and understand after being born-again (John 3).

    God bless,

    Thomas

    P.S.—Christianity is superior to Islam and to every other belief system on the planet for many reasons but the main powerful reason is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Think about; Mohammed, Buddha, Hira Krishna and others are still in there graves (where they went after they died is more than likely hell. Though we can not say individually for them because we do not know what happened in their heart before their death [it is always possible that God revealed his Son to them at some point. Mohammed for example had an understanding of Christianity so God could have used it. It is something only God knows]. We can’t stamp a 100% on any person in the end whether heaven or hell. However we do know exactly where Jesus Christ is, reigning in heaven. And we do know what happens to those who die without the biblical Christ, hell for eternity. And we can know for ourselves where we our headed after we die [1 John 5:13] if one repents and puts their trust in the Savior). But Jesus Christ is alive! That’s kind of a big deal separating Christianity from any other “religion” on earth. Think about it johnny.

  69. Chris

    Reply

    Thomas More wrote “Christianity is superior to Islam and to every other belief system on the planet for many reasons but the main powerful reason is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

    What? You mean Christ rose like Tammuz, Osiris, Isis, not to mention Horus. Indeed it seems that resurrecting gods were a dime a dozen.

    “Every culture that is examined, whether ancient or modern, has the concept of a dying and resurrected god.”

    So it seems that the claims made about Jesus weren’t that unique at all.

    So how does the resurrection of Christ prove that Christianity is superior to every belief system on the planet again? Especialy since EVERY culture had a concept of such a God,

  71. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Oh my Chris I don’t have the time at the moment to get into this subject but it would be very interesting and a lot of fun. I will say briefly that those myths of Tammuz, Osiris, Isis and others don’t even come close to the truth of resurrection of Jesus Christ. First of all those supposed resurrecting gods in the times before Jesus walked the earth were connected for example to the changing of the seasons and for another example farming. There was no hard evidence for those myths like we have with the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the apostles changed life, the physical empty tomb, the sightings of Jesus after he rose, the written evidence through the Bible and writings outside the Bible and so on). I could go on, but I will check out your link.

    God bless,

    Thomas

  72. Chris

    Reply

    Thomas Moore wrote “Oh my Chris I don’t have the time at the moment to get into this subject but it would be very interesting and a lot of fun.

    I’m puzzled. If you didn’t have time to reply then why did you write anything at all?

    He further wrote “I will say briefly that those myths of Tammuz, Osiris, Isis and others don’t even come close to the truth of resurrection of Jesus Christ. First of all those supposed resurrecting gods in the times before Jesus walked the earth were connected for example to the changing of the seasons and for another example farming”.

    That’s what most people would call a trivial difference. But great shifting of the goal posts there. You wrote in your previous post “Christianity is superior to Islam and to every other belief system on the planet for many reasons but the main powerful reason is the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

    But since there were a lot of gods who resurrected then it’s just because Jesus isn’t associated with the seasons. 🙂

    Surely there’s more to it?
    You go on to write “There was no hard evidence for those myths like we have with the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

    Oh and what is this hard evidence I ask?

    And you reply “1/the apostles changed life

    My reply: Many, many people who follow different religions report a changed life]

    2/ the physical empty tomb
    My reply: after the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 CE the Roman soldiers plundered many a tomb around Jerusalem. That being so there are quite a few empty tombs in the area.

    3/the sightings of Jesus after he rose [
    My reply: Hey I saw my bestest friend rise from the dead five minutes ago. Believe me? Of course you don’t! It would require more than my say so to convince you. Anecdotal evidence in this situation is worthless. It’s asking for far to much to be believed just on a say so.
    Oh and needless to add many myths are supported by people claiming they had sighted the risen one as well. 🙂

    4/ the written evidence through the Bible
    My reply: Once again more anecdotal evidence. Why is anecdotal evidence worthless? Let me put it this way. If I tell you “don’t sit on that seat the paint is wet” my word may well be enough. But if I tell you that bunny aliens from the planet bunnitopia spirited me away last night in their flying saucer and brought me back this morning I think you’d be wise to ask for more evidence than my word.

    5/ writings outside the Bible and so on).
    My reply: There are no writings outside the christian scriptures that mention the resurrection. Unless you’re referring to Josephus. Surely not. Josephus was altered by christians [most probably Eusebius] to insert that section concerning Jesus. There are a lot of details which give this away if you’re interested.

    So to summarise: Jesus resurrection is unique [although there were a lot of other resurrection gods as well] because his rivals were associated with the seasons and plants. Because his resurrection has four people writing anecdotal testimony decades later saying it’s true [even though the myths also have written support]. Because many peoples lives change when they become christian [just like they do when they become Buddhist, Moslem, etc]. And finally because a book which has been tampered with says Jesus rose.

    Did I leave anything out?

  73. Nohm

    Reply

    Chris wrote: “Did I leave anything out?”

    Nope.

    Thomas, before you respond to Chris, please research the subject first.

