Blog

Why Do Fundamentalist Religions Distrust Science?

American Board

Evangelical Christian apologist: Science is littered with unreliable findings.

Do not trust scientists!

This anti-science attitude pervades much of evangelicalism and fundamentalist Protestantism. And this is why every American (Canadian, Briton, etc.) should have access to a free public university education! He/she will learn just how reliable science is, including biology. The evidence for Darwinian evolution is MASSIVE. The fact that it is called a theory does not mean that scientists are still skeptical of its veracity. In reality, the “Law” of Gravity is really still a theory, yet no rational person questions that theory. The overwhelming majority of scientists are just as confident in the veracity of Darwinian evolution as they are of the “Theory” of Gravity. Never in human history has there been a method of evaluating our universe whose accuracy comes anywhere close to that of the Scientific Method. 

Trust the consensus opinion of scientists, folks!

A public university education (contrasted to an education at a private Bible college or religious university) will expose the young person to new cultures, new religions, atheism, agnosticism, multi-culturalism—people outside the social bubble of his parents and church.

A public university education for the entire population will do more to reduce the influence of fundamentalist religion in the West than the efforts of all us online skeptic apologists combined. A public university education free of religious influence is the bright light that lightens the dark corners of superstition and anti-scientism, replacing them with reason and rational thinking.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Mind-Boggling Invention to Rob the Jews of the Abrahamic Covenant

What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? – Rhemacovenant ...

Evangelical Christian: If there is a satisfactory analogy for the Trinity I’m unaware of it. Though surely flawed as well, here’s the best one I’ve heard: A person has one mind. That mind has three essential entities: intellect, will and memory. All three are necessary for the mind to be whole. One must have an intellect to be able to think, a will to want to think, and a memory of what one is thinking. The strength of this analogy is that it deals with abstract examples, as opposed to analogies that employ concrete components that are flawed because they are /too particular/. Abstract analogies like this one are better at describing distinctions that are better at remaining inextricably related to the whole. But again, it’s surely a flawed analogy too.

Fellow skeptic (with a little snark): I like to ask whether it is possible for the three “persons” of the Trinity to have a productive conversation one with another.

Gary: I believe that no analogy is necessary to describe the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply present the Athanasian Creed to a lay Christian and ask him to read it. Before he starts reading, however, remind him that from the beginning of the second century to this very day, the Church consists almost entirely of Gentiles; Gentiles who desperately want to convince Jews that Yahweh has cursed them, removed his covenants with Abraham from them, and given them to the (Gentile) Church. But the early Church bishops had to convince the simpletons in the pew that adding Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the godhead of Yahweh did not constitute turning monotheistic Yahweh worship (Judaism) into polytheism. So they concocted the mind-boggling concept of “a Trinity“. One must turn himself into a pretzel to find a New Testament passage that clearly spells out a concept of three persons, but one God, other than the Johannine Commae, which is a known scribal alteration (fraud!):

Athanasian Creed (see Ecumenical Creeds, C): “… We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.”

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Debating Jeremy, Part 2: What is “Good Evidence” for the Resurrection?

What's good 'evidence-based' practice for classrooms? We asked ...

Jeremy, Reformed Baptist: What is considered good evidence? What is interesting is that a large majority of the western world considered the evidence [for the resurrection of Jesus] good until the mid to late 19th century. Although there is much to discuss in this avenue (works of Locke, Immaneul Kant, Descartes, Diderot, Hume, Gottfried, and many others), your question begs the argument what good evidence is. Certainly we cannot argue that what is in history books by definition is good evidence because that would assume the culture of our time is correct. If that was true and it was before the mid to late 19th Century then the resurrection would have been assumed as true and taught in every history book across every public institution in the land.

Gary: I question that as late as the mid to late 19th century (the 1800’s) that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was considered an historical fact by most historians, included in most public university history text books as an historical fact. I would need to see some evidence to concede this point.

