Public Christian Apologists Are Either Arrogant Liars Or Totally Deluded Narcissists?
I've been watching the arguments from Evangelical Christian Apologists for decades now and their Arguments are getting more and more Deluded such as the use of presuppositional apologetics as proof of God, ha ha, as if?
Once upon a time I thought that Christian Apologists were just a little misled and they just simply had been induced by indoctrination into poorly supported beliefs.
Though on many recent debates and arguments along with videos produced by Apologists, I now consider them as seriously brain dead fools.
Such Evangelical videos by the likes of Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind has confirmed that both are extremely Arrogant Liars, they cannot possibly believe any of their nonsense or they have been so extremely Deluded and Narcissistic that they think everybody else in the world is wrong.
Though with Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, it is far more likely from their recent work that they are deliberately lying to their followers to keep the money rolling in.
Thus they are extremely Arrogant Liars.
With the likes of Eric Hovind and Lee Strobel, much of their work appears to put them in the same boat as Comfort and Ham, but it is still possible that they may just be so extremely deluded that they cannot see the rampant stupidity in their beliefs and comments.
Yet we also have the likes of William Lane Craig, who is reasonably obvious not an Arrogant Liar but an Apologist who was completely deluded by a personal experience that appeared real to him, but he pushes this Anecdote strongly as being evidence of reality, which is fallacious!
The belief that his own personal experience, revelation is a message to others, makes him a Narcissist.
Thus WLC is more likely just a Deluded Narcissist.
Con can make arguments in this round or attack my opening statement.
BOP of course is mine!
Best of luck to whoever takes the challenge!
Pro says Christian Apologists are either liars or deluded.
If they are liars, they are knowingly pushing something they believe to be false.
If they are deluded, they are unknowingly pushing something they believe to be true, but is in fact false.
Either way, Pro says Christian Apologists are pushing something that is false.
Pro says he has burden of proof.
So to supply his burden of proof, Pro needs to show that Christian Apologists are pushing something false. If he cannot show that Christianity is false, there is no solid ground on which to conclude that apologists are pushing something false.
If this argument violates some rule of logic or debate, just remember, Pro set his own argument up, I just reworded it.
Thanks Heaps Con for taking up the Challenge!
Lets review what Christianity and Public Christian Apologists are defending with their Apologetics.
1: The Existence Of The Bible God:
Until the last 400 years apologists had no problems defending their God as they could put God into being the cause of all natural events around the planet and in the Cosmos.
In 600 CE: Q: What's that new light in the sky with what looks like a tail behind it? A: A signal from God!
In 1800 CE: A: A Comet, probably will pass by and be visible for a few days then return many years in the future.
Their Bible God was once upon a time promoted as the source of knowledge about everything, Shamans and Priests all claimed to have God given knowledge about the Cosmos and all living things on the planet.
The Bible view of the Cosmos was limited to a Flat Disk Shaped Earth, covered by a Firmament Dome which consisted of two layers with water sandwiched in the middle and Heaven was on the outside of this dome with God's Throne on top (Ezekiel 1:26-28), but, this is also inviting or Begging The Question of what purpose an almighty being that could span the universe would want with a Throne??
Your guess is as good as my own!
There is absolutely no evidence for their Bible God and thus all their arguments are entirely Circular, therefore Fallacious.
Q: What is the Evidence for your God?
A: It is written in the Bible!
Q: How do you know that the Bible is Truthful?
A: Because The Bible Says It Is God Given Truth!
Though Archaeology has discovered that the Bible and it's God was created by the likes of Josiah in the 7th Century BCE.
He invented Judaism to unite his people. as he decided to use religion as a means of uniting his subjects, so he chose Yahweh to be that god and then banned all other Gods. So essentially it was Josiah who invented the Bible God and his scribes who created Genesis, Exodus, etc... or the first 5 books of the Bible (Pentateuch).
So with no validated Evidence for God, apologists have had to turn to Philosophical Arguments to attempt to prove their God Exists.
All these Arguments have been debunked by Critical Reason as Fallacious.
Such arguments are:
> Cosmological Argument: Or The First Cause Argument, they try to assert God as being the First Cause of everything, including the Universe.
Fault with this argument is What Is The First Cause of The First Cause or God?