  74. Thomas

    Reply

    Wow Chris! You seem to have a passion for this subject. I will say you have presented a lot of information and I will look into it. I would like to make a brief comment on the changed life of the apostles. If the apostles just made up the resurrection of Jesus Christ why would they die a martyrs death? What did they have to gain to willing die for a lie? They had nothing to gain and they, surprise did not gain anything from it except their deaths (the apostle John is said to be the only apostle to die of old age). On the other hand with Islam for example those who blow themselves up in the name of Allah do so because they do not realize it is a lie. That is the BIG difference. Just something to think about.

    God bless,

    Thomas

    P.S.—Please remember that though we broke the Ten Commandments (we‘ve all told a lie at some point, taken something that does not belong to us at some time in our lives (a thief), taken God‘s name in vain (blasphemy) and/or hated someone and committed murder in our heart), Jesus Christ has paid the fine through his life’s blood. His death on the cross along with his resurrection sealed satan’s and death’s defeat. We are guilty in God’s courtroom (that’s hell for eternity), but Jesus settled the fine to give us heaven for eternity. Now God commands all people to repent and put their trust in Jesus to save them. Please do that today and God will grant you eternal life by forgiving your sins. Not because of me, not because of you, but because of Him and who He is. A God that gives us what we do not deserve. Please repent and trust Jesus. Today is the day of salvation. Read your Bible and obey it.

  75. Chris

    Reply

    In my previous reply I wrote “I’m puzzled. If you didn’t have time to reply then why did you write anything at all?”

    That was a bit snarky & uncalled for. I appologise.

  76. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Hey Chris here is an interesting article on this issue. Sorry I had no link so I had to post it on here:

    Are Biblical Miracles Imitations of Pagan Myths?

    by Gary R. Habermas

    Frequently the complaint is made that biblical miracles, especially those of Jesus, were motivated or even inspired by pagan accounts from the ancient world. We are told that healings, demon possession, virgin births, and resurrections were all common fare in ancient times. So the implication is that the Bible is no different from other religious documents. Perhaps Christians even plagiarized other accounts.
    While it is true that a myriad of miracle stories adorned the ancient world, it does not follow that Scripture duplicated them. Although promoted in some popular circles, this assumption is mistaken on several levels.
    It is true that some scholars emphasize the similarities between pagan and biblical miracle accounts. But we must also accent the more common (and profound) differences. For example, there is usually an immense philosophical gulf between the pagan and biblical backgrounds for their respective miracle accounts. The pagan mindset most commonly incorporated cyclical, repetitive patterns in nature, marked by the seasonal cycles. In contrast, the Jewish philosophy of history moved in linear patterns, from one event to the next, culminating in God’s grand climax.
    Further, these pagan stories often concern persons who never even lived in history, such as Hercules of ancient Greek mythology, while Jesus and other biblical miracle workers undoubtedly did. Moreover, scholars note that these pagan stories were never influential in Palestine, where a far different outlook prevailed.
    Surprisingly, virtually no miracle stories in the ancient world are even candidates for inspiring Jesus’ miracles. Few of these tales both predate the NT and closely approximate Jesus’ miracles. So it is difficult to prove a parallel.
    Regarding Jesus’ resurrection, the inadequacy of this proposed solution grows even more apparent. Writings clearly claiming that prominent pagan heroes were resurrected postdate the NT accounts. Scholars know that some ancient religious teachings copied from Christianity, and Jesus’ resurrection may be an example of what was copied!
    So there are many reasons why the NT accounts were not derived from pagan texts. The most crucial response, stated simply, is that we have many reasons for believing that Jesus actually performed miracles during His ministry. Indeed, virtually all contemporary critical scholars agree that Jesus performed many acts that might be termed “miracles” or “exorcisms.”
    Most of all, there is an incredible amount of evidence arguing that Jesus was really raised from the dead. For instance, we have reliable reports from various authors regarding many who thought that they had actually seen the risen Jesus. The most crucial witness is Paul, an eyewitness who provided very early testimony. So we must not miss the clear point that a number of early, credible witnesses (including previous skeptics Paul and James) were proclaiming their conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus, for which they were willing to die. Far from being inspired by faraway tales, many died for their honest belief that they had really seen the risen Jesus. Pagan stories do not explain this conviction.

  77. Chris

    Reply

    Hi Thomas

    Let’s have a look at Habermas’ claims and see if they’re correct.

    Habermas wrote “While it is true that a myriad of miracle stories adorned the ancient world, it does not follow that Scripture duplicated them. Although promoted in some popular circles, this assumption is mistaken on several levels.”

    My reply: So basically what Habermas is saying is that although these other saviour figures had stories that we incredibly similar to Jesus – they were a myth while Jesus was real.
    This is an example of the logical fallacy known as special pleading:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

    Habermas goes on to claim “It is true that some scholars emphasize the similarities between pagan and biblical miracle accounts.”