I would be willing to concede that the resurrection of Jesus was probably included in the public university history text books of Christian Europe as an historical fact prior to the Enlightenment, as the Christian Church held full sway over universities and even governments, routinely burning at the stake anyone who dared to challenge Christian orthodoxy.

But I must point out the obvious: Yes, during a very long period of the last two millennia, all of Christian Europe believed the resurrection of their Lord and Savior to be true, but why didn’t the overwhelming majority of Jews?? If Jesus was truly the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, then why did so very few Jews accept him as their Messiah? Some scholars estimate that no more than 1,000 Jews converted to Christianity in the first century after Jesus’ death. That is a pitiful conversion rate! Why was the evidence so good to pagans and Romans but so pitiful to the overwhelming majority of Jews, the very people who would know the ancient Jewish teachings about “messiah” best?

“Certainly we cannot argue that what is in history books by definition is good evidence because that would assume the culture of our time is correct.”

Sadly, this statement reflects the deep suspicion and distrust with which many conservative Christians view experts in the sciences and humanities. The ongoing success of our advanced industrialized nation depends on the lay public trusting and having confidence in the knowledge and expertise of experts. When each individual believes that he or she is the final authority on all matters—“because the experts are biased”—our culture will descend into chaos. Trust the consensus opinion of modern experts, Jeremy! Most of them are not foaming-at-the-mouth God-hating atheists. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are theists, and in this country, the overwhelming majority identify as Christians. The overwhelming majority of historians in the United States and in the West as a whole identify as Christians. There is no bias against the Christian god, Jeremy. That is a conservative Christian conspiracy theory. If there were, the majority of historians would write Jesus of Nazareth off as a fictional character, as the evidence for his existence is slim. But…evidence for his existence does exist, and it is sufficient for most historians to conclude that Jesus was a real historical person. The same cannot be said for his alleged resurrection.

Bottom line: If we can’t trust modern historians regarding their position on the historicity of the resurrection, then we should not trust modern historians regarding their position on the historicity of Jesus! Conservative Christians can’t have it both ways.

Jeremy: In fact, your example crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC is primarily documented by four ancient writers at least two or three generations after the events. Some apologists have come out against this comparison. (one example) Now we can do a lot of assumptions about those authors including the “Civil Wars” allegedly wrote by a scribe dictated by the Caesar himself. But their truthfulness to what they heard via oral tradition or Caesar made up, one could try to argue it didn’t happen and that the whole thing was made up. The Jesus Seminar has done that very same thing with the Scriptures. Certainly, I would trust the sources of the crossing of the Rubicon are enough evidence to provide a degree of certainty to the event. However, where the issue lies (especially for the naturalist) is if we think it is possible Casesar crossed the Rubicon, or Jesus raised from the dead. The naturalist assumes one is possible and the other is not.

Gary: We can be very certain that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon without the four ancient writers you refer to having written a single word! Why? For the simple reason that Caesar would not have been able to return to Rome with his troops without crossing this river! And we know by extensive documentation that Caesar showed up with his troops in Rome and overthrew the Republic.

However, where the issue lies (especially for the naturalist) is if we think it is possible Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or Jesus raised from the dead. The naturalist assumes one is possible and the other is not.

True. If one has decided in advance that regardless of the evidence, the supernatural does not exist, then there is no point in continuing the debate. I personally do not hold this position. But isn’t it also a problem when the theist asserts that the probability of a miracle is just as great as a natural cause for odd, difficult-to-explain events? This isn’t the case in every other area of the Christian’s life, so why is it the case in regards to the alleged resurrection of Jesus? If the Christian wakes up and finds his keys missing, is a supernatural explanation at the top of his list? No, it is way down at the bottom. So why do Christians insist on asserting a miracle as the most probable explanation for an empty tomb and a few ghost sightings when other, much more probable (based on cumulative human experience) natural explanations are available?

Jeremy: ‘What is good evidence, but more importantly is there such thing as truth and ultimately can we know truth?’

