Came across a gem of a website, Stand To Reason
To summarize, it is attempting to shift the burden of proof by making non Christians define what god they don’t believe in.
The only useful thing on the page was a definition of what god the author believes in:
For instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being. Furthermore, He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present.
So, yes, indeed, I do not believe in this god, or even think a god like this is possible. Let us break down the properties here:
- Uncreated : so the God of the Bible is uncreated, but how is this even possible? Uncreated, to me, is the same as non existent, it is a useless concept.
- Infinite: Again, infinity is just a concept, like numbers. The concept of infinite is something a thinking mind can create and does not exist in the real universe.
- Eternal: The universe may be eternal (oscillating, or cyclical, or something we can not conceive, but nothing is eternal). The current version of this universe, is not eternal, and has a finite beginning.
- Metaphysically necessary being: This is just another definition of god, so kind of an odd term to use. Circular definition.
- All-powerful: If you are infinite, you will also be all powerful. Infinite is a concept, not a real thing.
- All-knowing: If you are infinite, you will also be all knowing. Infinite is a concept, not a real thing.
- All-good: Natural evil anyone? Holoprosencephaly. Do a google image search on that term and tell me god is all good.
- Everywhere present: Again, if you are infinite, you will be a everywhere. Infinite is a concept, not a real thing.
This definition of god is describing an entirely imaginary concept. If god is all good, whence comes evil? If god is all knowing and ever present, is there no such thing as free will? Infinity is a concept, like numbers. 0, +/- infinity are all just concepts of thinking minds, and I don’t think apologists know this. There is one last point I want to make: How can I have a personal, infinite god in a finite universe?
Apparently, There are 14 evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. An admission of bias here, I am a mythicist, I see no evidence Jesus ever existed, and I believe he is a fictional character, like Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter.
So, here are my comments on the evidences:
- JESUS’ EXISTENCE. That Jesus was a historical individual is granted by virtually all historians and is supported by ancient Christian, Jewish, and pagan sources. Yet modern skeptics often feel that their best strategy for denying the evidence of his resurrection is to deny that he even existed. This statement has two issues, first, it is an argument from authority. The second is there is no contemporary evidence he existed. There are no first hand accounts, he left no writings, not even a description of his appearance. What was written about him was written 40 to 120 years after he was supposed to exist. In addition, what was written has contradictory and nonsensical statements. His genealogies don’t match, there was no census, and Herod was dead before he was supposed to be born. Even how the crucifixion is described is incorrect.
- JESUS’ DEATH. The most popular counter to the Resurrection in non-Christian and heretical beliefs is to deny that Jesus died on the cross (e.g., this is the position of Islam). However, historians regard the death of Jesus by crucifixion as ordered by Pontius Pilate to be as historically certain as any other fact of antiquity. Again, another argument from authority. The Pontius Pilate was a real person, but again, the description of the crucifixion was not accurate, nor are the dates and locations.
- CRUCIFIED MESSIAH. Crucifixion was a horrible, shameful way to die, so much so that it would never have occurred to anyone in the first century to invent a story about a crucified man as the divine Savior and King of the world. Something extreme and dramatic must have happened to lead people to accept such an idea—something like his rising from the dead. If you want a martyr, is there a better way to die than a horrible death? This statement makes no sense.
- JOSEPH’S TOMB. All four Gospels agree that Jesus’ body had been buried in the rock tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish high council (the Sanhedrin). This is an unlikely Christian fiction, because Christians blamed the Sanhedrin for their role in having Jesus executed. All of the gospels were written decades or over a century after the event. Someone who was crucified would’ve taken days to die, and not given a proper burial.
- WOMEN WITNESSES. The four Gospels all agree that the first persons to find the tomb empty were Jewish women, including Mary Magdalene. It is very unlikely that anyone would make up such a story, since women’s testimony was devalued compared to men’s and since Mary Magdalene was known as a formerly demon-possessed woman. If the empty tomb story were fiction, one would expect that Joseph of Arimathea, already identified as the tomb’s owner and a respected male leader, would be credited with the discovery. I have no idea why women witnesses is a big deal. Again, the accounts are written decades later AND have contradictions.
- ANCIENT THEORIES. The earliest non-Christian explanations for the origin of the Resurrection belief (mentioned in John and Matthew) were that the body had been taken from the tomb—either moved to another burial place or stolen to fake the Resurrection. These explanations conceded three key facts: Jesus died; his body was buried in Joseph’s tomb; the tomb was later found to be empty. Yet again, written decades after, and only in 2 of the 4 gospels.
- TOMB WAS GUARDED. Critics routinely dismiss Matthew’s story about the guards being bribed to say that they fell asleep, giving the disciples opportunity to steal the body (Matt. 28:11-15). But Matthew would have no reason to make up the story about the guards being bribed except to counter the story of the guards saying they fell asleep (see v. 15). Either way, the guards were there: the body had been in the tomb, the tomb had been guarded, and the body was no longer there. Why in the world would you guard a tomb of a disgraced Jew? Do you honestly believe the local Jews could convince a Roman governor to post guards on a tomb? Someone who was crucified was left on the cross until they died from exposure, then fed to dogs and birds. They would not have the honor of being buried in a tomb AND have Roman guards.
- PAUL AND LUKE’S INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS. Paul’s list of resurrection witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 coincides with Luke’s account at several points, but in wording and in what is included Luke’s account is clearly independent of Paul. For example, Paul calls Peter by his Aramaic nickname “Cephas,” not Simon or Peter; he refers to “the twelve,” Luke to “the eleven”; Luke does not mention the appearances to James or the five hundred. Thus Paul and Luke give us independent accounts of the appearances they both mention. Who are these 500? Are they named? Were they Jews, Romans, Gentiles? Nameless witnesses are useless.