    My reply: What Habermas isn’t mentioning here is the incredible similarities between Jesus & other hero stories. A number of mythologists, after studying a number of myths have propounded, what they call “the Mythic Hero Archetype”. It has 22 compomnents. The myth of hercules fulfills 17 of those 22. And you acknowledge that Hercules was a myth. Jesus fulfills 19 of those components & you claim he wasn’t a myth.

    Habermas continues “But we must also accent the more common (and profound) differences. For example, there is usually an immense philosophical gulf between the pagan and biblical backgrounds for their respective miracle accounts. The pagan mindset most commonly incorporated cyclical, repetitive patterns in nature, marked by the seasonal cycles. In contrast, the Jewish philosophy of history moved in linear patterns, from one event to the next, culminating in God’s grand climax.”

    My reply: I’ve already dealt with this. This is a trivial difference. Yet Habermas calls it “a profound difference”.

    Habermas continues “Further, these pagan stories often concern persons who never even lived in history, such as Hercules of ancient Greek mythology, while Jesus and other biblical miracle workers undoubtedly did.”

    My reply: This is an example of a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning by Habermas.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

    Basically Habermas is saying that Jesus resurection couldn’t be a myth cause it’s real. Um not if the resurrection is a myth.

    Habermas continues “Moreover, scholars note that these pagan stories were never influential in Palestine, where a far different outlook prevailed.”

    My reply: This is quite false. A number of Jews had completely adopted Hellenistic culture – they were known as Hellenizers. In any case for a myth to influence someone it doesn’t have to be influential, merely known. For example ever heard of a film called “Clash of the Titans”? Bet the producer & writer didn’t believe in the Greek myths, but they did know them. We can say the same about the Gospel writers.

    Habermas continues “Surprisingly, virtually no miracle stories in the ancient world are even candidates for inspiring Jesus’ miracles. Few of these tales both predate the NT and closely approximate Jesus’ miracles. So it is difficult to prove a parallel.”

    My reply: Once again this is completely false. I could list all the paralells between christian miracles & those of paganism but I think it better to quote Justin Martyr [a 2nd Century Christian].
    “When we say that the Logos, who is the firstborn of God, Jesus Christ our teacher, was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God.” Justin Martyr Apology 1.21
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/rt/CarrierHandout2.pdf

    Habermas continues “Regarding Jesus’ resurrection, the inadequacy of this proposed solution grows even more apparent. Writings clearly claiming that prominent pagan heroes were resurrected postdate the NT accounts. Scholars know that some ancient religious teachings copied from Christianity, and Jesus’ resurrection may be an example of what was copied!”

    My reply: This is totally false and Habermas is either an incredibly poor scholar or is lying. There are stories of Osirus, Tammuz, etc, which predate Christianity by many centuries.

    Habermas continues “…virtually all contemporary critical scholars agree that Jesus performed many acts that might be termed “miracles” or “exorcisms.””

    My reply: This completely false. There are a number of scholars who are attempting to demythologise the gospels. Others argue that many of the miracle stories are alagories. Need I go on? Really Habermas should know better than to make these shockingly false claims.

    Habermas concludes “Most of all, there is an incredible amount of evidence arguing that Jesus was really raised from the dead. For instance, we have reliable reports from various authors regarding many who thought that they had actually seen the risen Jesus.”

    My reply: We have reports from 5 count em 5 writers who claim that Jesus rose. That’s it for contemporary evidence. And four authors is an incredible amount of evidence to Habermas? Boy he’s easily impressed isn’t he? If I produce 10 witrnesses who claim my bestsest friend rose five minutes ago will you believe? You must because according to Habermas 5 people who never actually saw a resurrection is an “incredible” amount of evidence & I’d have double that. 🙂 Or would you ask for a bit more evidence.

    • Steve Sanchez

      Reply

      Chris,

      I’m going to paraphrase an ole Bible teacher who died many years ago and was a great influence in my life, J. Vernon McGee; I’m sure Thomas would also agree with his statement: “Even if they found the bones of Jesus, I’d still believe.

      You have to understand our faith rests not on proof, but on a risen Savior who changed our lives when we turned to him. If you have 45 minutes, you can listen to my story of how I became a Christian by going here and scrolling down to August 15, 2010. It’s called “A Wretch Like Me.” You’ll be very entertained, I’m sure.

  79. Chris

    Reply

    Steve,

    I have no problems with faith – I am a zoroastrian. If you wanna take the pietist approach there’s no objection here. Long may you believe.

    I just think it’s rather deceptive for someone to claim lots of evidence when the reverse is the case.

  80. Garrett

    Reply

    So there you have it. Steve doesn’t use evidence because A) he has none and B) will remain willfully ignorant of contrary evidence.

    I don’t think there’s a point to debating you if you’re not going to be open-minded. This is just pathetic and ridiculous.

  81. BathTub

    Reply

    Yep, Steve has just quite clearly stated his faith isn’t based on evidence. That’s extremely noteworthy.

