A Challenge For You Atheist Apologetics

[Inti]

Fact...science....math.......all here say....

Here's a problem to solve guys.

If 1*1=1 and 1*(-1)=-1 and (-1)*(-1)=1 then what does 1 * the square root of -1 = ?????  what times itself equals -1 ??????

These are known as imagnary numbers....because it's impossible to represent the answer to this problem numerically.  Yet we know the value is exists, because in simple analytical geometry x,y,z graphed equations containing a variable that involves the square root of a negative number in its value, we see the wave pattern generated by the equation equally displaced each time the imaginary numbers come up in the equation.

Tell me the exact value of the square root of negative one and I might consider science, math and the "laws" of this physical universe as anything other than childs play in the hands of God.

holes...big gaping holes.

Well done for basing your entire argument on imaginary numbers. The square root of -1 is i. I will tell you that, and every other mathematican above A-level standard will tell you that. They will do this as they all use the same method to work out imaginary numbers.

The square root of X would be 2 identical values when multipled together. So its either Y * Y or -Y * -Y. Not Y * - Y. Seeing as both of those combinations give positive results, its not possible to work out the squares using the normal method. Hence imaginary numbers.

If you want to take imginary numbers of definitive proof of the existance as god, fine. I don't.

[Bread_of_Life]

vrspock

The square root of -1 (i) is an "imaginary number". It's called "imaginary" because it doesn't really exist - it isn't a quantifiable or describable quantity - it represents a notional second axis on the number line that doesn't actually represent anything in reality.

It comes in useful though, for example, in optics this notional second axis can be used to quantify the phase shift of a photon. "i" can also be used in equations where sine and cosine are difficult to use - although even here, this is just for purposes of manipulating equations, you can't actually numerically work out an equation's value if there's an "i" in there.

But it doesn't exist, not at least in real life - it doesn't describe anything in the universe. You can't have "i" apples but you can have 1 apple, and you can even have -1 apples, if you consider losses as "real" descriptions of things.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't a reason to dismiss maths (yes, it's plural, mathematics), science, and the laws of the physical universe.

[sinnersavedbygrace]

"Why should my polite declining of a deliberately unfair challenge be considered to be "getting upset and leaving"?"

This is how I saw the situation. I apologize for speaking on your behalf. Will you accept my apology?

"The "entire Christian faith" will not crumble if 1% of the Bible is proven to be incorrect. Most Christians I know will readily agree that large portions of the Bible cannot be taken as literal truth."

Let me add something then. The entire true Christian faith will crumble. Those who claim to be "christians" and yet deny absolute truth, more specifically deny the infallible and absolute truth of God's Word (The Bible) are walking on egg-shells and I have serious doubts about their faith. The Bible claims to be the TRUE Word of God. I can't think off-hand the passages I'm looking for except:

2 Timothy 3:16 "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

This verse says ALL scripture including this verse itself is given by inspiration of GOD.

If GOD inspired ALL the Bible, then for a "Christian" to say that the Bible contains flaws, would be calling God flawed. To say the Bible is not 100% true is to say God is not 100% true for HE is the one who inspired the whole writing of the Bible. If God then did reveal Himself to man via Scripture, why oh why would He allow any falsehood in it? It just doesn't make any sense, and there are other passages in the Bible that testify to the truth of God. My memory fails me at the moment, but for some "christian" to say the Bible is not 100% true when the Bible says it is true and that it was given by inspiration of God Himself is for that "christian" to assert that he/she knows more then God and is calling God a liar, and incapable of revealing Himself to us in Scripture with perfection. Of course my opinion on this is strong, and I believe my opinion is based upon the obvious message of the Bible. (of course I would like for the Bible to be loosely interpreted to fit my own agenda's which I fear many people do but my conscience does not allow me the liberty of liberally reading God's Word)

"Surprisingly enough, many people (like myself) have gone the other way - studying the bible as Christians, and finding it harder and harder to believe that it is true the more we actually study it (rather than just accepting what apologists tell us) until they give up Christianity and become atheists."

I am sad to hear that you gave up Christianity to become an atheist. Though the Bible does talking about a falling away of believers, turning their back on God etc.

"Strange, then, that I can think of at least a dozen errors off the top of my head..."

Please do share them. Like Ted, I would like to stop looking so stupid for believing in the supernatural being that is GOD who revealed Himself to mankind via the Bible, if indeed the Bible is not the inerrant Word of GOD but rather a fancy fairytale thought up by the imaginations of men.

"1) What will be considered the standard of proof? Are we looking at a legal-type "beyond reasonable doubt" proof, or a logical proof?"

Either or...have your pick.

"2) Since I am in the minority here, once we start doing this every post I make will be swamped by responses and I will not be able to keep up."

I myself have a very busy schedule and may not be able to reply for days perhaps a week or more at a time. If you would like to continue this elsewhere, please provide the place. (this is the only place I know of)

"So what would you consider an acceptable value of X? From your post, it would seem that anything other than 0 would prove you wrong."

Yes, anything other than 0.

[sinnersavedbygrace]

I noticed the posts previous to mine were talking about mathematics, specifically imaginary numbers. You all have fun with that, math isn't my thing,but I would like to share something I found to be interesting. (I forgot who shared this with me)

111,111,111x111,111,111= 12,345,678,987,654,321 pretty cool huh? haha YAY for numbers!!

p.s. the only pie I like is one you can eat.

[ted]

I thought your post was a very enlightened one Ted, well thought out, with a very practical approach. I think all the people who are posting in this apologetics forum seem to have very intimate knowledge of the subjects that they are preaching about, whether science or the J man himself.

I'm kinda new to this stuff myself, more of a curious soul, but why is it that science can't just be figuring out the way in which God made things work? I mean he spoke things into existence, but they had to happen some and work somehow. Like if I make a lever and someone figures out that when I put force one side i can push greater weight up on the other side, that doesn't really mean that I didn't create it right? Maybe I am totally off track by why can't science just be the figuring out of God's work just like me watching the way someone runs and realizing God invented it to allow people to move from place to place?

Anyways, I could be completely wrong about this, but hey, we are all in search of the truth right? Once again I enjoy all the talents that each of you are putting forth whether in the service of the Lord or not, it is a still a beautiful thing to watch.

God Bless,

JD

Welcome to Worthy!

I pray your time will be blessed.

You raise a point that I happen to agree with and state as much many times.

To me, science does an excellent job of explaining just how God made things work. Each and every word used to describe what is found is a man-made word, used to help us understand what is going on. Science, in general, is there so that we can feel comfortable about our surroundings, for humans love to catagorize and place things in their proper order. Not a problem for me at all. We feel a bit more at ease if we can label something.

I have no problem with science in general, because it is my understanding (or idea, theory, assumption, belief, whatever..) that science is our way of simply understanding and labeling what we find.

The only real discussion is that I happen to think that God created what we find, and others don't.

t.

[Token Atheist]

This is how I saw the situation. I apologize for speaking on your behalf. Will you accept my apology?

No problem.

"The "entire Christian faith" will not crumble if 1% of the Bible is proven to be incorrect. Most Christians I know will readily agree that large portions of the Bible cannot be taken as literal truth."

Let me add something then. The entire true Christian faith will crumble. Those who claim to be "christians" and yet deny absolute truth, more specifically deny the infallible and absolute truth of God's Word (The Bible) are walking on egg-shells and I have serious doubts about their faith.

Strangely enough, they also have doubts about your faith. To quote one of them...

"I have strong enough faith that I can accept that the Bible is man's best guess - inspired by God but filtered through man's fallibility - without damaging it. I feel sorry for those who who's faith is so fragile, and who's need for a comforting "absolute truth" is so bad, that admitting the fallibility of the Bible's text would bring bring their faith to ruin."

The Bible claims to be the TRUE Word of God. I can't think off-hand the passages I'm looking for except:

2 Timothy 3:16 "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

This verse says ALL scripture including this verse itself is given by inspiration of GOD.

I have three things to say about this. Firstly, the verse as you write it there is badly translated from the original Greek.

The Greek for this verse is:

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωΦελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη

This is transliterated word-for-word into English as...

All writing God-blown and useful for tutelage...

However, such a simple word-for-word transliteration does not take into account the differences between English grammar and Greek grammar.

The Greek text could be translated into English in two ways, each of which is an equally valid rendering of the original.

All writing is inspired and is useful for teaching...

or

All writing that is inspired is useful for teaching...

As it happens, a quick survey of English Bible translations shows that both these alternatives are used about equally.

However, they have very different meanings. The first explicitly saying that all writings are inspired and therefore useful (although this leaves us with the question of which writings - All writings? The Old Testament writings? The Old Testament writings and all the New Testament writings up until this point? The Old Testament writings and all the New Testament writings and any new writings that will be declared canonical by the Catholic Church but excluding any writings that the Church deems to be non-canonical? All of a particular but unspecified set of writings?)

The second is saying that only writings that are inspired are useful for teaching - or vice versa, that if a writing is useful for teaching then it can be considered inspired.

So which of the two alternatives was the intention of the author? We must look at the context.

The context (as given in the preceding verses) shows that the passage that this is taken from is warning us about dangers of false teachings.

As such, which is more likely - as a paraphrase of the passage.

"You should beware of false teachings. All writings are inspired and useful."

or

"You should beware of false teachings. Only writings that are inspired are useful."

I think we would all agree that when taken in context, the second translation is far more likely to be the author's intended meaning than the first.

So, given that it appears that the second meaning is the intended one, the translation you use is wrong and misleading - especially since not only does it use the first meaning, it also translates "writings" to "Scripture" - adding an implication that the verse is specifically talking about the collection of writings that makes up the Bible. This is an implication that is not present in the original text - indeed, when the text was written there was no such canonical collection.

Secondly, even if your translation were the correct one, this would not mean that the Bible must be true and without error. It says that it is inspired by God, not that it is the direct and infallible word of God. As my Christian friend has pointed out, if God inspires fallible humans, one would expect their fallibility to be reflected in the result.

Thirdly, your logic is circular. Even if we grant both your translation of the verse and your interpretation of that translation to both be correct, it proves nothing.

If the Bible is without error, then we can trust a Bible verse that says it is without error.

If the Bible is not without error, then the verse could be wrong, so we can't trust what it says to be true.

Your argument leaves us no way to distinguish between these possibilities, therefore it does not work as a proof that the Bible is without error.

If GOD inspired ALL the Bible, then for a "Christian" to say that the Bible contains flaws, would be calling God flawed. To say the Bible is not 100% true is to say God is not 100% true for HE is the one who inspired the whole writing of the Bible. If God then did reveal Himself to man via Scripture, why oh why would He allow any falsehood in it?

It makes as much sense as for him to leave it so ambiguous that the various denominations of Christianity (not to mention other religions based on the same text, such as Islam) can all come to different conclusions. If God cared enough about a 100% true message to not allow the fallible human hands writing the Bible to make errors, why would he be happy to let the fallible human hands that translate it and interpret it make errors?

Either we should expect a fallible and ambiguous (but potentially inspired) Bible and lots of denominations, or an infallible and unabmiguous Bible and only a single denomination.

Since we see various interpretations of the Bible (demonstrating its ambiguity) and we see lots of denominations and religions based on it, then it would appear that we have the first of those situations.

"So what would you consider an acceptable value of X? From your post, it would seem that anything other than 0 would prove you wrong."

Yes, anything other than 0.

Okay. I'll start a new thread; but not this weekend - I have the wife's in-laws (i.e. my parents) visiting...

[mrs]

The passage you quote was (supposedly) written before the bible was assembled. It makes no sense to say that it was talking about something which didn't exist.

If a Rose inspires me to write a poem about it is it then true that the Rose told me what to write?

My faith in God does not faulter just because I understand that the story of Adam and Eve is allegory. If you were a TRUE Christian then you would rely on your relationship with God for your faith rather than relying on the bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually your faith will falter, badly.The reason is if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve there is no way for you to prove where sin came from.The definition of sin then becomes whatever you make it out to be.This then leads to moral instability, because you don't have absolute truth to base your beliefs or standards on.Without a solid foundation of God's truth, any structure of belief will eventually crumble.

Here is an article that may prove interesting:A literal Adam?

[Bread_of_Life]

"I have strong enough faith that I can accept that the Bible is man's best guess - inspired by God but filtered through man's fallibility - without damaging it. I feel sorry for those who who's faith is so fragile, and who's need for a comforting "absolute truth" is so bad, that admitting the fallibility of the Bible's text would bring bring their faith to ruin."

I totally agree, I really do doubt the strength of the childish faith that is biblical literalism. It's just escapism from the real world of doubts and uncertainties if you ask me. Whoever said the above was totally right.

[mrs]

"I have strong enough faith that I can accept that the Bible is man's best guess - inspired by God but filtered through man's fallibility - without damaging it. I feel sorry for those who who's faith is so fragile, and who's need for a comforting "absolute truth" is so bad, that admitting the fallibility of the Bible's text would bring bring their faith to ruin."

If we can't believe the Bible in one area how can we believe it in another?How can we trust it to be accurate in its revelation of God?If you can't trust the truth of the Bible then how do you really know that the faith you have is the right one?

[sinnersavedbygrace]

"I have strong enough faith that I can accept that the Bible is man's best guess - inspired by God but filtered through man's fallibility - without damaging it. I feel sorry for those who who's faith is so fragile, and who's need for a comforting "absolute truth" is so bad, that admitting the fallibility of the Bible's text would bring bring their faith to ruin."

It's not that I need comfort in "absolute truth" as some suppose, but rather pure logic demands an absolute. The Law of Non-Contradiction simply states that A is not non-A. I cannot be typing this sentence and not typing this sentence. The Bible cannot be the inerrant Word of God and not the inerrant Word of God. Now I won't argue that all Bible translations are inerrant, which would be a silly stance to take, seeing how many non-believing companies have given a shabby translation in order to take a piece of the profit that is in selling Bibles. I do however hold that the revelation of God to man via the Scriptures is inerrant, in the original language in which the text was written. Some may argue "well that gets him off the hook, we don't have any of the originals". True but we have copies, and copies of copies. Now some argue that the errors occur in the copies and copies of copies. Granted many of today's English translations contain errors. But in the Hebrew and Greek texts there are none of these supposed "errors". I will use English translations of the Bible to illustrate my point, despite the possibility of certain things being lost in translation due to the limited English idiom we have, the message remains clear.

"Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say" (Ex. 4:11-12)

"Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel" (Ex. 34:27). The word tenor in Hebrew refers to "blowing out of the mouth"; the words that Moses wrote came from the mouth of God. Can the divine authorship of the Bible be any plainer than that?

"The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue" (2 Sam. 23:2). David claims that what he wrote was not his own fancy but were the words of God.

"Then the LORD put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me: 'Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.'" (Jer. 1:9)

In addition to these direct references to the divine authorship of the Bible, Jeremiah made numerous indirect references to God speaking through him. Nearly 100 times he wrote that "the word of the Lord" (or a similar expression) had come to him. These words appear many times in Ezekiel as well. Hosea spoke in a similar manner. The first verse of his book begins, "The word of the LORD that came to Hosea." A similar expression is found in the first verse of the books of Joel, Jonah, Haggai ,Micah,Obadiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah and Malachi.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).

"For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe" (1 Thess. 2:13).

"For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21).

Despite these authors all stating God was the One behind the scriptures. Jesus is quoted as saying:

"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak" (John 12:49-50).

"For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me" (John 17:8).

The Bible makes it clear that it is the Word of God. If the Bible is God's Word as it claims itself to be, then it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is without error. Why? Titus 1:1-2 "1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago" Because God can't lie. And if God who never lies is the source of the Bible, then the Bible is without error, or falsehood, or lies.

Now I can provide much more evidence in support of the Bible being true. If you would like

this info, please ask.

"It makes as much sense as for him to leave it so ambiguous that the various denominations of Christianity (not to mention other religions based on the same text, such as Islam) can all come to different conclusions. If God cared enough about a 100% true message to not allow the fallible human hands writing the Bible to make errors, why would he be happy to let the fallible human hands that translate it and interpret it make errors?"

I was under the impression the the text for Islam was the Quran not the Bible. The 5 pillars of Islam are 1) God is one, Allah. 2) God has sent many prophets, including Abraham, Moses and Jesus; of these, Muhammad is the last and greatest. 3) The gap between God and man is filled with angels, some good, some evil. 4) The Quran is the highest book, above the writings of other prophets. 5) We will all stand before Allah on judgement day, when our eternal destiny will be determined by our deeds.

Some would try to argue that Islam and Christianity are similar. This simply is not true. The God of Islam and the God of Christianity are very different. Yes they are both sovereign, omnipotent Creators and Judges of the world. But the Christian concept of tri-unity is the ultimate blasphemy to Muslims. Also unlike the Christian God, Allah is distant, lacks or hides his love, motivates by fear, and acts arbitrarily if he wants to. And perhaps the largest two differences are who Jesus was and is and salvation by works not grace. Clearly different.

As pertaining to various Christian denominations. Many denominations are due to cultural or applicational differences. They are not divided over the main message of the Bible. And some denominations and even churches within a given denomination have differences because of the personal agenda's they bring to the Bible. It's much easier to find a church in any given denomination that teaches the pastor's/reverend's/Dr.'s/priest's favorite sermons (wealth, success, etc) rather then the Bible in full, cover to cover. And several denominations have plain and simply departed from the obvious message and truth from the word of God. Why would God allow this? Well many people are too prideful. They simply don't want to come to the cross and die, they want to put Jesus in their back pocket and become a millionare! Why would God allow so many different interpretations of His Word? Well because the Holy Spirit is to lead us (believers) into all truth. Many so called "Christians" have never been born again, thus they don't have the Holy Spirit leading them, thus they get very awry interpretations to delight their fancy. God is not going to force Himself or His truth upon a person, but He invites and urges all people to accept Him as King and Savior, but people simply would rather do their own thing.And though He may allow this for a time according to His longsuffering, He will put an end to it.

"The context (as given in the preceding verses) shows that the passage that this is taken from is warning us about dangers of false teachings.

As such, which is more likely - as a paraphrase of the passage.

"You should beware of false teachings. All writings are inspired and useful."

or

"You should beware of false teachings. Only writings that are inspired are useful."

I think we would all agree that when taken in context, the second translation is far more likely to be the author's intended meaning than the first."

Thanks for clearing that up.

I am in the process of looking for a greek-english translation.