Gary: I would use the same standard of “good evidence” that I would use for any very unusual claim, natural or supernatural. And, yes, I believe that alleged events are either historical or they are not historical. They are either true or not true.

For ordinary claims, I will accept ordinary evidence. For very extra-ordinary claims, whether natural or supernatural, I will demand extra-ordinary evidence. If I claim that I drove my car yesterday to the store, you are probably going to take my word for that claim. However, if I claim that I am in richest man in the world, you would be a fool to take my word for that claim. If you are intelligent (which I believe you are), you will demand a higher standard of evidence to believe that I am richer than Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.

So if you ask me to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, simply based on the fact that multiple authors in the first three centuries CE refer to him, I am willing to accept that as sufficient evidence. But if you ask me to believe that this same man came back to life after being brain-dead for three days and later lifted off the surface of the planet into outer space without any mechanical assistance, just because multiple authors tell some version of this story, I am not going to accept that as sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with it being a religious claim. I would do the same thing for alleged sightings of Martians and alien abductions. I am consistent. It is Christians who are inconsistent. For UFO sightings and alien abductions, I doubt that most Christians would accept eyewitness testimony as sufficient to believe these claims, yet they insist that we skeptics should accept contested eyewitness testimony from 20 centuries ago for a claim of dead corpse reanimation!

Jeremy: I have no such belief that I perceive the resurrected Christ in my body. The passage of still small voice (1st Kings 19:11-13) has been clearly misinterpreted by evangelicals for years. Sadly, many times we take
our belief from ‘proof texting’ which ends up devoid of the context and meaning to the original reader. To help clarify I do believe that I have been given a new nature, one that desires to please God. That the
Holy Spirit (third person of the one being of God) has placed a seal upon me because I am being saved to the hope of a future resurrection. This isn’t a feeling or the ability to hear God’s voice. I believe in a closed cannon (finished scriptures) and no more revelation from God personal or otherwise. I believe in a relationship, and in prayer, but that relationship is more of a relationship status and an inner
testament to what I believe than a two-way dialogue.

Gary: Would you agree that, if you do consider yourself an evangelical, that yours is a minority position in evangelicalism? Do a google search for “having a personal relationship with Jesus” and you will find A LOT of evangelical websites telling you that you can perceive the presence of Jesus within you and that Jesus will “lead you” and “move you” to do things (speaking in a still, small voice). Jeremy, if you can honestly say that your belief in the resurrection of Jesus is entirely evidence and intellectually based, then I believe that it is possible for you to evaluate the historical evidence without a disqualifying bias.

But just to clarify: Are you stating for the record that you do not now, nor have you ever, perceived the presence of the resurrected Jesus?

Jeremy: In conclusion what standard will you use in evaluating the evidence I was to give you? What would you use as tools to evaluate it?

Gary: As I said above, I will use the same standard of evidence for any unusual, very out-of-the-ordinary claim, regardless of whether the claim is natural or supernatural.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Debating Jeremy: Can an Evangelical Objectively Evaluate the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection? Part 1

In the Resurrection, God Renders Our Expectations Unacceptable
Hoping that an evangelical Christian, who perceives he has a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, can objectively evaluate the historical evidence for this man’s resurrection, is like hoping that the mother of an accused murderer can objectively sit on his jury! The intensity of the (perceived) personal relationship is too strong for us to be confident in the objectivity of either party. The potential for bias is too great!

Jeremy is an evangelical Christian with whom I recently engaged in discussion on a Christian blog. He has kindly agreed to come to my blog to continue our discussion. I ask my skeptic readers to please “play nice” as Jeremy is my guest. Feel free to criticize/attack his views, but not him personally. Thanks, everyone!

Jeremy, evangelical Christian: …you assume that no evidence can be provided because of confirmation bias on the side of the evangelical. The funny thing is that the confirmation bias that you assume is on the other side is demonstrated in your statement. In essence you say, ‘no one that claims to have a relationship with the being in question can appropriately defend their view’. This assumes your position without presenting a single argument to the contrary.