  82. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Wow this is some good stuff! I have a few things to comment on here:

    Chris- I can tell that you have done a lot, I mean a lot of study on this issue of the connection of paganism with Christianity. I have done a little, but not a lot and plan to do further study in the future. I will say that even if much of what you are saying is correct, we have to remember that there are powers of darkness at work in the world that try and mimic what God has done, what God is doing and what God will do. What I am saying is that in the case, for example of there being resurrection myths before the time of Christ if anything it proves that satan was at work in those myths (it could also be what is called an “echo“ of the truth. Because Jesus is “The Truth“ his very existence before he stepped into history is seen in the history of other cultures. The resurrection would be one example, another is that almost all cultures around the world have believed in gods of some kind. They all tend to have one “god“ that is above all the other gods. Just something to think about). The enemy will do whatever it takes to turn people away from Jesus, ANYTHING! But again thank you for all the info. You’ve given me a lot to read, study and pray about. Also quick question Chris, what is Zoroastrian?

    Pastor Steve- I love you brother and how God is using you on this website you have put together and what you do out on the streets. Keep it up! But the comment you made by J. Vernon McGee that said, “Even if they found the bones of Jesus, I’d still believe.” Here I actually do not agree with that statement. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 15:12-19 (primarily) that if the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not historical fact then we are still dead in our sins and to be most pitied by men for preaching the gospel. The gospel would no longer be “Good News” and we would be lying to people that there is a resurrection when in fact there is not (paraphrased). Christianity does rest on evidence and proof. It is a faith that rests in historical fact. But I will say Pastor Steve you are right that the final lynch pin is that the Holy Spirit lives on the inside of us (you can have all the knowledge about Christianity but if you do not have the Holy Spirit living inside of you, you have nothing). Unbelievers like Chris, Nohm and others have presented a lot of information that comes against Christianity (this coming against Christianity actually strengthens its validity because it is another proof that Christianity is rooted in historical facts), but as has been seen many, many, many times before Christianity comes out the winner in time when it comes to evidence. Research, study, logic, and patience in due season have shown time and time again to be on Christianity’s side. But yes Pastor Steve at the end of the day this is all tied together by the Holy Spirit and the witness of His power in our lives. It is that power in my life (connected with the evidence of the resurrection) that is the confidence to know that the bones of Jesus Christ will never be found because they are not there, HE IS ALIVE!!! I agree with you in the end Pastor Steve, just a certain point of disagreement. God bless you and all you do!

    -Thomas

  83. perdita

    Reply

    Steve – just to be very clear, when you say, “Even if they found the bones of Jesus, I’d still believe,” your not talking about being a good skeptic and asking how it was determined that these were Jesus’ bones, your saying that you would believe even if there was incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was only a man. Is that right?

  84. perdita

    Reply

    Please answer with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ because I don’t want to misunderstand your position.

  85. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    To Perdita: “YES!”

    But see Thomas’ clarification:

    But yes Pastor Steve at the end of the day this is all tied together by the Holy Spirit and the witness of His power in our lives. It is that power in my life (connected with the evidence of the resurrection) that is the confidence to know that the bones of Jesus Christ will never be found because they are not there, HE IS ALIVE!!!

    The point is this, Perdita: The bones of Jesus will never be found, and if they were it would be a lie, like any other “evidence or proof” that there is no God.

  87. Chris

    Reply

    Hi Thomas

    You wrote “we have to remember that there are powers of darkness at work in the world that try and mimic what God has done, what God is doing and what God will do.”

    So you believe that Satan can predict what God will do? That would mean that Satan’s omniscience is of a higher order than God’s. You do know that’s heresy don’t you?

    You continue “What I am saying is that in the case, for example of there being resurrection myths before the time of Christ if anything it proves that satan was at work in those myths.” But then later you add “it could also be what is called an “echo“ of the truth.” So which is it? Are the resurrection myths satanic deceptions or pre-truth echoes?

    Or are they, more likely, copies of each other? How are we to know? Here’s one way.

    There was a christian philosopher who lived during the middle ages by the name of William of Ocham. He basically argued that we should always choose the simplest explanation which explains all the facts. Now pre-truth echoes and satanic deceptions do NOT explain all the facts since they don’t explain exactly how satan was able to deceive people & why God let him despite the fact it would be so important for people to believe. A pre-truth echo also doesn’t explain things like how exactly were these people able to know these facts centuries before the event yet able to get them confused with their own Gods.

    Inventing answers by just replying “well I think it happened this way…” isn’t an answer. Any answer requires evidence.

    But
    We do have examples of people copying older myths for their own religion – it happened to the ancient Greek myths all the time. That being so William’s principle is fullfilled by Christians copying more ancient myths – not explaining the similarities as pre-truth echoes and satanic deceptions.

    Now you may well ask – do I have any evidence of pagan influence in chistianity? You bet I do! Christmas and Easter for a start. Christmas has a long pagan history:
    http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm

    So does easter:
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

    By the way it was the pagan origin of holy days like Christmas which turned the puritans against Christmas.