So it is an infinitely regressive argument and asserting God as the First Cause without Question is a Special Pleading Fallacy.
More recently these Apologists, desperate to find a less Fallacious Cosmological Argument looked to the Kalam version of this argument to remove the Infinite Regress Fallacy, but still it is Fallacious, namely the Fallacy Of Equivocation it commits twice and is still a Special Pleading Fallacy.
> Teleological Argument: Or Argument for God from Design. This is the prime argument for the Intelligent Design Cults.
Essentially this is also a Special Pleading Fallacy, as Who Designed The Designer?
It is also an Argument from Ignorance as all evidence cited so far by Intelligent Design advocates has a far simpler natural explanation.
> Ontological Argument: Or can we imagine a greater being than God, if we cannot then that God must exist.
This argument is purely subjective, as many can imagine Superman being greater than God.
It is really a Fallacy brought about by the Notion that what our mind can imagine must exist, which is Plato and René Descartes concepts.
Yet realistically we cannot construct anything with our minds nor do many of the things humans conceive with their minds exist.
So this is the fallacy of False Assertions and an argument from Ignorance Fallacy.
"The fallacies of the argument are issues which a clever theologian could fix with some rewording and addition of some other premises. However, the argument can be completely broken and made laughable by simply changing "God" to "The Most Perfect Island" (or something similar). The argument remains structurally valid (that is, nothing in the symbolic formulation of the argument is incorrect), however, we come to the laughable conclusion that "The Most Perfect Island" must exist. You could also replace "God" with "Unicorns" and define "Unicorns" as "that than which no greater horse can be conceived". We now have an argument for the existence of unicorns, another mythological creature."
Apologists have essentially no Arguments left for their God that are not Fallacious in nature.
So in desperation they started to assert Presuppositional Arguments.
Such as Asserting that Nobody Can Have Reason Nor Knowledge Without God.
Which is the Ultimate Circular Reasoning Fallacy!
It is also an Equivocation Fallacy as to argue that no Knowledge can exist without God, the meaning of Knowledge needs to be switched, thus changing the meaning. Making the Argument Entirely Fallacious.
It is also just a Subjective mind game used more to throw debate opponents off guard.
Essentially, Apologists no longer have any arguments for God that hold up to Rational Criticism.
So Arguments for the Existence of the Bible God are Rationally Dead.
For an Apologist to use any of those Failed, Fallacious, Philosophical/Theological Arguments, thinking they will Prove God, would have to technically be considered as Brain Dead.
Thus those listed are Brain Dead Arguments for God.
2: Arguments Concerning The Existence Of A Divine Person (Demigod) Named Jesus Christ Who Saved Humanity By Being Crucified to remove God Imposed Original Sin.
Factually: Archaeology and Anthropology have no Evidence for Jesus Christ as actually being Divine.
There is absolutely no real evidence that can confirm Jesus performed a Single Miracle.
There is not enough evidence to satisfy any Rational Enquiry, that Jesus was actually Resurrected.
In fact: Richard Carrier's Mythicism Concept concerning the Non-Existence of Jesus Christ or that Jesus Christ was a Euhemerized character (composed from other legendary characters) has some credence.
There is not enough evidence to prove Carrier wrong.
Personally I believed Jesus existed as a normal preacher with a reasonable following, but there is no evidence that I am right either.
No genuine contemporary, first hand witness evidence to the life of Jesus Christ exists.
So essentially, Christianity has no validated basis for its existence.
The Bible story of Jesus Christ can be considered as a basis for the existence of Christianity.
But, in the same breath, they have no more claim to truth than Scientology with it's veneration of Xenu.
So essentially, Christian Apologists are Defending a Faith, that is without any Verified Basis in actual Reality for its Existence.
Thus: The only arguments Apologists can use for defending The Bible God and Christianity are Circular Fallacies.
There is no evidence outside of the Bible that is strong enough to confirm Christianity is a genuine Truthful belief system.
It has no more truthfulness than Scientology.
So Those Pushing There Apologetic Fallacies Onto The Public Through The Media and By Debating Skeptics, Are Either Deliberately Telling Lies, or are So Deluded By Their Indoctrination (mind control) That They Think Their Fallacies Are Valid.
When there is absolutely nothing Valid concerning Christianity.
