An Atheist's Objections to The Bible/Theism

[Guest WWFStern]

An Atheist's Objections To Christianity--Scientific, Historical, Logical and Moral

I. Scientific Objections to Christianity:

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?

2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?

3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language?

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km

[ayin jade]

I. Scientific Objections to Christianity:

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?

2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?

3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language?

Since the Lord is not a mere man, but God, then something like that isnt insurrountable. If He can make a female from a rib, then He can surely take the DNA into account.

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km

[Logician]

An Atheist's Objections To Christianity--Scientific, Historical, Logical and Moral

I. Scientific Objections to Christianity:

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?

2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?

3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language?

Er.... no. This is an omnipotent God we're discussing the existence of here, so 1 and 2 are invalid.

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km

[Leonard]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'valid'. Do you mean such questions are the unanswerable death-knell for any theistic belief system? Do you mean YOU find them unanswerable? Do you mean that it is 'valid' for people to ask these questions?

Certainly people can ask all the questions and should expect some responses. However, since I have a conviction against LOOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG posts, I would ask you to break your questions down into bite-sized chunks, say two or three questions at a time, and I shall most pleased to give you my answers. These questions have all been answered over the years. You surely don't think you are the first person to have presented such questions to the Church do you?

[EricH]

I agree with the above post. I don't understand what you mean by valid. In a real sense no objections are valid. God is above all objections and proffs for His existance. If any one proof was sufficient, it would be above Gof

[Logician]

I agree with the above post. I don't understand what you mean by valid. In a real sense no objections are valid. God is above all objections and proffs for His existance. If any one proof was sufficient, it would be above Gof [sic]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which would make it very valid indeed.

Anyway...

Validity is a very strict and pretty much mathematical concept. If you want to make a valid argument, you give either a tautology (something that is necessarily true, like "an omniscent God knows what will happen in the future, by definition.") or supporting evidence for your premises, and use your premises to show that they logically form the conclusion you are attempting to show as true.

So, something is valid if the premises logically imply the conclusion.

Now, technically, an argument can be valid and still come to an incorrect conclusion. So, for instance I can say, "All dogs have four legs, and Fido is a dog, so Fido has four legs" but it may not be true. I've neglected the fact that a dog may have lost a leg or two in an accident of some sort, so Fido may have 3 or 2 legs.

Anyway, a logical argument, however, must necessarily lead to a true conclusion if its premises are true, and the premises logically imply the conclusion.

In most casual, every day language, people will often include the true premises requirement in with the definition of validity, which is what I've been judging by, as that's what I figured the poster probably meant when he/she posted the question.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Logician

[Leonard]

And where, oh where has our little Stern gone? Was this just a quick 'post and run' because he really didn't answers?

Well, how about you then, Logician? Are you interested in any answers?

Somebody............anybody???

[Guest lily]

Your post reminds me just how wonderful and awesome God really is!! I can't explain any of it, but I don't need too, I know that these things happened because God is awesome!! Thank you for reminding me of all these so called impossible things! I have to say it again, God is Awesome!! Thank you for making my day!

[WayneB]

Lucky for you you weren't born in Iran or you'd be Muslim, or Japan where you'd be Buddhist.

See Fog, it is these kind of statements that undermine your credibility. It is not a true statement by any stretch of the imagination. There are many Christians in Iran, Japan, China, Sudan...wherever. Such a statement as yours is contrary to reality and a contradiction to your claim to being open minded.

[WayneB]

I don't mean to this in any type of contemptuous way but do you believe the story of Jack and the beanstalk to be true? How about Beowolf? I'm just curious how you come to the conclusion that one story is true and another is not.

Please don't be offended, I'm just curious... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just more ignorant commentary closed with "please don't be offended". Your comments were offensive and any more like it will be deleted (when I see them).

A proper approach would have been to write, "You know, I respect your right to believe as you do but for myself, I just do not understand it. What in your experience led you to Christ as your Lord & Savior?" Rather, you take the low insulting road comparing the Gospel to "jack and the Beanstalk"????