    So you see there is a fair amount of proof for pagan influence in christianity. The only question is how much influence.

  88. Chris

    Reply

    Hi Thomas
    Sorry mate but Lee Strobel must be the very worst historian who ever lived.

    His shtick never changes. First he pretends to have been a skeptic. Next he interviews only those people who already believe what he believes & lo and behold he’s convinced.

    Never once does he allow people who disagree from his view to give their own opinions and the reasons why they believe this.

    In addition he was not trained in history. History is a discipline with its own rules – Stobel knows NONE of those rules.

  89. Chris

    Reply

    Well I’ve watched Lee Strobel’s video. What did I think of it? Hmm I’d have to say it’s rubbish.

    He says “Virtually no scholars believe that the resurrection myths have anything to do with Christianity”. That’s Strobel speak for “there are no Fundamentalist Christian scholars who already agree with Strobel, who say that the resurrection myths have anything to do with Christianity”.

    Well suprise suprise, suprise. 🙂

    He kept repeating that line over and over – virtually no scholars.
    This is an example of a logical falacy:
    Argument from consensus:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

    See in history the only thing that matters is evidence, NOT how many people agree with you. If you have the evidence it doesn’t matter if every single person in the world disagrees with you – you are right & the rest of the world is wrong.

    Strobel has no evidence just opinion.

    Example he argues how different the resurrection myths are by pointing out that they are connected to vegitation. But we’ve already seen that’s a trivial difference.

    Next he declares that Mithras isn’t a bit like Christianity except the parts which were coppied from Christianity. Let’s see if Strobel’s correct. Have a read of this:
    “He who will not eat of my body & drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.” That is from a mithraic document written about the 3rd century BCE.

  90. Chris

    Reply

    Thomas
    I’m going to copy a hymn – you guess who the hymn is referring too. Ok?

    He is born! He is born! O come and adore him!
    Young like the moon in its shining and changing,
    Over the heavens His footsteps are ranging,
    Stars never resting and stars never setting,
    Worship the Child of God’s own begetting!
    Heaven and Earth, O come and adore Him!
    Bow down before Him, kneel down before Him!
    Worship, adore Him, fall down before Him!
    The God who is born in the night.

    It’s about Jesus right? Afraid not. This Hymn was found on an Egyptian papyrus about Osirus. It’s dated to about 1200 BCE.

    That’s quite a bit earlier than Jesus.

    Let’s look at a few other similarities between paganism & christianity that Lee Strobel says doesn’t exist:

    According to Christianity:

    1) Jesus is the saviour of mankind who is both God and man. So are many of the savior gods.

    2) Jesus is born of a mortal virgin. So are many saviour gods.

    3) The birth of Jesus is shown by a star. So is the birth of many savior gods.

    4) Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding feats. So did Dionysus.

    5) Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons. So did Apollonius of Tyana.

    6) Jesus is accused of licentious behaviour. So was Dionysus.

    7) Jesus uses bread & wine to symbolise his coming sacrifice. So did Mithras.

    There are a LOT more similarities both petty and profound. Yet according to Strobel these similarities don’t even exist.

    Get the idea yet why anyone who’s actually done research doesn’t think much of Strobel?

  91. Steve Sanchez

    Reply

    Solomon writes that God has set eternity in our hearts. I love the fact that many other cultures have “savior gods,” Chris. They were all precursors to the One Savior God, Jesus Christ!

    Thanks for reminding me of these awesome facts. Isn’t it great that my God has given so many cultures clues to know Who He is?

    Thanks again! 🙂

  92. Chris

    Reply

    @ Steve

    You wrote “But see Thomas’ clarification:

    But yes Pastor Steve at the end of the day this is all tied together by the Holy Spirit and the witness of His power in our lives. It is that power in my life (connected with the evidence of the resurrection) that is the confidence to know that the bones of Jesus Christ will never be found because they are not there, HE IS ALIVE!!!

    The point is this, Perdita: The bones of Jesus will never be found, and if they were it would be a lie, like any other “evidence or proof” that there is no God.”

    But see the point is, as I’ve already shown, there is no compelling evidence for the resurrection. So the bones, if found, may well be those of Jesus.

    However you can relax. Since no bones will ever be found with an ID engraved on them I think your faith is pretty safe.

    But once again you & thomas have both claimed evidence where none exists. This is deceptive. Don’t you think you should stop?

  94. perdita

    Reply

    The clarification doesn’t help. See, I’m also quite confident that the bones of Jesus will never be found and anything claiming to be that would be a lie. We have nothing of the person Jesus to make that kind of connection. Kind of hard to match DNA if there is no original sample of DNA. So, because I’m pedantic and boring, the bone example really isn’t good.

    Are you saying that when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that counters your beliefs, you choose to deny the evidence rather than re-evaluate your beliefs?

  95. Chris

    Reply

    @ Steve

    You wrote “Thanks for reminding me of these awesome facts. Isn’t it great that my God has given so many cultures clues to know Who He is?