First, the model of the Earth and sky is not detailed in Ezekiel 1, that is the appearance of the throne room of God in a vision. A look at the preceding verses makes this clear. Clearly, the sky above us does not sparkle like crystal, and God's throne is not on Earth, from visual observation or Biblical reference. "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool..." Isaiah 66:1 The Bible may refer to sunset and sunrise, but so does NASA, and they don't believe in a flat Earth, and I would be surprised to find Bible passage that called the Earth flat. The spherical Earth model has no known origin date, and the idea that the ancients universally accepted a flat Earth seems to be more of a modern myth.
Josiah made up Judaism:
If this is known from archeology, there must be hard proof of the most literal kind.
From the first six minutes of the video:
A revolutionary approach to archeology that puts more weight on certain kinds of evidence OTHER than manuscripts, for the purpose of refuting people who use the Bible to inform their basic world view so that their arguments can be neutralized in the political arena. If you go out specifically looking for something in a dig to prove a theory, that's one thing, but understand this is obviously bias. And in this case, bias that turns scientific convention and practice in archeology, that is identical at any other NON-Holy Land dig, on it's head. If you had a dig site, and an old manuscript pertaining to events that occurred on that site, you'd be a fool not to put a lot of weight on the WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED over the pottery shards in the hole. Don't forget manuscripts are archaeological evidence, too. Rosetta Stone? Dead Sea Scrolls?
The migration of Abram had, what, 800 people at the most? (Genesis 14:14) That's not going register as a major migration in archeology, so no wonder they don't find evidence of one tent dweller when they're looking for a horde of camel raiders. Especially when he was only involved in one battle, ever. I didn't watch the video any further than this, they already admitted their new method has a social/political agenda that requires a different method to achieve the desired political/social results. Besides, most debaters won't take such a long video (or article) into account without more specific citation. 1.5 hours
"There is absolutely no evidence for their Bible God and thus all their arguments are entirely Circular, therefore Fallacious.
Q: What is the Evidence for your God?
A: It is written in the Bible!
Q: How do you know that the Bible is Truthful?
A: Because The Bible Says It Is God Given Truth!"
When has this been an important argument in Apologetics? Source please, or it's a strawman argument.
Answering the Iron Chariots article:
The article assumes that we made up God to explain what is. But a Christian already personally knows God, we didn't invent him to explain things. If you want to call it delusion, go ahead, but you have BOP to show it's delusion. If you scoff, prove to me love or inspiration exist, and I'll show you they don't exist using your own arguments.
Also, any model of the physical universe has to start with something that avoids infinite regression. Some people use the quantum field, we use God. First, we haven't seen things appearing out the quantum field that stay put, but we (Christians) personally know God, and he says he made everything. What are we going to say is the more likely origin?
The Rationalwiki article on the teleological argument is similar. We see something, so we fall back on our starting assumption to explain it, if we bother to explain it at all. Dawkins and other Atheists assume that God is non-existent, so God didn't create trees, they evolved from natural processes, because natural processes are all that there are. I see the tree, I don't say "Wow, I wonder how trees got here. Let me make up God to explain it." Though many atheists apparently assume I do. I know God, personally, and I have found him to be trustworthy. He said he made the trees to begin with.
"Factually: Archaeology and Anthropology have no Evidence for Jesus Christ as actually being Divine.
There is absolutely no real evidence that can confirm Jesus performed a Single Miracle.
There is not enough evidence to satisfy any Rational Enquiry, that Jesus was actually Resurrected."
If you're going to look for natural evidence for supernatural events, that's kind of like saying:
All that exists is matter.
All matter has magnetic properties.
Neutrons have no measurable magnetic properties.
Therefore neutrons are not matter.
Therefore neutrons don't exist.
You might laugh, but we only knew about protons and electrons until they started looking for subatomic events beyond electrical interaction.
You want to find evidence of miracles in archeology. What could you find in a hole in the ground 2000 years later that would tell you a man was cured of blindness? You're looking in the wrong place. We have four agreeing manuscripts from eye witnesses and interviews with eye witnesses who were contemporaries of Jesus. The four gospels. Manuscripts are archaeological evidence. Unless the Dead Sea Scrolls, Rosetta Stone, DaVinci sketch books, etc. are classified as non-archeological evidence. Might want to tell the people at Popular Archeology to stop wasting their time on old sheep skins, if that's the case.
