Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Help With An Argument For God Creating The Earth And Interacting With Human History


AnonymousCoward

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I recently deconverted and somehow ended up in a debate on Facebook with someone who debates on behalf of Christianity for a living. He attempted to show that it is likely that the universe was created by a supernatural creator and that this creator has interacted with humanity in history. I responded with a few questions to which I got a short article that answered most of them: http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Short%20Answers%20to%20Big%20Questions.pdf

 

Being fairly new at this and having very recently found these compelling arguments since I believed in Christianity, how should I attack this? Any resources or comments that would help disprove the claims in this article would be much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have read a bit less than half or it but had to laugh out loud already about all that bullshit in there. To claim babblical "prophecy" alone as an argument pro jeeeeebus, without any further argumentation (i. e. just stating it as if it was a law of nature that these prophecies must be true) shows the true colors of the article.

 

Sadly I don't have too much time currently so I'm at a loss about dealing with the text in detail. I'm sure though that a horde of other people will give you all the help you need :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the evidence for god? Where Is the evidence of a creator? Regarding the universe and creation, we don't know. Not we don't know therefore god. The article is pathetic. I love the god of the gaps argument at the end that then says " this isn't a god of the gaps argument." Really funny stuff right there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I recently deconverted and somehow ended up in a debate on Facebook with someone who debates on behalf of Christianity for a living. He attempted to show that it is likely that the universe was created by a supernatural creator and that this creator has interacted with humanity in history. I responded with a few questions to which I got a short article that answered most of them: http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Short%20Answers%20to%20Big%20Questions.pdf

 

Being fairly new at this and having very recently found these compelling arguments since I believed in Christianity, how should I attack this? Any resources or comments that would help disprove the claims in this article would be much appreciated.

 

Why is the origin of the universe relevant?

Where is Jesus other than in someone's imagination?

If Jesus cannot make a personal appearance to me then he is irrelevant.

If he cannot speak loud enough for me to hear the way I hear a human being speak then a personal relationship with him is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi all,

 

I recently deconverted and somehow ended up in a debate on Facebook with someone who debates on behalf of Christianity for a living. He attempted to show that it is likely that the universe was created by a supernatural creator and that this creator has interacted with humanity in history. I responded with a few questions to which I got a short article that answered most of them: http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Short%20Answers%20to%20Big%20Questions.pdf

 

Being fairly new at this and having very recently found these compelling arguments since I believed in Christianity, how should I attack this? Any resources or comments that would help disprove the claims in this article would be much appreciated.

 

Why is the origin of the universe relevant?

Where is Jesus other than in someone's imagination?

If Jesus cannot make a personal appearance to me then he is irrelevant.

If he cannot speak loud enough for me to hear the way I hear a human being speak then a personal relationship with him is impossible.

 

 

I agree. I did not walk away from Christianity because of some cosmological argument of the origins of the universe. I did not walk away from Christianity because of some argument that Jesus was never a real person. I walked away from Christianity because God never showed up in my life.

 

When I was a Christian and had doubts, I found that the kinds of arguments in the article helped strengthen my faith. Now that I no longer believe, I'm trying to train myself to spot the fallacies and false claims in these types of arguments. I figured I would use this as an exercise to see if I could find the issues. Given the comments, it looks like I missed a lot of obvious ones. Oh well, I'm still new at this and am still getting over the brainwashing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll get there.  You're doing fine.

 

Even if a person called Jesus did exist, there is no evidence for him being divine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know that the universe had a beginning.  Creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design like to assume the universe had a beginning and then use that assumption as evidence that our universe was created. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll get there.  You're doing fine.

 

Even if a person called Jesus did exist, there is no evidence for him being divine.

 

That up there. One of my favorites. So fine, jebus existed. So what? Where's the evidence that he was more than a wandering preacher with - for his era - somewhat progressive ideas?

The Roman empire was a thing back then. Surely if within their realm's borders miracles had been worked there'd be some record of it somewhere? Actually many records given the impact those miracles had, and might have had in the proper... situation? (Imagine jebus was real and the Romans somehow "convinced" him to use those miracles to support their cause... talk about a superweapon!)? All we have are some few lines here and there that are, at best, dubious in quality. Strange... :scratch:

 

We don't know that the universe had a beginning.  Creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design like to assume the universe had a beginning and then use that assumption as evidence that our universe was created. 