    Thanks again!”

    Your welcome. And I agree it’s terrific that God could remind so many cultures about Osiris, I mean Dionysus, I mean Mithras, I mean Apollonias of Tyanna. On second thought God was a little vague about who the clues were supposed to point too. Or maybe they are all true. After all if the resurrection stories of Jesus are true then so are the stories about Mithras, Osiris, etc. To argue that one is true but the others are just myths is known as the logical fallacy known as special pleading:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

    OR

    Each of these myths was influenced by the earlier myths.

  98. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Chris just a couple things. Thank you again for all the info, it will take me sometime to look into all of this, but I know I will learn a lot from it. I do want to point out that if in fact you are right, that the article I showed you and the video I showed you is just a bunch of lies, my question would be, why would Strobel and Habermas (by the way in November I am planning to go to a conference where Hebermas is going to be and I plan on handing him, if I can, the rebuttal you gave on his article on the connection of paganism and Christianity) be lying? Really what is their reason to lie especially when it totally goes against what Christianity stands for (the 9th commandment, God being one who can not lie, Jesus is the truth)? Now I know that ignorance is also a possibility (you mentioned that as a one) but from the intelligence that they both have put forth (to some degree, in Strobe’s case he’s just asking questions majority of the time, while Habermas is a PhD) I think that ignorance is the weaker of the two. I mean just what is going on here Chris? Because we know that someone is right and someone is wrong on this issue? If you are right and Christianity is just a myth and there is no hope of a resurrection, while we had better start living it up and fast because once life is over its over (unless of course you are saying that all the other myth resurrections are fact and that Jesus is just one way to heaven. That gets into a whole other debate). I want the truth no matter how hard it is to swallow! But see I have a bit of an insight (I say this humbly because God was the one who found me not me finding him), because I have this personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is how I know, because of his Holy Spirit in my life, that ultimately you are wrong Chris and those who you appeal too are wrong. That those on this blog who write all the time against Christianity (attacking the integrity, validity and historicity) are wrong. No I do not have at the moment evidence and proof in the area’s that you have pointed out that lean in favor of Christianity yet (there will never be a way to prove Christianity 100% through evidence. But guess what there is nothing on this planet that can be proven 100% perfectly. The question is what has the best and more evidence?) The key word is yet. But I do believe in time that God will revel the truth (through evidence), through study and pray so I can be a more effective witness for his kingdom. Chris I know you do not agree and that is your God-given right not too. But I will be praying for you whether you want me to or not that your eyes and heart would be open to the truth of Jesus Christ. God bless Chris!

    -Thomas

    P.S.—And please remember that though we broke the Ten Commandments (we‘ve all told a lie at some point, taken something that does not belong to us (a thief), taken God‘s name in vain (blasphemy) and/or hated someone and committed murder in our heart), Jesus Christ has paid the fine through his life’s blood. His death on the cross along with his resurrection sealed satan’s and death’s defeat. We are guilty in God’s courtroom (that’s hell for eternity), but Jesus settled the fine to give us heaven for eternity. Now Jesus commands all people to repent and put their trust in Jesus to save them. Please do that today and God will grant you eternal life by forgiving your sins. Not because of me, not because of you, but because of Him and who He is. A God that gives us what we do not deserve. Please repent and trust Jesus. Today is the day of salvation.

  99. perdita

    Reply

    Thomas Moore asked, “Really what is their reason to lie especially when it totally goes against what Christianity stands for.”

    Thomas, let’s say you had a little sister — an unsaved little sister. If you knew that you could bring your little sister to Jesus, but you had to tell one little lie to do it, would you lie? To be sure, it’s only one little lie about God and there is absolutely no other way to save her from everlasting torture.

    I remember a youth pastor asking something like this to our group and a surprising number of people said, “Sure, if that’s the only way.” I never understood this. Maybe some of these people think it’s like lying to the SS about having Anne Frank in the attic, but I wouldn’t think that an all powerful God would need you to lie to your little sister to bring her to Jesus. Then again, I am blind to the spiritual. I can’t speak to Strobel and Habermas, but I have seen lies from Christians in authority. Maybe because they’re lying for Jesus, it’s okay.