One thing I haven't answered, is how do I know God personally, since so much of my argument rests on that? God is the one who created all there is, and he is also morally perfect. His moral perfection has a total balance of justice and mercy, and an intolerance of sin. He will not tolerate it in his presence. That means lying, stealing, unjustified hatred and it's resulting actions, (murder, slander, etc.), disrespect toward his righteous character, (taking the Lord's name in vain, disobedience), and wronging other people who he also created with the intent that they would be his children. (cheating on your wife, hurting those around you).
Who hasn't lied and hurt someone's feelings, stolen, or lusted after a woman who isn't your wife? This breaks the friendship with God we should have, so that's why we start off not knowing him, because we start of wanting to do all those bad, selfish things. This is why God allows us all to die, because we aren't perfect, and he won't tolerate it.
When I realized I was bad, I also realized God's justice was satisfied by Jesus' willing death penalty. He was the only person who was morally perfect, so the death penalty was undeserved, and could not stand permanent against Jesus in God's eyes, but Jesus did still take the punishment of my sin with him to the execution to rid me of it.
I was spiritually blind, and not willing to follow God before, but now the intended friendship between me and God has been restored, I see things I refused to see before.
If you want to know God, you must first come with a repentant heart, admitting to Him you are wrong and corrupted. Then he will forgive you, and you will see clearly. You can't just look for physical evidence of the supernatural, you have to come to the Supernatural on His own terms.
Con questions the Flat Earth description throughout the Bible.
The Vault of Heaven
raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”>
“mid-13c., from Latin firmamentum "firmament," literally "a support or strengthening," from firmus "firm" (see firm (adj.)), used in Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation.”
The original Hebrew meant expanse, not anything solid. Whether the water above the Earth referred to clouds or another layer of water above that, we can only speculate, but the sky doesn't need to be solid to hold up much water. It happens anyway, they're called clouds. Low pressure fronts break a
As far as the flat Earth thing, which much time is spent on, Daniel 4:10 is a dream full of symbols, not a planetary model, in which the king (Nebuchadnezzar) is a tree, the people of the world are animals, and the tree's roots were bound with metal shakles. If a human king is symbolized by a tree, are we supposed to conclude he was actually a tree? No. Daniel explains the symbolism as such. Why take symbolism which is plainly explained as such, and try to make the words as a cosmological model?
Matthew 4:8 is a different situation describing real events. We've already got Jesus, the Devil (a purely supernatural being), and teleportation from the desert, to the roof of the Temple, to a mountain top. If the Devil existed, and could teleport the Son of God to anywhere on the Earth, why would it be such a jump to believe he could show you images of all the kingdoms of the Earth at the same time? A claim that none of this happened because the supernatural doesn't exist would be more fitting than complaining this describes a flat Earth. But this claim is unverifiable using methods most Secular Naturalists would accept. Pro already agreed he has the BOP to prove a negative by showing the Bible and Christianity isn't true. I think most experienced Atheists would agree, proving the supernatural doesn't exist is a fool's errand, because only natural evidence is accepted by them.
Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
As far as the circle references, there is a great deal of debate about whether it actually means sphere or not. Like “I packed dishes in a square box” doesn't mean a flat square box, but a cube. I don't know enough about Hebrew to determine which argument is correct, nor do I have time to learn for this debate, but I could post links that agree with the sphere argument from pro-sphere articles, just as Pro has posted links to pro-circle articles. In the end most people that don't know Hebrew will assume the claim that supports what they think they know is the correct claim. If you do know Hebrew, and you are planning on voting, remember to take into account poetic imagery and literal context.
Revelation 6:13, the word translated “stars” was the generic for any astronomical object. The actual stars are still in their places later in the book when 1/3 of them are darkened.
Do you know how God controls the clouds
16th Century denial of Heliocentrism, etc., by the Catholic Church:
The Catholic Church is described in the Bible:
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, (Oath of poverty, Mr. Pope?) whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry (clergy, monastic orders) and order them to abstain from certain foods(fish only on Friday!)...” -1 Timothy 4
Doesn't surprise me that if they're against steak on Friday, they'd be against Heliocentrism in the past.