Gary: Thank you again for agreeing to come to my blog to discuss your beliefs, Jeremy.

I am well aware of the fact that Christians can provide evidence for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. They have been doing so for almost 2,000 years. This evidence consists of alleged eyewitness testimony of persons seeing and interacting with a resurrected corpse, claims of changed behavior on the part of the disciples, the growth of Christianity, etc. It is evidence, but I view it as very weak evidence.

Now, yes, that could be due to my own bias. But I offer this: If the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus were “good”, then this alleged historical event should appear in our public university history textbooks as an historical fact, just as they list other events from antiquity as facts, such as Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.  But, they don’t, do they! No public university history textbook on the planet (that I am aware of) lists the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact or even as a probable historical fact. Christians will claim that historians avoid religious historical claims or that they are biased, but this is nonsense. We know when Mohammad lived. We know when he attacked Medina, etc.. We also know historical information about Joseph Smith. The fact is that historians do not list the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact for one simple reason: The evidence is insufficient. The evidence is poor.

That said, I do believe that many Christians can argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus without possessing a disqualifying bias. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown is (was, he is deceased) one such Christian. In addition, I believe that NT Wright is capable of arguing the evidence for the resurrection without a disqualifying bias. So the fact that one is a Christian is not a disqualifier for objectively evaluating the evidence for this alleged event. However, if one is a Christian who believes that he perceives the presence of the resurrected Jesus within his body and/or believes that he perceives the resurrected Jesus communicating with him in a still, small voice, it is my opinion that this disqualifies this Christian from objectively evaluating the historical evidence. Since it is primarily evangelicals and Pentecostals who hold to the belief in a “personal relationship/communication with” the resurrected Jesus, it would be only these groups of Christians that are disqualified, in my opinion.

If you believe that you have a voice whispering into your ear that says, “Hey, Jeremy. It’s Jesus. I am very much alive and well. I really was resurrected 2,000 years ago.” there is no way, in my opinion, that you can objectively look at the historical evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

My Suggested Addition to an Evangelical Apologist’s Upcoming Book: Having a Personal Relationship with a Dead Guy

Do you call Jesus your friend? Count me in! – Fearless Living

If you have been reading this blog for the last few weeks you know that I have been leaving comments and interacting with Christian believers on the website of evangelical theologian and apologist, Randall Rauser. He has an upcoming book release. He is asking for suggestions for the cover of his book, but I have a suggestion for an additional chapter. See my comment below.

Help to Build Up a Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ

Randall Rauser: I need your help! My next book consists of 25 short chapters and I made a survey in which I ask you to choose the top 5 choices to be included on the back cover of the book. Check it out

here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NKVKN2N

Gary: Done (I completed the survey on Surveymonkey). I will definitely buy and read the book. However, I would add one additional chapter:

Does my belief that I have a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus make it impossible for me to objectively evaluate the historical evidence for his alleged resurrection?

A 'personal relationship with Jesus Christ'

.

Have a Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ You Have a ...

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Breaking News! Liberal Christian Apologists Know What the Bible Authors Really Intended to Say!

Can We Believe the Bible? | United Church of God

Liberal Christian apologist: If you don’t accept inerrancy then you should find the Bible has a range of issues some problematic and some obviously truthful. Liberals are not limited to the Bible, we supplement with great theologians.

Gary: What was the intent of the author of the (two) Genesis Creation stories? Did the author believe that what he was writing was historical fact or was he writing an allegory?

Liberal Christian apologist: Just because I don’t know doesn’t mean no one knows. There is no reason to think the Bible is so mysterious that scholars cannot penetrate it. We have scholars who think they know why Shakespeare wrote the Tempest or why Joyce wrote Ulysses so why can’t we know about Biblical authors?

Gary: The author of the story regarding Joshua and the sun standing still? Did the author really believe that the sun stood still or was he writing an allegory?

Liberal Christian apologist: Who cares? That doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on why he wrote it.

Gary: Your experts can guess but none of us can know for sure.

Liberal Christian apologist: Have you read any actual military criticism? You are just asserting that they don’t know. I doubt that you have ever seen one of them work. They know a remarkable amount especially since the Biblical authors are intent on telling us what they want.

Gary:

“Liberals are not limited to the Bible, we supplement with great theologians.”

Right, you supplement and interpret the alleged words of the invisible, inaudible Creator with the interpretations of men and women with PhD’s in theology. So do Muslims and Mormons! What is odd is that all these very intelligent, highly educated people with PhD’s can’t even agree on who the Creator is, let alone what he or she said.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Silly Atheist, You Need to Read More Books to Understand the Philosophically Complex Beliefs of Christianity

Abstract Word Cloud For Christian Philosophy With Related Tags ...

Evangelical Christian (here): Friend, I would encourage you to read some more about the fundamentals of what Christians believe before trying to “devastate” their view as it just shows a level of your ignorance on their belief. Not intending this as hateful, but your two comments demonstrate a lack of understanding I would encourage you to read and study a bit more content.

Gary: I grew up evangelical. Please explain where I have it wrong.

Evangelical Christian: You have a clear lack of basic understanding of the Trinity. Basic lack of understanding of resurrection, God, Salvation, Revelation, and “relationship”. Sorry I would suggest reading two of James Whites books, scripture alone and forgotten Trinity. That would be a fair start.

Gary: I love it when an evangelical Christian tells me that I need to read more books to understand “true” Christianity. The truth is: A skeptic will never be given credit for reading enough books until he submits to the superstitions of the evangelical and converts. Below is a list of books by scholars, Christian apologists, and by former Christians and other skeptics that I have read on the subject of Christianity and in particular, the Resurrection of Jesus. I believe it is important to be familiar with the positions of both Christians and skeptics on these issues:

 

  • “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by NT Wright
  • “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham
  • “The Death of the Messiah, Volumes I and II” by Raymond Brown
  • “Making the Case for Christianity” by Maas, Francisco, et al.
  • ” The Resurrection Fact” by Bombaro, Francisco, et al.
  • “Miracles, Volumes I and II”, by Craig Keener
  • “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
  • “Why are There Differences in the Gospels” by Michael Licona
  • “The Son Rises” by William Lane Craig
  • “The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” by Raymond Brown
  • “The Resurrection of Jesus” by Gerd Luedemann
  • “Resurrection Reconsidered” by Gregory Riley
  • “John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict?” by Christopher Skinner
  • “The Argument for the Holy Sepulchre” (journal article) by scholar Jerome Murphy-O’Connor
  • Israel in Egypt” by James Hoffmeier
  • “The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman
  • The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices” by Craig Evans, (newsletter article) The City, a publication of Houston Baptist University, May 4, 2016
  • “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” by Jodi Magness, SBL Forum
  • “Genre, Sub-genre and Questions of Audience: A Proposed Typology for Greco-Roman biography” (article) by Justin M. Smith, St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
  • “Cold-Case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace
  • “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel
  • “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman
  • “Jesus, Interrupted” by Bart Ehrman
  • “How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman
  • “Jesus Before the Gospels” by Bart Ehrman
  • “Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman
  • “Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus” by Asher Norman (endorsed by Talmudic scholars for its accuracy in presenting a Jewish perspective of Jesus and the Christian New Testament)
  • “The Book of Miracles” by Kenneth L. Woodward
  • “Why I Believed, Reflections of a Former Missionary” by Kenneth W. Daniels
  • “Why Evolution is True” by biologist Jerry Coyne
  • “Masters of the Planet-the Search for our Human Origins” by Ian Tattersall
  • “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by philosopher Peter Boghossian
  • “Can We Trust the Gospels?” by Peter Williams
  • “The Outsider Test for Faith” by John W. Loftus
  • “God and the Folly of Faith:  The Incompatibility of Science and Religion by physicist Victor J. Stenger
  • “Lone Survivors:  How We Came to Be The Only Humans on Earth” by paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer
  • “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by evangelical apologists Josh and Sean McDowell
  • “The Case Against Miracles” edited by John Loftus
  •  “The Resurrection:  A Critical Inquiry” by Jewish author, Michael Alter
  • “The Blind Watchmaker” by biologist Richard Dawkins
  • “The Other Gospels:  Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament” by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese (currently reading)

 

.