    It could also be that they don’t know what they’re saying is false. Maybe they got their information from a respected Christian authority or a popular Christian apologist or a trusted news source and just assumed that it had to be true. Why bother to check the facts or see if a quote is real, because why would their Christian source lie? What if the sources actually didn’t fact check, but just assumed it was true based on the ‘Christian-ness’ of their source? It’s kind of like those e-mails everyone forwards – no one checks them for truthfulness – but because they got them from a friend, they believe them and send them on. (someone checked them once right? has to be true)

  100. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    perdita- Thank you for your post. Interesting story about the sister but to answer the question I would not personally lie because I want the truth. Lying is not and should not be a characteristic of a disciple of Jesus Christ. Have I lied in the past? Yes. Have I lied even now in my times of walking with the Lord? Sadly to be honest yes it has happened. But let me explain something. Though I have lied, it is not what I wanted to do. I do not under any circumstances want to lie when it comes to the facts. The information that I have presented on this blog time and time again has not been me lying, but presenting the facts about Christianity that I have learned over the 7 years and 10 months I have been born-again. Now I know there is more to this issue of lying (the Anne Frank idea) but when it comes to presenting the truth of the gospel and Christianity, if willful lying is apart of that then it tarnishes the message of Christianity and really at that point perdita I do not blame you for not believing in the gospel. This to me is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly.

    perdita you said, “I remember a youth pastor asking something like this to our group [lying for God] and a surprising number of people said, “Sure, if that’s the only way.” I never understood this. Maybe some of these people think it’s like lying to the SS about having Anne Frank in the attic, but I wouldn’t think that an all powerful God would need you to lie to your little sister to bring her to Jesus.”

    I whole heartily agree with what you said here. You are totally right on.

    perdita you said, “Maybe because they’re lying for Jesus, it’s okay.”

    It is never ok to lie for Jesus. If anyone does that, if I have done that then I have sinned and I will have to answer to God for that. I am just being honest here.

    The end paragraph that you wrote perdita is a very important one and this is something that obviously does happen. Though I have a hard time believing with so much of the research I have done to believe so many people are getting it so wrong. This is where we have to be the most throe and patient when it comes to researching these types of issues (still learning everyday about doing better research and study. It truly is a art and science. Maybe more a science). Because when it comes to eternity it is so important. The answer to what you said here is not a quick answer and will take more time but like I said before because God has shown me a hundred times the evidences for Christianity’s truth I only have to assume at that point that a hundred and one does exist. Even if I have not seen it yet. And I may never, but the quest for defending and upholding Christianity continues (by the power of God‘s Holy Spirit). God bless perdita.

    -Thomas

  101. Chris

    Reply

    Hi Thomas

    A few points

    1) Yes Habermas may be lying, or mistaken or suffering from what is known as “Confirmation Bias”. Essentially that is when you believe in a particular answer so much that you deliberately look for evidence which confirms your opinion and dismiss or ignore evidence which does not.

    2) You argued that either Jesus is risen or we’re all going to die & that’s it. Nope! Sorry. What about the other religious views? What about Zoroastrianism? What about Buddhism? It’s not like either Jesus is right or materialism is. There are a few more than just two views available.

    Now let’s get to you assertion that everyone is a liar & see where that gets us.
    Everyone lies. Therefore everyone is a liar. But we don’t trust liars because they lie.
    Now if everyone lies that MUST include the gospel writers. Therefore we can’t trust them because they are liars. They must be because you’ve admitted that everyone lies.

    Now you might reply “Oh, that’s different. The Gospel writers were inspired by God.” Who says? The liars who wrote the Gospels? But we can’t trust them because they lie. You just said so. Everyone lies. Remember? That must include the Gospel writers.

    What I’m getting at is that statements like “everyone is a liar” are self-defeating. Get the idea?

  102. Chris

    Reply

    Hi Thomas

    In your post script you mention all the things that Jesus accomplished by dying. Did you ever ask yourself how?

    Let me put it this way. Jesus died. Ok. And by dying he paid for our sins. Exactly how did he do this? After all people die all the time & no one claims their death has paid for anyone’s sins. So how EXACTLY did Jesus’ death pay for our sins?

    There have been four views. Let’s see if any of them make sense.

    View one: Believed by the early Christians.
    In this view when Adam & Eve sinned humanity became the property of the devil. By His death Jesus was paying our ransom. In effect buying us back from the devil.

    Problem: If this view is correct then when Jesus rose he took the ransom back, essentially cheating the devil of his ransom. Now cheating someone, even someone evil is itself an evil act. Which would mean that Jesus sinned. That answer undercuts Christianity right there so let’s forget about this view.

    View two: God CHOSE to accept Jesus’ death as payment for our sins. [This was popular in the Middle Ages].
    In this view God freely chose to accept the death of Jesus in payment for our sins which are an affront to God & His righteousness.

    Problem: If this view is correct & God freely chose to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins then He could have chosen anything as payment. So why didn’t God choose the death of a flower? The destruction of a poem? If you reply that it HAD to be the death of God’s Son then God wasn’t free to choose. Which would mean that, in this particular area God didn’t have free will. This view doesn’t make sense either. I’m sure you agree.

    Third view: That Jesus’ death was an example of God’s love for us.
    [First put forward by the theologian Abelard].
    The trouble is if God felt that this example of His love was so important for us [and let’s face it, if God was prepared to die just to show His love for us then it had to be important then shouldn’t He have waited until we had invented film? After all if Jesus died as an example of love it would make a lot of difference to actually see the example than just hear about it. Once again we’ll have to reluctantly dismiss this answer.

    That leaves us with the last view.