No reliable eye-witness accounts:
Pro argues that 10 years is too long a span of time to wait to write down life experiences after they happen. I will leave judgment of this up to the voters.
Tacitus-Annals, Book 15
Tacitus was a Roman Senator who wrote Book 15 in 109 AD about events in the Empire between 62-65 AD. This is considered the first authentic non-Christian account of Christ and the Church. Christians were well known and numerous in the Capital by 62 AD, and Tacitus agrees, in summary, with the gospels, that Christ lived in Judea, and was executed at the hand of Pontius Pilate, but maintained a growing following after the execution.
It does not matter the average life expectancy was only 45, no one is arguing Jesus was still on Earth when the gospels were written. Average life expectancy does not mean everyone croaks at 45. It's just an average taking into account child deaths and centenarians. Why is it unreasonable to conclude they could have lived to 60 and written down accounts from their lives when they were 60?
The discrepancies between the gospels are no more paradoxical than a First Ladies' account of her husband, a member of the press writing about the President, and the President's father writing about him.
Matthew emphasized the Royalty of Jesus through God and the line of David, since the letter was addressed to Jews, and that was what they were concerned with in the Messiah. In Matthew, the destruction of the Temple (70 AD) was predicted, and mentioned exclusively as a future event. A prophesy without bragging of the fulfillment indicates a pre-70 AD authorship.
Mark was written to Gentile Romans, who would have little concern with blood line, or squabbles between Jewish sects. Mark was the same who accompanied Paul part way on one of his missionary journeys, and so would have known Peter and other disciples. This letter emphasized the actions, rather than words of Christ, to show Christ the servant.
Luke was also targeted toward Gentiles, but written by Luke, also a friend of Paul who accompanied him on a missionary journey. He was a physician, (Colosians 4:14) who wrote the letter as an exhaustive account of the life of Christ (Luke 1:1-4). Being present in the early church, he would have had access to many who knew Jesus, certainly Peter and John.
John emphasized his close friendship with Christ.
Objections to any historical document from antiquity should be leveled carefully. For one thing, they are very rare, and valuable, with all the ancient library burnings and whatnot, records are more useful than piecing together buried garbage and houses, and when a document is found, it is not taken lightly, found in the Holy Land or not.
“Many apologists who realize that all Apologetic arguments mentioned in my last round are Fallacious, turn to Personal Experience Of God as their Proof for God's existence.”
Here, Pro does not understand my position, and inflates the value of his own. I know very well any person's personal experience is not likely to convince another unless they are very close. What I was pointing out is that there are backwards assumptions amongst Atheists and Agnostics in some popular ideas, like we don't know where X natural phenomena came from, so we made up a religion. If some reasonable person happens to, against all scientific knowledge, see a Woolly Mammoth cross their path while driving through Siberia in a blizzard, they may have no tangible proof, but they will believe. They may also know that no one else will be convinced. That may drive them to stay quiet, or they may tell others regardless. This is the position of the Christian when it comes to personal experience. Not all real events can be proven to others.
He also claims to have some kind of Special Knowledge of the internal mental effects of his arguments on other people's minds: He somehow knows apologists know that he is right, they just haven't admitted it to him.
We don't just believe the Bible without reason. As I have shown in this debate, it is a historically accurate book, even if you don't believe in the supernatural part.
Sagey is a self-admitted troll. (See comment section.
This doesn't mean he can't make serious arguments, but it does mean that he puts being an irritation above making serious arguments. Examine his arguments carefully.
Pro has completely dropped objections to the OT being written at an earlier date after I pointed out the twisted political/pseudo-scientific practices of Israel whats-his-name and Mr. Silberman. (Can't tell names anymore, the video has been blocked for Copyright violation, not Pro's fault.)
Pro demanded archeological evidence of Divinity of Christ from archeology, or rather, claimed there was none. A demand of physical evidence of non-physical traits of a person in the past.
Pro claims special knowledge of the private motivations of others.
Pro accepted Burden of Proof. Did he reasonably prove the Bible and Christianity is inaccurate, and therefore apologists are delusional or liars, with the arguments he made? Remember, even if a position were true, that does not mean every argument can support it.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|