 

Yup human concepts and reasoning are rather fine for the normal human environment but trying to apply them to something totally, literally mindblowingly, different is... risky. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is the consensus of opinion among those scientists who focus their research on the origin of the universe that the universe had a beginning."

 

Science isn't performed by consensus of opinion, nor does it proceed by consensus of opinion. PageofCupsNono.gif

Ok, a group of scientists can come to an agreement about scientific data or a certain theory, but their consensus of opinion is NOT the science itself.  Therefore, Durston begins his argument, not from or with the science itself, but from a pool of opinions about the science.  

The two things are NOT the same. PageofCupsNono.gif

 

Then he plays a neat little trick.

In B, "What if the universe has no beginning?" he writes... "There are two problems with this.  First of all, the science is saying it does."  Yet, just a few lines earlier he wrote..."It is the consensus of opinion among those scientists who focus their research on the origin of the universe that the universe had a beginning."

 

See the difference?

 

A consensus of scientists agree that the universe had a beginning.  

Yes, that's fine.  But this is their group opinion about the scientific data, this is not the data itself.  

 

Science (itself) says the universe had a beginning.  

What science?  What data? Durston hasn't actually presented any science or data that says this.  He's only mentioned a consensus of opinion among scientists about the science and the data.

 

I'll say it once more... These two things are NOT the same. PageofCupsNono.gif

.

.

.

So you can see AC, Durston builds his entire argument on a falsehood.

Without presenting ANY science or scientific data, by the time he gets to objection B he's falsely concluded that science says that the universe had a beginning.  

 

 

Anything built on a rotten foundation cannot stand... and so it is with this garbage!

I might also add that he's playing fast-and-loose with his definitions of certain words too.  Anyway, I hope this input helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I might also add that he's playing fast-and-loose with his definitions of certain words too.  Anyway, I hope this input helps.

 

 

 

All christians do.  I've never had a discussion with one who stuck to generic, everyday definitions of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, AC, is Kurt Durston himself the person you're debating on FB?

 

I can't read the whole paper.  I just looked at the beginning and saw this:

 

"It is the consensus among those scientists who focus their research on the
origin of the universe that the universe had a beginning. This applies not only
to the theory that this universe is a non-off event, but also to the theoretical
multiverse and the oscillating universe theories."
 
My understand per BAA and others (this isn't my field) is that the theorized multiverse is supposed to have no beginning.  If Durston is claiming that most scientists who deal with the multiverse hypothesis say that the multiverse had a beginning, I believe that's false.  If those scientists hypothesize that our present universe originated "from" the multiverse 13.8 billion yrs ago, or whatever, that hypothesis can't serve as a premise from which to get the cosmological argument off the ground.
 
It annoys me that this guy uses technical terms like "non-off event" without defining them in a paper he proposes for laymen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi, AC, is Kurt Durston himself the person you're debating on FB?

 

I can't read the whole paper.  I just looked at the beginning and saw this:

 

"It is the consensus among those scientists who focus their research on the
origin of the universe that the universe had a beginning. This applies not only
to the theory that this universe is a non-off event, but also to the theoretical
multiverse and the oscillating universe theories."
 
My understand per BAA and others (this isn't my field) is that the theorized multiverse is supposed to have no beginning.  If Durston is claiming that most scientists who deal with the multiverse hypothesis say that the multiverse had a beginning, I believe that's false.  If those scientists hypothesize that our present universe originated "from" the multiverse 13.8 billion yrs ago, or whatever, that hypothesis can't serve as a premise from which to get the cosmological argument off the ground.
 
It annoys me that this guy uses technical terms like "non-off event" without defining them in a paper he proposes for laymen.

 

 

Just for the record, F...

 

I think "non-off event" is a typo.  GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Durston's comparing a singular thing (the universe as a one-off event) to a pair of plural things.  A multiverse is a plurality of spaces existing together at the same time, while an oscillating universe is a single universe that repeats or re-iterates itself over time, yielding a plurality in time.  

 

He also calls Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence Krause... twice.  The second time using both spellings on the same line!  wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to destroy a Christian in a debate then use the Problem of Evil.  It is indisputable proof that God is either not good, ignorant, weak or non-existant.  All of those possibilities are bad for Christianity.  If can be interesting to see which choice a Christian will make to get out of the trap.  Some of them will go Calvinism and have God commit evil deeds and define good by God.  Some will say God does evil now but there is going to be an afterlife that balances that reverses things with infinite punishment or reward.  You can attack that by pointing out that infinite punishment (or reward) is not justice.  Other Christians would choose to make God ignorant or weak powered.

 

There are plenty of websites that teach the Problem of Evil in all it's juicy details.  You would do well to study up and memorize it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi, AC, is Kurt Durston himself the person you're debating on FB?

 

I can't read the whole paper.  I just looked at the beginning and saw this:

 

"It is the consensus among those scientists who focus their research on the
origin of the universe that the universe had a beginning. This applies not only
to the theory that this universe is a non-off event, but also to the theoretical
multiverse and the oscillating universe theories."
 
My understand per BAA and others (this isn't my field) is that the theorized multiverse is supposed to have no beginning.  If Durston is claiming that most scientists who deal with the multiverse hypothesis say that the multiverse had a beginning, I believe that's false.  If those scientists hypothesize that our present universe originated "from" the multiverse 13.8 billion yrs ago, or whatever, that hypothesis can't serve as a premise from which to get the cosmological argument off the ground.
 
It annoys me that this guy uses technical terms like "non-off event" without defining them in a paper he proposes for laymen.

 

 

Ficino,

 

This Durston is a clone of William Lane Craig, in the same mold as OrdinaryClay.

As we know, Craig latches onto this and never lets go.  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

 
Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of
singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition,
that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete
in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble
parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics
other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

 

He takes this 'incompleteness' to mean that there must have been a beginning.

 

But even great scientists can change their minds about their own work.

Einstein changed his about the issue of an expanding vs. a static universe, back in the 1930's.  In the 80's Paul Steinhardt was one of the leading lights of Inflationary cosmology.  Now he's one of it's fiercest critics.  And recently, I showed where Stephen Hawking changed his mind about the initial singularity. Here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.U4nco_ldVzN (See # 115)

 

But Craig won't let Guth, Borde and Vilenkin change their minds about their 2003 paper.  

He also holds them to his interpretation of it - that of a definite beginning.  

 

As we know from the Craig vs. Carroll debate,  Alan Guth has changed his mind and argued for a past-eternal multiverse, in direct and open contradiction to the above.  Likewise, even though Vilenkin has stated (in 2006) that a beginning was necessary, when pressed to give a more specific answer (in 2010), here's what he said... http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/

 

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

 

Hardly the clear-cut and unequivocal 'beginning' that Craig, OrdinaryClay and now Durston are claiming!

.

.

.

 

As I see it, we can glean the following lessons from this thread.

 

1.

Scientists are allowed to change their minds about their own work - so trying to hold them to something they no longer endorse is a very questionable piece of logical argument indeed.

 

2.

Christian apologists are very adept at taking what scientists write and twisting interpreting it as they see fit.

 

3.

Every last detail of what a christian apologist writes should be carefully examined with the most powerful electron microscope in existence.  You never know what dirty little secrets will come swimming into focus as you rack the magnification up higher and higher!

 

wink.png

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I might also add that he's playing fast-and-loose with his definitions of certain words too.  Anyway, I hope this input helps.

 

 

 

All christians do.  I've never had a discussion with one who stuck to generic, everyday definitions of words.

 

 

Amen to that, Marty!

 

See # 2 & # 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:
Jesus Christ claimed to be God.
 
Jesus also claimed to have a God, even after he ascended. (Rev 3:12)
The apologist ignores that, as it wrecks his logic, which is primarily based on argument by assertion.
   
There are two lines of warrant for the belief that he was telling the truth.
 
Since he also claimed to have a God, his truth telling is little more than gibberish.
 
The first proposition is a matter of historical record.
 
It's a matter of cult writing and tradition.
There is no contemporary writing outside of the cult that records Jesus of Nazareth.
The "historical bedrock facts" this apologist puts forth are nothing of the sort, they're claims made by cult writers, with no contemporary outside confirmation.
 
Jesus claimed to be I AM, the God who created the cosmos, the laws of nature and life.
The people who lived at the time and understood the language understood Him to be claiming to be God and they attempted, and eventually succeeded, in killing Him.
 
Well then, they managed to kill God, who is supposed to be immortal.
That's quite a trick.
The Hebrew deity claimed that he was not a man nor a son of man, which the apologist ignores because it wrecks his logic.
 
The prophecy fulfillment claims are the standard Christian out of context bullsh*t that apologists have been using to make money for centuries.
Jesus never fulfilled the role of an expected king messiah, never sat on the throne, and there is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says such a king would require two trips, separated by thousands of years to do what he was supposed to accomplish the first time. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i. Jesus Christ claimed to be God
ii. There are two lines of warrant for the belief that he was telling the truth
iii. Therefore, there is unusual warrant for the belief that God exists and is
active within humanity.
 
The first proposition (i) is a matter of historical record. Jesus claimed to be I
AM, the God who created the cosmos, the laws of nature and life. The people
who lived at the time and understood the language understood Him to be
claiming to be God and they attempted, and eventually succeeded, in killing
Him.

 

 

Jesus likely never existed, and therefore it's very unlikely that he ever claimed to be God. What is likely is that an anonymous author writing decades after the alleged events he was writing about put words into Jesus's mouth having him claim to be God. Relevant links/suggested reading:

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html#sources

 

 
 
The Old Testament portion of the Bible was completed a few hundred years
before the birth of Christ. It contains many prophecies concerning a future
Messiah or Christ. For example, the prophecies include statements that He
will be born of the seed of a woman (instead of a man), he would be born in
Bethlehem, He would be God born as a little boy, God would one day be
valued at 30 pieces of silver, He would be crucified, they would cast lots for
his clothes and He would be given vinegar to drink as He was crucified. The
exact time of His arrive was prophesied as being exactly sixty-nine, septads
of years (483 years) after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and before the
destruction of the second temple (which occurred in AD 70 under the
Romans). It was also prophesied that He would lay down His life to make
people from every nation holy and pure, satisfying the demands of flawless
justice for the sins of humanity, so that perfect love could then be satisfied
for those who will accept it. Jesus Christ appears to have fulfilled the first
set of Messianic prophecies. The second set are to fulfilled at the end of the
time of humanity’s rule on earth.

 

 

This is all nonsense. I strongly recommend looking at Jewish sites and what they have to say about Jesus being the Messiah. You will be amazed. Relevant links:

 

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html and particularly this:

 

A prophecy relating to the time of the Messiah which many evangelical Christians find extremely convincing is found in the book of Daniel. It is probably no exaggeration to say that this prophecy, more than any other, convinces Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. Daniel 9:24-27 says:

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. 

So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

The word translated in these verses as "weeks" is a form of the Hebrew word for "sevens," and is interpreted by Christians to mean seven years rather than seven days. Thus "seventy weeks" in verse 24 is interpreted to mean seventy periods of seven years, or 490 years, "seven weeks" in verse 25 is interpreted to mean 49 years, "sixty-two weeks" in verses 25 and 26 is interpreted to mean 434 years, and "one week" in verse 27 is interpreted to mean seven years.

The starting point of the prophecy is the "issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." A decree described in the Bible to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem is found in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. These verses describe the decree issued by Cyrus, king of Persia and contemporary of Daniel, in 538 B.C.E. "Seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," or 483 years, after this decree would be 55 B.C.E., many years too soon for Jesus.

So Christians must reject the equation of the decree in verse 25 with that of Cyrus, and they do. What other decrees are available? Josh McDowell (1972, p. 180) offers three alternatives: a decree of Darius described in the book of Ezra, a decree of Artaxerxes described in Ezra, and a decree of Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah. The decree of Darius, described in Ezra 6:1-9, was to conduct a search of the archives to find the text of the decree of Cyrus, and then to resume the construction of the temple at Jerusalem using tax money. This occurred around 522 B.C.E. (see Ezra 4:24), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 39 B.C.E.--still too early for Jesus.

The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra described in Ezra 7:11-28 allows for the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, taking with them various support from the royal treasury. This decree was issued in 458 B.C.E. (see Ezra 7:7), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E. This works fairly well if you take the end of the "sixty-two weeks" to be the beginning of Jesus' ministry, though most Christians take the end point to be the crucifixion due to the reference in verse 26 of the Daniel prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off." Most Christians reject this decree, as well as those of Cyrus and Darius, as being the appropriate starting point for the prophecy. One exception is Gleason Archer. Archer (1982, pp. 290-291) argues thatEzra 9:9 implies that Ezra was given permission by Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, despite the fact that they were not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah (see Nehemiah 1:3Ezra 9:9 states that God has not forsaken the Jews but has given them a chance "to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem." In defense of the end point of the "sixty-two weeks" being the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than his crucifixion, Archer points out that verse 26 of the prophecy says only that the Messiah's being "cut off" occurs after that time period, not necessarily immediately after it.

The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah described in Nehemiah 2:1-6 is really no decree at all. Rather, Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah letters of safe conduct for travel to Judah and to obtain timber to rebuild the gates of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem. This occurred in 445 B.C.E., putting the time of the Messiah at 39 C.E., too late for Jesus, who is believed to have been crucified some time between 29 and 33 C.E. Despite these flaws, most evangelical Christians adopt this as the appropriate decree because Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. In order to make the 445 B.C.E. starting point result in an ending point 483 years later that is either at the beginning of Jesus' ministry or at the time of the crucifixion, something other than a 365-day year must be used. The most popular such calculation, due to Sir Robert Anderson and promoted by Josh McDowell, is to adopt a "360-day prophetic year"--an invention of Anderson based on his reading of Revelation 11:2-3, where he equates 42 months with 1260 days, giving 30 days per month. Using "prophetic years" puts the end of the 483-year period at 32 C.E., believed by many to be the year of the crucifixion. Robert Newman (1990, pp. 112-114) points out several flaws in this calculation scheme which together are fatal to it: (1) Revelation 11:23 does not justify the invention of the "prophetic year," because there is no indication that 1260 days is said to be exactly 42 months (it could be 41.5 rounded up), (2) a 360-day year would get out of synch with the seasons, and the Jews added an extra lunar month every two or three years to their 354-day lunar year, giving them an average year length of about 365 days, and (3) the present consensus on the date of the crucifixion is 30 C.E. rather than 32 C.E.

Newman offers his own alternative: the use of sabbatical years, which do have biblical justification (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:3-7,18-22). Every seventh year is a sabbatical year. Newman uses information from the first book of Maccabees, which has reference to an observance of a sabbatical year, to calculate that 163-162 B.C.E. was a sabbatical year and therefore 445 B.C.E., the starting point of the Daniel prophecy, falls in the seven-year sabbatical cycle 449-442 B.C.E. If this is the first sabbatical cycle in the count, the sixty-ninth is 28-35 C.E., a time period that the crucifixion falls in. In response to the criticism that the prophecy says that the Messiah will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks, Newman says that in conventional Jewish idiom "after" means "after the beginning of."

There are further problems for all of the above interpretations, which Gerald Sigal (1981, pp. 109-122) points out. Foremost among Sigal's criticisms is that the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew Bible places a division between the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," meaning that rather than stating that the Messiah will come after the combined time periods, he will come after the "seven weeks" alone. Another criticism Sigal makes is that the Hebrew text does not put a definite article in front of the word "Messiah" (or "anointed one"). The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is translated with these facts in mind, and it gives the Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:

Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

Using the Masoretic punctuation, the "sixty-two weeks" goes with the rebuilding of the city rather than with the coming of the Messiah. This interpretation explains why "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" are given separately, rather than simply stating "sixty-nine weeks." Most apologists are either unaware of or ignore the Masoretic punctuation, but Robert Newman (1990, p. 116) rejects it on the grounds that "such punctuation may not date back before the ninth or tenth century AD" and that the structure of the verses as a whole favor his interpretation.

The result of all this? The Daniel prophecy is not nearly so convincing as it might initially appear to someone presented only with one of the interpretations that "works." It is not surprising that with four choices for beginning points (the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, plus the letters of Artaxerxes for Nehemiah), several possible choices for end points (the birth, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus), and at least three ways of counting (ordinary years, "prophetic years," and sabbatical cycles) calculations have been found for which Jesus fits the prophecy. There are good reasons to reject each of these interpretations. The first two choices for beginning points don't work for any offered interpretations. The Artaxerxes decree works for ordinary years with the ministry of Jesus as the end point, but says nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem. The Artaxerxes letters work for sabbatical cycles with the crucifixion as an end point, but they are not a decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Rather, they gave Nehemiah safe conduct to Judah and permission to use lumber from the royal forests. Finally, none of them take into consideration the Masoretic punctuation, which, if not itself in error, eliminates all of them as possible interpretations of the text.

 

 

http://religionisbullshit.me/jesus-messiah-jewish-perspective/

 

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

 

The historical evidence seems to indicate that Jesus Christ rose from the
dead, causing an explosion of Christianity within two months that spread
across the Roman Empire within thirty years and as far East as India within
a few decades.

 

 

Wendytwitch.gif Wendybanghead.gif WendyDoh.gif Wendycrazy.gif lmao_99.gif

 

Seriously? lmao_99.gif Christianity was barely known in the Roman Empire until it was made the state religion by the Emperor Constantine. See the book I recommended above entitled "Nailed". Here's another book I highly recommend you read. It rips Acts apart! The Book of Acts, which describes the expansion of the Church, is mostly FICTION.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unraveling-Its-Story/dp/159815012X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401549497&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mystery+of+acts

 

The historical evidence seems to indicate that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

 

 

WHAT historical evidence?? There is none!

 

I could continue with this, but hopefully you can see how ridiculous this guy's claims are... ohmy.png rolleyes.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even supposing the universe had a beginning, that it came from Nothing is not at all clear.  Even if there is an uncaused first cause, it's not clear why this cause should have or be a mind, and therefore a god.

 

Most philosophers allow that there may be a god or gods, so assuming that a god might exist, the second argument needs to be addressed which is stated as:

 

i. Jesus Christ claimed to be God
ii. There are two lines of warrant for the belief that he was telling the truth
iii. Therefore, there is unusual warrant for the belief that God exists and is
active within humanity.
 

Claim i: Jesus Christ claimed to be God:

Jesus did not clearly claim to be God.  On the contrary he claimed to be a son of god, and referred to his followers as sons of god.  There are many people that are referred to as a son of god throughout the old testament including David.  It is plausible he claimed to be the Messiah though, but that doesn't mean he claimed to be god.  Further, we know from the dead sea scrolls that it was not unheard of to think that sons of men could forgive sin.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/son.html

http://infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap7.html

 

Claim ii: Two lines of warrant for the belief that he was telling the truth

The first line of warrant is fulfilled prophecies.  
  • The problem with this argument is that most of the prophecies either were not prophecies (the ones from psalms for example), were already fulfilled (the young woman Isiah predicted would conceive and bear a child, who he then impregnated himself), or are so vague as to be worthless.  http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
  • Of these Daniel 9 is one of the most common ones used today, but is never referenced in the Bible indicating the NT writers, Matthew in particular, didn't regard it as a prophecy concerning Jesus.  Further Daniel is widely regarded as a forgery created to support the Maccabees.  http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html contains a good overview of Daniel.
The second line of warrant is: The historical evidence seems to indicate that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

Since these two lines are warrant aren't well substantiated, they don't provide an unusual warrant that a personal God exists and is active within humanity.

 
infidels.org contains a huge library of information that will help you deal with claims like this.
 
For the argument from evil, see http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html .  In particular look at Paul Draper's debate with Alvin Plantinga.
Stephen Law created the evil god challenge as well, which you can read here: http://lawpapers.blogspot.ca/2009/06/evil-god-challenge-forthcoming-in.html
 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi, AC, is Kurt Durston himself the person you're debating on FB?

 

I can't read the whole paper.  I just looked at the beginning and saw this:

 

"It is the consensus among those scientists who focus their research on the
origin of the universe that the universe had a beginning. This applies not only
to the theory that this universe is a non-off event, but also to the theoretical
multiverse and the oscillating universe theories."
 
My understand per BAA and others (this isn't my field) is that the theorized multiverse is supposed to have no beginning.  If Durston is claiming that most scientists who deal with the multiverse hypothesis say that the multiverse had a beginning, I believe that's false.  If those scientists hypothesize that our present universe originated "from" the multiverse 13.8 billion yrs ago, or whatever, that hypothesis can't serve as a premise from which to get the cosmological argument off the ground.
 
It annoys me that this guy uses technical terms like "non-off event" without defining them in a paper he proposes for laymen.

 

 

Just for the record, F...

 

I think "non-off event" is a typo.  GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Durston's comparing a singular thing (the universe as a one-off event) to a pair of plural things.  A multiverse is a plurality of spaces existing together at the same time, while an oscillating universe is a single universe that repeats or re-iterates itself over time, yielding a plurality in time.  

 

He also calls Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence Krause... twice.  The second time using both spellings on the same line!  wink.png

 

That makes sense.  Just so lurkers aren't confused... it's Durston's typo, if it is a typo;  I cut and pasted the text I quoted right from his paper.  heh heh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

As I see it, the major problem with the "god of the gaps" argument (which is all this article boils down to) is that with each new gap in our knowledge that science fills in, "god" gets that much smaller.  How much smaller can he get and still remain infinite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I recently deconverted and somehow ended up in a debate on Facebook with someone who debates on behalf of Christianity for a living. He attempted to show that it is likely that the universe was created by a supernatural creator and that this creator has interacted with humanity in history. I responded with a few questions to which I got a short article that answered most of them: http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Short%20Answers%20to%20Big%20Questions.pdf

 

Being fairly new at this and having very recently found these compelling arguments since I believed in Christianity, how should I attack this? Any resources or comments that would help disprove the claims in this article would be much appreciated.

 

I am working on a detailed response to Brother Durston's apologetic article on my glorious http://www.religionisbullshit.me website. It touches on some areas I haven't done much research on, but I'll give it my best shot and post the link when I am done. Glory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I have so far... hope it helps.

 

http://religionisbullshit.me/help-argument-god/

 

I welcome input, collaboration, or correction on any point... some of this stuff I am definitely not an expert in. BAA, I am thinking of you for the cosmology stuff... :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole question is moot. All it takes is a critical-thinking read of Genesis to convince yourself that archaeology and Genesis don't line up. That's all you need. The evidence says people were not "created" in a day. There is no evidence for "God". Whatever the current thinking in physics is on the origins of the universe, or a multiverse, it doesn't change anything. Everything you are thinking about creation is coming from the Bible, and the Bible is demonstrably wrong. Everything else is a red herring to distract your attention away from the facts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all,

 

I recently deconverted and somehow ended up in a debate on Facebook with someone who debates on behalf of Christianity for a living. He attempted to show that it is likely that the universe was created by a supernatural creator and that this creator has interacted with humanity in history. I responded with a few questions to which I got a short article that answered most of them: http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Short%20Answers%20to%20Big%20Questions.pdf

 

Being fairly new at this and having very recently found these compelling arguments since I believed in Christianity, how should I attack this? Any resources or comments that would help disprove the claims in this article would be much appreciated.

If you are looking for an argument that will sway 'true belivers' you won't find one.  The 'true believer' doesn't except facts, knowledge or evidence.  In fact, they embrace faith which flies in the face or those things.  Any fact, evidenece or knowledge you bring becomes a point of pride for them rejecting because their faith held dispite it.  The stronger your argument is the more they think they will be rewarded for rejecting it.  However, this is how you know the 'true believers' are just that.  Anyone seeking knowledge will tell you, 'faith' is the means of convincing yourself lies are true. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I recently deconverted and somehow ended up in a debate on Facebook with someone who debates on behalf of Christianity for a living. He attempted to show that it is likely that the universe was created by a supernatural creator and that this creator has interacted with humanity in history. I responded with a few questions to which I got a short article that answered most of them: http://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/Short%20Answers%20to%20Big%20Questions.pdf

 

Being fairly new at this and having very recently found these compelling arguments since I believed in Christianity, how should I attack this? Any resources or comments that would help disprove the claims in this article would be much appreciated.

 

This is not a bad paper since much of it relates to logic.

 

Critique of paper:

 

"This applies not only to the theory that this universe is a non-off event...."

 

this was a typo:  it should have been “a one-off event.”

 

The first statement in quotes below is generally true.

"......nature (space, time, matter and energy, and the laws of physics) had a beginning."

 

Although many or most theorists today do believe that the universe had a beginning, some of the conclusions drawn from this belief, stated below, are invalid.

 

"i. The cause of nature must be natural or supernatural"

 

this conclusion is valid smile.png

 

"ii. Necessarily, the cause of nature cannot be natural (to avoid the circular fallacy)"

 

Here the conclusion is wrong because of an unstated assumption. The assumption is that the beginning entity could not have been self perpetuating having had no other causal entity before it.  The Big Bang theoretical entity is an example.  A beginning BB entity without a prior cause has been the prevailing BB model.

 

“iii. Therefore, the cause of nature is supernatural (from i. and ii.)”

 

An invalid conclusion for reasons explained above.

 

“iv. The cause of time cannot be dependent upon time (to avoid the circular fallacy)”

 

A beginning entity could be the beginning of time (as in a beginning BB entity) which via the changes perpetuated can define time.

 

“v. Therefore, the cause of time must be timeless”

 

A false conclusion based upon an incorrect assumption.

 

“vi. It is logically impossible for a timeless entity to have a temporal beginning.”

 

This is logically true if there were such a thing as a timeless entity.

 

“vii. If something has no temporal beginning, it is impossible for it to be caused by something; it is always there.

 

This is also true if there is such a thing as a timeless entity. But not true if there is not.

 

“viii. Therefore, the cause of nature must be supernatural, eternal and uncaused”

 

A false statement if premises are false.

 

“Science and logic, therefore, require a supernatural creator of the universe that happens to correspond to a general notion of God held to by many different people groups throughout history.”

 

Also would be a false statement based upon incorrect premise.

 

“b. What if the universe has no beginning?”

 

“There are two problems with this. First of all, the science is saying it does.”

 

Although it is presently believed that the universe had a beginning based upon present theory there is no way to disprove logically that it did not have a beginning so this argument has no basis. 

 

“To deny the universe has a beginning is to set aside science.”

 

This is a false statement for stated reasons. 

 

“Secondly, no beginning requires an infinite progression of either units of time or of universes to get to this present time and place.”

 

This is true if there was no beginning.

 

“The problem with trying to count through an actual countable infinite is that one will never, ever count down from infinity past to get here, yet here we are. The number of past events, therefore, must be finite.”

 

Because one cannot count or fathom an infinite sequence does not preclude its logical possibility, therefore this is a false argument.

 

“c. Some insist that the universe caused itself”

 

The wording “insist” and "caused itself" here are wrong characterizations of the wording. The correct wording is that a number of theorists propose that a beginning entity had the potential energy within itself to self-perpetuate concerning changes to it which would be the basis for having had no cause and the beginning of time from its beginning.

 

“I have observed that some are so absolutely convinced that natural causes explain everything, that they refuse to believe that nature cannot bring itself into existence. When faced with the logical fallacy of the circular argument, I have witnessed some state that science trumps logic, or that logic does not apply in this case. Well, one can take that road and abandon logic, but one also abandons critical thinking. One of the foundations of the scientific method is logic. Toss logic and one tosses science.”

 

Although there is validity to much of this statement above it is not a valid logical argument against the universe having been self caused in that there is no circular fallacy involved as is stated.

 

“Historical Argument”

 

Is there any proof/evidence in history for the existence of god? Most scholars believe that the various biblical accountings of a god cannot be corroborated by historical writings of historians or any other unbiased individuals.

 

The rest of the arguments in this paper are based upon religious or moral perspectives and arguments not relating to science in general.

 

Conclusion: This paper is about as good as it gets concerning religious arguments against scientific consensus since some of the arguments are based upon valid logic. It identifies flaws in some scientific arguments but does nothing to discredit related scientific arguments in general or show proof for any of the claims which are being made within the paper. Some arguments being made are invalid because of unstated assumptions and premises being made and others because of false assumptions.  

 

AnonymousCoward, does this critique help you understand the merit, or lack thereof, of this paper?

 

 

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.