- CLOPAS AND THAT OTHER GUY. Luke gives the name of one of the two men on the road to Emmaus who saw Jesus (Clopas) but not the name of the other man. If he was making up names he would presumably have given both of the men names. The fact that he identifies only one of the two men by name is best explained if that man, Clopas, was the source of Luke’s account. In short, this fact is evidence that the account came from an eyewitness. How, how is this evidence? He forgot to make up a name, and that omission is proof? Really?
- BROTHER JAMES. Although Luke does not mention the resurrection appearance to James (the Lord’s brother) mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, Luke does report that James had become a leading member of the apostolic group (see especially Acts 15:13-21). Since Jesus’ brothers had rejected Jesus during his lifetime (John 7:5), Paul’s reference to Christ appearing to James is probably based on fact. Not sure how this contradiction is evidence, do you? Acts was written about 90 C.E. 60ish years after the fact.
- JOHN’S EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT. The author of the Gospel of John emphatically states that he was an eyewitness of the death of Jesus, of the empty tomb, and of resurrection appearances of Jesus (John 19:32-35; 20:2-9; 21:7, 20-25). Either he sincerely had these experiences or he was lying; appeals to legend or myth are out of the question here. John was written 90 to 100 C.E. with the first complete manuscript somewhere in the mid 200s. It would be physically impossible for this to be a first hand account. He was lying or it is a myth.
- ANCIENT SKEPTICISM. Luke reports the skepticism of the men disciples the morning the tomb was found empty (Luke 24:22-24), and John reports Thomas’s skepticism about Jesus’ resurrection (John 20:24-26). These accounts (see also Acts 17:32; 1 Cor. 15:12) demonstrate that the perception of ancient people as gullible hayseeds who would believe any miracle story is a modern prejudicial stereotype. No real claim here, does not prove a point that I can make out. I don’t think ancient people were any more gullible than now.
- PAUL’S CONVERSION. Paul was a notorious persecutor of the early Christians prior to his becoming an apostle. His explanation, that Christ appeared to him and called him to faith and the apostolic ministry, is the only plausible explanation for his 180-degree change. Moreover, Paul’s experience was entirely independent of the experience of the other apostles. The only evidence that Paul persecuted early Christians is…from Paul. Since Paul actually founded Christianity (not a well publicized fact) it would be impossible for him to persecute a religion that he created before he created it. You can have Christianity without Christ ever existing, but if Paul didn’t exist, there would be no Christianity. Paul never claimed to see a physical Jesus. Paul believed he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, but this does not make Jesus real.
- PAUL’S GENTILE MISSION. Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus did not result merely in him accepting Jesus as the Jews’ Messiah. Instead, he saw himself, a trained and zealous Pharisee, as commissioned by Jesus to take the good news of the Messiah to uncircumcised Gentiles. The fact that Paul embraced such a calling against his former passionate beliefs and training makes any appeal to hallucination or delusion implausible. Why not? It could be he was hallucinating. Happens all the time. It is easier to believe Jesus was a figment of Paul’s imagination than someone coming back from the dead.
I wanted to jot down all the Christian apologetics out there. Let’s see how fast I can refute each one. This list is taken from Wikipedia.
- Cosmological argument – Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from cosmology and the nature of causation are often offered to support the cosmological argument. This is more or less the first mover argument. It has many flaws, most keen is the fact is the even if there is a first mover, there is no link between that first mover and whatever god you believe in.
- Teleological argument – Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe use this argument as well as others. I do not accept the world looks designed. Evolution by natural selection may make it appear there is design, but even Darwin debunked this one.
- Ontological argument – Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God. This is thinking god(s) into existence. Even when it was formulated over 750 years ago, contemporaries pointed out you can substitute any other word for god and the argument still works.
- Moral Argument – Argues that there are objectively valid moral values, and therefore, there must be an absolute from which they are derived. There are no morals outside of thinking brains and brains are subjective. There are no moral absolutes.
- Transcendental Argument – Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God. Silly argument, machines and animals can think, do they require a god? There is no transcendent reality, it is a fiction.
- Presuppositional Arguments – Argues that the basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition. This one is just stupid, God exists because we need god to exist to have reason and we need reason to reason god. It is a stupid, circular argument.
- Alvin Plantinga’s argument that belief in God is properly basic, reformed epistemology. Which is basically Presuppositional arguments restated.
- Pascal’s wager, is an argument that posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists. Somehow we can trick god into believing we believe? Seems a better argument against god than for.
Moral apologetics states that real moral obligation is a fact. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said, “We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.” There are no moral absolutes and empathy is enough for me.
Many Christians contend that science and the Bible do not contradict each other and that scientific fact supports Christian apologetics. Bwahahaha. The earth was not created before the sun. Your argument has no value. People do not come back from the dead. Your argument has no value.
The Creation Museum is a museum run by Answers in Genesis, a young Earth creationism apologetics organization
Creation apologetics include young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, and theistic evolution. Young Earth creationists believe the Bible teaches that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and reject the scientific consensus for the age of the Earth.
Experiential apologetics is a reference to an appeal “primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith.” Also, “they spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience.” This view stresses experience that other apologists have not made as explicit, and in the end, the concept that the Holy Spirit convinces the heart of truth becomes the central theme of the apologetic argument.