    The fourth view: [First put forward by Martin Luther] states that our sins are crimes against God which demand punishment. Now God can’t just forgive us because He is just as well as loving. So He takes the punishment for our sins Himself.

    Problem: The problem with this view is it isn’t just. It’s the same as a judge saying “look someone has to pay the penalty so you’ll do.” That’s not justice that’s revenge. Therefore, according to this view, in order to satisfy His justice God does something which is unjust. That’s unthinkable.

    So essentially none of these views make any sense. Either:
    God does something sinful [view one], God chooses His own Son to die even though a flower would have been good enough [view two], God sent Jesus down from heaven too soon [view three], or God tries to satisfy His own sense of justice by doing something which is unjust [view four].

    All the talk about God doing these things out of love doesn’t make them make more sense.

    I hasten to add that I do not believe God is sinful, unjust or acts without forethought but those seem to be the only explanations for how Jesus’ death pays for our sins.

    • DamonWV

      Reply

      Chris one thing about the ” other Religions ” that you mentioned. There is a Big difference between them who lived and died, Jesus Christ is the only one who lived, died, and lived again, was seen in public, and then ascended into Heaven. No other Religion has that type of atonement.

  103. Richard Chavarria

    Reply

    The Bible says (And I’m sure you have heard this one before.)

    John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [fn] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ”

    But here’s a verse that gets overlooked by a lot of folks…yes sad to say even Christians:

    John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

    Notice the words in this verse “stands condemned already”, this proves that God is patient with you and that he’s is waiting on you to repent of your foolishness. Don’t wait. As many have warned God has many ways to take people into hell. There will be a day of justice. Don’t try to out think God. Submit to him. Call upon the Savior. Humble yourself. Confess your sins. Trust in the precious blood that was spent for you.

    Brother Richard

  104. vintango2k

    Reply

    @ Richard

    You didn’t really address Chris’ statement about the 4 reasons for the sacrifice of Jesus and how there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance in all four. He’s not alone Christian scholars HAVE debated this issue over the centuries and in the end its open to interpretation. When you say things like ‘Trust in the precious blood that was spent for you.’ he was trying to understand why the blood was spent in the first place and under those four criteria it doesn’t make any sense. Now there may be more options than what he just posted but the options are fairly interesting dilemmas. The bottom line is that you have to have faith or rather confidence that what these words in this book are true. The problem as it ALWAYS is, is why this book requires us to suspend rationality in favor of belief in these that result in confusion, cognitive dissonance and the suspension of disbelief in the first place. If God makes the rules and wants everyone to come to him, and he’s all powerful than why not give revelation to everyone in natural ways? To use an analogy, its like trying to prove a court case with special pleading and feelings… Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury I know that these things are true… I can prove it with observations in reality and physical evidence… but I have a book here that says these things are true, and the book contains things that are incorrect and force you to suspend what you know about the natural world, but I feel its correct, and you should to.

    This is essentially the argument… and you wonder why there are disbelievers and doubters in the world? Its not that they WANT to doubt these things, its that they’re just not convinced based on the evidence available and an all powerful God would KNOW that and if he, she, or it actually LOVED those people like a parent loves their child they would present the evidence to them in a way they could understand and thus could be capable of believing in.

    • Richard Chavarria

      Reply

      Thanks for reading my comment. Yeah, I did stray from the topic. Thanks again. My understanding is that without God you can’t know anything and the Atheist has to borrow from the Christian world view in order to make sense about anything.

      Again, you suppress the truth. I have a basis for my understanding. The unbeliever is on sinking sand.

  105. vintango2k

    Reply

    Eh grammar errors…
    ‘Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury I know that these things are true… I can’t prove it with observations in reality and physical evidence… but I have a book here that says these things are true, and the book contains things that are incorrect and force you to suspend what you know about the natural world, but I feel its correct, and you should to.’

  106. perdita

    Reply

    Richard – you said in another post that you fear atheists. Those atheists you fear? They’re make-believe. You erect these false ideas (We have to borrow from the Christian world-view, we suppress the truth, etc) and look at them rather than the actual people (us atheists). Sure, it feels better to think those things about us – it fits neatly into what you want to believe – but that doesn’t mean those things are true.

    • Richard Chavarria

      Reply

      To Perdita,

      Thanks for reading my post. How can I in my power get you to understand that I cannot change your heart. Only God can change your heart of hearts.

      Atheist have no basis for truth. I do.

      Brother Richard

  107. Fake Oakleys

    Reply

    Hi,thanks for your post and luckly to comment in your site!The specific semicircular type belonging to the specific body Fake Oakleys , together with heavy edges may fixture any sort of find framework, as well as the colours have a tendency for being your personal to select. A pair of wicked Oakleys will make you look like a rockstar. Answer: Get some Oakleys with a light brown frame and black or dark brown lenses. This interchangeability enables versatility with the wearer oakleys for cheap , creating just one pair usable below several climate and lumination conditions. But it is just not feasible for everyone to have a pair.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *