Refuting Christian Claims

[Guest r3alchild]

There are many arguments christians claim as irrefutable proof of their faith. Lets post arguments christians use and see if we can refute these claims with logic and facts.

[QualifiedCommenter]

I'll list a few that I find particularly interesting.

 

The power of prayer. Even though studies have shown that prayer does not do anything (and that it can actually be harmful sometimes), all Christians still swear by it, claiming that it really does work, generally stating some personal example or experience.

 

The concept that worship is the meaning of life. What does it accomplish? How is it more than a simple every-day slave mentality, or dictatorship mentality? (*cough*northkorea*cough*) Christians argue that the purpose of this is to get closer to God, but... so what? How is that important? And would that really do anything of the sort?

 

And, the big one, that the Earth is only 6k, or 8k, or 10k, or 12k, or some very very small amount of years old. There are so many logical arguments against this, but when worse comes to worse, Christians will generally argue "well, why wouldn't God have created things set into motion already?"

 

Oh, oh, and there's always the one where God made time, so God doesn't need to exist in time. This proves that he didn't need a creator to exist. The thing is, though, for God to have been able to make time, it must have been possible for things to be created outside of time, meaning that it is still not out of the question that God should have been created. I've never once heard a good argument against this. Christians don't think the argument through that far.

 

This is just a few of the many, many things that could be brought up. These were all just off the top of my head. If I find anything challenging or especially interesting, I'll bring it up here.

[boftx]

Chris,

 

Your proposal presupposes that there will be Christian members on the site who are willing to engage in honest dialog. While there are some unbelievers here who are able to play Devil's, errrrr, Christ's Advocate, it won't be the same.

 

Strictly speaking, there can be no claims of irrefutable proof for Christianity, that Jesus brings salvation.

 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8,9 [KJV]

 

"Faith" is defined to be belief in spite of the lack of proof.

 

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1  [KJV]

 

If one could actually prove that salvation is through Christ, then that would invalidate "God's" gift of faith. Even Jesus taught this:

 

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 16:13 - 17 [KJV]

 

To  Endemoniada, this is why one takes Theology.

[Guest r3alchild]

Chris,

 

Your proposal presupposes that there will be Christian members on the site who are willing to engage in honest dialog. While there are some unbelievers here who are able to play Devil's, errrrr, Christ's Advocate, it won't be the same.

 

Strictly speaking, there can be no claims of irrefutable proof for Christianity, that Jesus brings salvation.

 

 

 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8,9 [KJV]

"Faith" is defined to be belief in spite of the lack of proof.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 [KJV]

If one could actually prove that salvation is through Christ, then that would invalidate "God's" gift of faith. Even Jesus taught this:

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 16:13 - 17 [KJV]

To Endemoniada, this is why one takes Theology.

This thread is just for us to talk about the arguments christians use and how to refute them. If christians do post anything then that will be a bonus.

[boftx]

I thought I had just provided some ammo to do just that.

[Mike D]

The problem with many Christian claims is that they are illogical, irrational, or otherwise based on nothing but blind faith. So debunking doesn't even seem applicable.

For example, Christians claim that the disappearance of Jesus' body "proves" that the resurrection is true. IMO there's nothing to debunk here because the "proof" is just silly. I've never seen a leprechaun before, so I guess that must be proof they are busy making shoes for Nike after stealing jobs from the Chinese?

[DrNo]

If only it were a simple matter of logic. Unfortunately there are also emotions, social networks, family bonds, and years of conditioning in play. Ultimately they have to want to seek truth, not just bolster their preexisting beliefs.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

I thought I had just provided some ammo to do just that.

Did you? Maybe I miss understood what you said, never mind, I am going to go chew on a rubber ball.

[boftx]

By definition (Hebrews 11:1) an article of faith can not be proven or disproven, it can only be believed (with the help of "God") or disbelieved. Examples of such would be the virgin birth of Jesus, that Jesus is the "Son of God" and Jesus' death atoned for the sins of Mankind.

[Guest r3alchild]

If the bible doctrines were logical or based on facts how could we refute it. We refute it because its not based on logic or facts.

[boftx]

Ok Chris, you assert that you can refute faith, go for it! Let's see if I can at least put up a reasonable defense for it.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

Ok Chris, you assert that you can refute faith, go for it! Let's see if I can at least put up a reasonable defense for it.

I edited that last post but what I said was that we could refute faith, I was not saying that I could do it but I have ideas so ill try and you put up a defense.

[boftx]

Lay on, MacDuff!

[Guest r3alchild]

Ok Chris, you assert that you can refute faith, go for it! Let's see if I can at least put up a reasonable defense for it.

The bible states faith like this.

 

Hebrews 11

 

[ "*Faith* in Action" ] Now *faith* is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By *faith* we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. ...