.

.

.

End of post.

 

Is Evangelical Christianity Rational?

Rationality Rules (@RationalityRule) | Twitter

How many evangelical Christians would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus even if we were to discover his very bones? Believe it or not, many! Why? Answer: The perception of the resurrected Jesus “dwelling” within them. Even some highly educated PhD evangelical apologists hold this view. Here is a comment I left on evangelical apologist Randal Rauser’s blog (here). Rauser is an evangelical apologist with a PhD who has stated in a previous post on his blog (here) that finding the bones of Jesus might not be enough to dissuade him from his Christian faith:

Imagine that I were to claim that my (deceased) grandfather is the Creator of the universe. Not only that, I claim that three days after his death, my grandfather raised himself from the dead, transformed his body into that of a superhero, and then lifted off the earth to arrive at some, as yet unidentified, location at the edge of the universe where he rules as Lord and Master of the Cosmos.

What would any rational person propose to verify or disprove my claim? Answer: They would go to the grave of my grandfather, dig up his bones, and conduct DNA tests on them. If the DNA tests prove that the corpse in my grandfather’s grave is my grandfather, my claim has been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt to the overwhelming majority of educated, rational people on the planet.

Yet…you have stated on a previous post that even if we were to discover the very bones of Jesus, verified by DNA or some other reliable means of verification, you would not necessarily believe that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead.

This is not rational thinking.

.

.

.

.

 

.

End of post.

Atheists Finally Admit the Truth: They Reject God Because They Want to Sin!

Amazon.com : THE Garden Gnome 10" : Outdoor Statues : Garden & Outdoor

Evangelical apologist: I could try and give you all evidence for the things that you are asking me [evidence for the resurrection of Jesus]. Christian apologists do this all the time, it’s easy to look up the evidence for these things. Nothing wrong with doing that. However, I believe that the ultimate reason why people don’t come to Christ is due to a sin issue. They love their sin more than God and don’t want to give it up. They don’t want to humble themselves and submit to a higher authority. And so it’s more a matter of the heart, the will and no that there “isn’t enough evidence.”

Gary: Sure… And I believe that evil garden gnomes control the brains of everyone who disagrees with me. You need evidence for your assertions, my Christian friend. Please provide evidence that the reason skeptics like myself are unable to see “the truth of first century dead corpse reanimation” is that we have a craving to “sin”.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

A Classical Apologist, a Reformed Epistemologist, an Evidentialist, and a Presuppositionalist Walk into a Bar…

There is one simple question that defeats all four apologetic methods for defending the truth claims of Christianity: “Do you now, or have you ever, perceived or experienced the presence of the resurrected Jesus?” If the apologist is an evangelical, he will have to say yes, and if he says yes, the skeptic should immediately stop the debate: “I cannot debate someone on the historicity of an alleged historical event (the resurrection) whose belief in that alleged event is not based on historical evidence but on his subjective perceptions and feelings that the spirit/ghost of the person in question interacts with him in some fashion.” –Gary

Christian apologist Randal Rauser recently participated in a round table/debate with three other Christian apologists regarding which apologetic method has the best chance of defeating the arguments of us atheists and other hell-bound god-haters. I listened to the seven minute opening statements of each apologist and responded in the comment section below Rauser’s post, posting one comment in reply to each apologist’s method.

You might find my comments interesting…or at least humorous!

Link: https://randalrauser.com/2020/07/dont-miss-this-debate-on-theological-method/

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.