A Challenge For You Atheist Apologetics

[ecco]

Butero:

In reality, both Christians and athiests are people of faith. The difference is in where our faith lies. The Christian puts his faith in the God of the Bible, and the athiest puts his faith in scientists that continually have to revise their opinions as they learn more facts. As for me, I will continue to put my faith in the Bible.

When you get the flu will you put your faith in the bible or the medicines that scientists have developed? When you need that major operation, will you put your faith in the bible or in the surgeons (scientists)? When you fly in an airplane do you put your faith in the bible or the scientists who built it and fly it? I would guess that you believe in a lot of science, just not science when it contradicts your bible. Well, maybe some science that contradicts your bible. I assume you do not believe the earth is the center of the universe.

Butero:

Another thing I also find interesting about the athiests that post here is their faith in historians. If an athiest wants proof the Bible is correct, where is their proof that the things the historians write about the early church is correct? How do they know for instance the history of the manuscripts used by the early church? How do they know the history of how the cannon evolved? How do they know there was disagreement in the early church about what books should be included in the cannon? To come to such conclusions, they put their faith in historians that they cannot prove are telling the truth.

I for one do not believe all

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

The answer, of course, is a resounding "No". There were many competing canons in the 2nd century, all copmpeting - with each group insisting that the books which matched its theology were the true inspired ones...

This just isn't accurate. There was largely no competition by the second century. The battle was between the gnostics and the church proper. You could tell which books were of gnostic attitude. They were very conservative and fussy about what books they let in. There was no offical stucture of authority in the church at this time. The church was underground and atrocities were being inflicted on the infant church. There is no way the books could have been imposed on the church. The only books left out were included by the end of the second century I believe, though I could be wrong. I need to check.

However, the one we use today was not established until "The Holy Church of Rome" became "The Roman Catholic Church".

This is just not consistent with church history. The Papacy wasn't even established until well after the reign of Constantine. Before that there was only a person referenced as the Bishop of Rome (as it is today, but today he is seen as the Vicar of Christ). In the fourth century Constantine was seen as God's appointed leader of the Roman empire. The bishops from all the various major churchs were the authorities of the church as a whole. It wasn't until the split between the East and West Roman Empire that there was a divide in Christianity. The split came ultimately in that the east began to see the emperor as God's sanctified leader of the church and government. The west chose a path of independence from the government. The Bishop of Rome began to be seen as the central posistion of power. The Bishop of Rome achieved dominance we he went ask for peace with Attila the Hun. Attila agreed and there was peace for a time. When Attila broke that peace he died mysteriously. This was seen as a sign from God that the Bishop of Rome was God's favored leader. The Catholic church became dominant church.

If you are right about the meaning of the verse (and we have already established in this thread that this is unlikely to be the case), this would mean that only works written before 2 Timothy are inspired. When 2 Timothy was written, there was no established New Testament canon. That would make 2 Timothy only be referring to the Old Testament canon.

Point one: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in

righteousness: This is the exact quote from 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

Point two: Peter calls Pauls writing scripture: 2 Peter 3:15-3:16 3:15 And account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto

him hath written unto you;

3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which

are some things hard to be understood, which they that are

unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,

unto their own destruction.

Eusebius freely admitted that lying and inventing evidence was acceptable as a means of converting people - so forgive me for not taking his "affirmation" as proof of anything.

I was wrong about this. Eusebius was a church father from the fourth century.

The church father we're looking for is Papias there is also another from the same years: Irenaeus. These both discuss the authorship of the Gospels.

Most scholars that I know of place Mark at 60-85, Matthew at 80-100, Luke at 80-130 and John at 90-120. You seem to have got your information from apologists rather than scholars.

The scholars you are reading are wrong then. Craig Blomberg, one of the worlds foremost experts on these subjects, states that the dates I have are correct. Except my answer for John which should be 90ad to 100ad. Blomberg Points out that the dates I supplied are even accepted in very liberal circles.

Hint: A scholar is someone who says "Here is the evidence. What conclusions can I draw from it." An apologist is someone who says "Here is my conclusion. What evidence can I find to support it."

This is simply rehtorical silliness. This would exclude every phd. canidate from defending their doctoral thesis. Also, almost anyone in any field has to create an apologetic if their posistion is rebutted.

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

When you get the flu will you put your faith in the bible or the medicines that scientists have developed?  When you need that major operation, will you put your faith in the bible or in the surgeons (scientists)?

My faith grows when I see that a simple agricultural people read their scriptures and were instructed to quarantine their sick and avoid physical contact, and to get rid of items the person came into contact with. This shows a remarkable understanding of the nature of germs but they knew nothing about them.

When you fly in an airplane do you put your faith in the bible or the scientists who built it and fly it?

First, bicycle makers made the first powered flying machine. Second, I am thankful that as a direct product of Christianity the notion arose that If there is a rational and wise Creator then it follows that there must be reason and order to the created things.

I would guess that you believe in a lot of science,

I don't believe in science because science is simply a description of observed things and bodies of knowledge from study, speculation, conjecture, logic: all of these can be found being called science; some good some bad.

just not science when it contradicts your bible.  Well, maybe some science that contradicts your bible.  I assume you do not believe the earth is the center of the universe.

Actually the Bible doesn't teach anything of the sort. The authors of the Bible are writing from a perspective. We do that to this day. If you watch the news in the evening you will notice that they might report on the time of "sunrise" and "sunset".

Butero:

Another thing I also find interesting about the athiests that post here is their faith in historians. If an athiest wants proof the Bible is correct, where is their proof that the things the historians write about the early church is correct? How do they know for instance the history of the manuscripts used by the early church? How do they know the history of how the cannon evolved? How do they know there was disagreement in the early church about what books should be included in the cannon? To come to such conclusions, they put their faith in historians that they cannot prove are telling the truth.

The problems you're running into here Butero, have more to do with which historians work you are dealing with. Some do very sloppy work. Some are minimalists. They simply assume the Bible is wrong and then go from there. There are many historians who do a great job.

If the Marcionite church had won out over the catholic church, there would be four books in the New Testament and there would not be an Old Testament.

There wasn't a catholic church at the time. The church father Tertullian is one of the people who dealt with this heresy. No one in the church had the ability to stamp out any competition in the church as a whole. Christianity was still underground and Christians were still being slaughtered.

That being said, most of the written history of Christianity was written by Christians.

Yeah and most evolutionary biology books are written by evolutionists.

What kind of sense does it make to take the word of historians, and they readilly do without demanding proof what they said is factual, and yet they criticize us for believing the authors of the Bible? 

Again, consider the historian Butero.

The authors of the NT came up with four different versions of the crucifixion and the resurrection.

You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of historical research here. If all the Gospels matched in all details we would know that all of them were simply copied off of an original and then had different names on them. This isn't what happened. Most of the differences you see are clearly a matter of perspective and style of description. There are no contradictions on the central points of the Gospel and its intent.

[TempestTossed]

Off the top of my head I can think of several beliefs on the origin of the universe/life.  So why is abiogenesis and subsequent evolution the right choice?

My challenge to you in atheists here in the Apologetics Forum is to prove why these other beliefs are incorrect. Now I bet you're thinking that

[ted]

I choose a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life not because I can prove it, but because it makes sense. There is no way to prove that life came about through nature alone, and there is no way to prove anything in the natural sciences, for that matter. It just makes a whole lot more sense, at least to me, that life didn't come about through anything supernatural. When I use the word, "supernatural," it means the same to me as "magical." It is essentially no different from "imaginary," in my perspective. If we can explain things purely through nature, then I see no need to explain it with magic. Prove to me that there really are stars that are hot balls of gas in outer space. You can't. The whole night sky could be just a giant light show from God.

If we can explain things purely through nature, then I see no need to explain it with magic.

There is no way to prove that life came about through nature alone, and there is no way to prove anything in the natural sciences, for that matter.

Just what is it you are saying here?

t.

[TempestTossed]

Just what is it you are saying here?

t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What would you like me to clarify? If you are confused by the admission that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life can't be proved, I should clarify that a position is not weakened much by the reality that one can't "prove" it. Nothing that depends on observation is able to be proved.

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

I choose a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life not because I can prove it, but because it makes sense. There is no way to prove that life came about through nature alone, and there is no way to prove anything in the natural sciences, for that matter.  It just makes a whole lot more sense, at least to me, that life didn't come about through anything supernatural.  When I use the word, "supernatural," it means the same to me as "magical."  It is essentially no different from "imaginary," in my perspective.  If we can explain things purely through nature, then I see no need to explain it with magic.

Yes, but what makes sense. You've explained nothing about your view. You seem to just deem naturalism to be true therefore it makes more sense. If I've got it right then your view is no more valid than a flat earth persons conspiratorial ideas. It's purely opinion.

Prove to me that there really are stars that are hot balls of gas in outer space.  You can't.  The whole night sky could be just a giant light show from God.

Ironically the Bible is one of the ancient documents that actually doesn't see the stars, moon, and sun as gods. They are identified as real objects in the heavens made and placed there by God. To answer your question, you can indentify light signatures of the various elements by burning them and splitting up the light through a prism. Each element has its own unique signature of lighted colors. You can collect light from a star through the telescope you can split up that light with a prism too. You then look for the unique color signature of the various elements you discovered when you burned them and used the prism on that light. BTW, stars are mainly composed of hydrogen and helium.

Edited September 25, 2005 by OckhamsRazor

[ruah brit]

Off the top of my head I can think of several beliefs on the origin of the universe/life.  So why is abiogenesis and subsequent evolution the right choice?

My challenge to you in atheists here in the Apologetics Forum is to prove why these other beliefs are incorrect. Now I bet you're thinking that’s going to be easy, and I can see you're probably dying to list off your favourite researchers, "evidence" & scientific papers as to why abiogenesis and subsequent evolution is right.

Well I would like it if you bore in mind the other beliefs have their "proofs" too ( that's subjective ); several of them admit they are only theory yet "until a better theory arises, we'll stick with abiogenesis and subsequest evolution" . In the interests of fairness, I won't accept any of them as factual, and would like it if actual proof could be offered as to why they are wrong.

That’s right, I would like it if you could prove the other beliefs on the origin of life wrong, without using peer review papers, text books or someone else's work, but by using logic and reasoning and pure fact alone- facts that you and you alone gathered without the help of anyone else.

Can you do it ?  I submit that my request to you [ atheists ] is just as ridiculous and yours was to ask we defend our beliefs without using the Bible.

Anyone care to have a go ?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are these titles themselves someone else’s Ideas and work? If they are, what is the point? The power of the Spirit of God is the best proof of the origin of everything. Unfortunately for the first captain and fifty it was to late by the time they found out for sure. I wonder why the second captain and fifty even went.

Denise

[TempestTossed]

Yes, but what makes sense. You've explained nothing about your view. You seem to just deem naturalism to be true therefore it makes more sense. If I've got it right then your view is no more valid than a flat earth persons conspiratorial ideas. It's purely opinion.

I figure it is the reverse of what you said: naturalism makes the most sense, therefore I deem it most likely to be true. My view says that life began as a simple self-replicating molecule, the replications modified with subsequent generations, the ones superior to survival were the ones to produce the next generation, they kept modifying and became more complex as survival necessitated, and living organisms of today came to be purely through natural processes. It is very easy to imagine and it makes incredible sense just from what we know in the world that we can readily observe. Many believe that God had some hand in the evolutionary process, but I see no necessity to answer any question with magic, because it is all readily explained through nature.

Prove to me that there really are stars that are hot balls of gas in outer space.  You can't.  The whole night sky could be just a giant light show from God.

Ironically the Bible is one of the ancient documents that actually doesn't see the stars, moon, and sun as gods. They are identified as real objects in the heavens made and placed there by God. To answer your question, you can indentify light signatures of the various elements by burning them and splitting up the light through a prism. Each element has its own unique signature of lighted colors. You can collect light from a star through the telescope you can split up that light with a prism too. You then look for the unique color signature of the various elements you discovered when you burned them and used the prism on that light. BTW, stars are mainly composed of hydrogen and helium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even that doesn't prove that there really are stars that are hot balls of gas. All those variations in the light, that only SEEM to match with what we would expect from distant stars, could be artificially God-made. Many young-universe creationists hypothesize just that, since the universe is only 10,000 years old at most and most stars are more than 10,000 light years away. Of course, there is no way to prove otherwise. God could have made the universe just last minute, and all the evidence and all your memories could be artificial.

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

I figure it is the reverse of what you said: naturalism makes the most sense, therefore I deem it most likely to be true.

Your simply repeating the same thing in a different order but it all means the same thing. "I say it makes more sense and because I say so therefore it is".

My view says that life began as a simple self-replicating molecule

What molecules? What were they? Make a ball park guess. You can't just say the above and call it science that's junk science and nothing more. What was the atmosphere like. Was the atmosphere friendly toward life?

the replications modified with subsequent generations, the ones superior to survival were the ones to produce the next generation, they kept modifying and became more complex as survival necessitated, and living organisms of today came to be purely through natural processes.

How did they replicate? How did you get a molecule with out reproductive abilities pass along genetic information nessecary to gain modification and compile it over time? Are you aware of just how extremely difficult it is just to put together one protein and that by natural processes with out the dna/rna process. It's nearly impossible. Even if you could you've got to create quite a few others in order to even get started. One protein you need, the simplest one, involves 100 amino acids working together. They also all have to be the kind you need for life. You've got reproduce that over and over and over again. With out dna/rna to make the copies.

It is very easy to imagine and it makes incredible sense

Only if you are totally unaware of what's actually involved.

just from what we know in the world that we can readily observe.

Get ahold of all the major universities. They are dying to hear from you! There is NOTHING that we observe that gives us any real clue as to what pathway that might have happened to generate life.

Many believe that God had some hand in the evolutionary process, but I see no necessity to answer any question with magic, because it is all readily explained through nature.

You really need to do some more research on origins of life. The stuff your saying is totally wrong. I can tell that you don't have any valid information about this subject.

Even that doesn't prove that there really are stars that are hot balls of gas.  All those variations in the light, that only SEEM to match with what we would expect from distant stars,

That would be news to most of the worlds astronomers. They are quite confident and for good reason.

could be artificially God-made.  Many young-universe creationists hypothesize just that, since the universe is only 10,000 years old at most and most stars are more than 10,000 light years away.  Of course, there is no way to prove otherwise.  God could have made the universe just last minute, and all the evidence and all your memories could be artificial.

Now you're demonstrating that you have no accurate information about creationist either. I don't know who you've been talking to but they aren't in the main stream. The star light/ time problem has been a major project in young earth creationism. Besides, this discussion has NOTHING to do with creationism. I'm sharing mathematics problems of probability, atmospheric problems, amino acid production of the right sort. Making even one protein. I would also reference modern cosmology and the current ideas about the origins of the Universe.

Edited September 26, 2005 by OckhamsRazor