 

I would say nothing is based on faith since you will allways have something to base an unknown variable on. What I am saying here is cause and effect, even though the effect may be a variable thats unknown there is allways a cause. You will find that christians who claim faith is an unseen hope they are waiting for, are not people who claim it without a cause. But since there is something there to base a future unknown variable on, then its not something unseen but rather a waiting on a effect of the cause that they allready have bet on.

[boftx]

Sorry for the delay, I'm watching Vikings.

 

So you are saying in effect that anyone who has professed faith is merely accepting the positive side of Pascal's wager, correct? But God surely knows who is sincere, and who is hedging their bets, so to speak, since he is the one who gives faith in the first place. Faith is a gift from God. It may be counterfeited in this life, but not in the next.

[Guest r3alchild]

Sorry for the delay, I'm watching Vikings.

 

So you are saying in effect that anyone who has professed faith is merely accepting the positive side of Pascal's wager, correct? But God surely knows who is sincere, and who is hedging their bets, so to speak, since he is the one who gives faith in the first place. Faith is a gift from God. It may be counterfeited in this life, but not in the next.

What I am saying is that faith is based on a cause and waiting an effect, faith in itself is not based on a future effect without a current cause. Since there is a cause no believer can argue blind faith and hope of something they can't see. Because there is a cause there is something there to base a outcome on.

[boftx]

The cause of faith is God enabling it. The effect of faith is the ability to accept salvation through Christ from God.

 

Note: Because of the nature of this discussion and my role as "Christ's Advocate" I will use God instead of my customary "God" when referring to the deity commonly referred to by Christians as well as other conventions as needed.

[Guest r3alchild]

The cause of faith is God enabling it. The effect of faith is the ability to accept salvation through Christ from God.

 

Note: Because of the nature of this discussion and my role as "Christ's Advocate" I will use God instead of my customary "God" when referring to the deity commonly referred to by Christians as well as other conventions as needed.

It wont matter what cause causes you to have faith in something unseen, its not unseen because there is a cause. Lets take your bible for example (while your being a christian here ) Your bible is a book you base your faith and unseen promise on, but the bible itself is a cause for something that will happen. Its not something you have faith in thats unseen. Ask yourself, why do christians claim victory in christ if what they have faith in is really unseen. You can't hope for something and claim victory at the same time, claiming victory means that you know and have what you hope for.

[boftx]

The Bible would be only so many words, much like other literature, except that God grants one faith to accept the teachings therein as true. It is God's grace that grants the ability to believe (have faith) the gospel of Christ and know that it is not this life that is one's ultimate purpose, but that one will see that faith justified by God himself when this life is over. The Bible is not the cause for faith, it is God who gives faith to accept the message that the Bible carries.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

The Bible would be only so many words, much like other literature, except that God grants one faith to accept the teachings therein as true. It is God's grace that grants the ability to believe (have faith) the gospel of Christ and know that it is not this life that is one's ultimate purpose, but that one will see that faith justified by God himself when this life is over. The Bible is not the cause for faith, it is God who gives faith to accept the message that the Bible carries.

Even if there was a god to give you faith it would still be based on a cause. Even god would tell you of something to happen that is based on something. Lets say god talked to you and said this and this will happen to you and the world in the future and have faith and hope that this will happen. Lets say he never used a bible or anyone else to tell you, there still would be a cause, the fact that god himself told you would dismiss the possibility that faith would be involved.

[boftx]

God told Noah that all life on the Earth (on land, anyway) would be destroyed by a great flood except for those creatures and people who accompanied Noah in an ark that Noah was to build. Noah had no reason to believe this other than he had faith in God. Noah certainly had no way of knowing that such would happen, even though God told him it would, other than by way of faith. One can not believe God except that one has faith in God to begin with.

[Guest r3alchild]

Ill add that true faith is something that has to await a cause first to make the effect to happen, such as having faith that you will find a girlfriend and get married even though you have no female friends. But christianity is not without something to base its future promises on.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

God told Noah that all life on the Earth (on land, anyway) would be destroyed by a great flood except for those creatures and people who accompanied Noah in an ark that Noah was to build. Noah had no reason to believe this other than he had faith in God. Noah certainly had no way of knowing that such would happen, even though God told him it would, other than by way of faith. One can not believe God except that one has faith in God to begin with.

Yes he did, he had god, he believed a voice or a feeling or a experience. There for he had a cause to base some future event on. It was not faith without seeing since he saw something to begin with to base what he hope for in the future.

[boftx]

"Faith" has no cause other than God makes it possible.If we grant that things happen as/when God wills then I suppose that the effect of believing God's word and the gospel of Christ can not happen until God grants one faith by his grace. But that is the same as saying 1 + 1 = 2.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

"Faith" has no cause other than God makes it possible.If we grant that things happen as/when God wills then I suppose that the effect of believing God's word and the gospel of Christ can not happen until God grants one faith by his grace. But that is the same as saying 1 + 1 = 2.

And therefore if it has a cause if it requires something to start it. I would say christians should call faith luck since luck is based on complete unseen events.