Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Finding Truth 
“Kathy my apologies. I don’t usually go into all out mockery but i cannot help it with this barf by Arch”
Nah, no way he’d ever do THAT!
BTW, Mr T(wister), we’ve sat by for days and listened to your rants about our need to present evidence – I think it’s time YOU presented some. How about some scientific evidence that your Yahweh stood outside of time and space and created everything? Dig it up, if you’ve got it —
LikeLike
“Nah he didn’t?
Nah he wouldn’t be so foolish?
Nah he couldn’t
well yes it appears he did.:) ”
Thanks Mike.. that saved me an hour of listening to/viewing
embarrassing attempts at humor.
So, in other words.. Krauss claims nothing.. but he does it in a
very arrogant, ego boosting and time consuming way… never passing up a chance
to refer to those “poor, lost, ignorant believers”..
It’s incredible yet so amusing to watch people exhibiting extreme ignorance WHILE calling others ignorant.
LikeLike
And I’m STILL waiting for your “better” theory of our existence if not a Supreme Being… still… waiting.. just do yourself a favor, you and Nate.. and just admit that Christianity is the very best/ only rational explanation we have.
LikeLike
Kathy though Arch has failed yet again to post any evidence what he has posted has snippets of usefulnessin showing how conclusion are derived by faulty thinking rather than empirical evidence in textual criticism. I’ll just pick three paragraphs mostly of what he has highlighted to you
“Modern research often proposes as the author, an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.”
Theres no way from reading a document to tell where it was written unless you have the originals. You get there the first clear sign of reaching that happens in textual criticism A LOT. No one claims the Gospels are attributed in that they do not put their names on them. I find it dubious given the humility of the early church that anyone would want to highlight their own names on the Gospel of their messiah. Mark was not an apostle so his not being widely know is not surprising. Most authorship was determined by the early church that were in a position to know. Then theres this –
“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see 10, 3) is untenable because the gospel was based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association, rather than rely on his own memories”
Here you get all kinds of reaching and conclusion based on nothing more than conjecture – again a hallmark of textual criticism. Notice that in other parts of the block of text Arch put up there is talk of tradition and oral and written sources.
This would undoubtedly have been the case because after all the church had to preach and teach for years upon years after the ascension. Most apostles were still centered in Jerusalem and they would have talked, compared notes and come to a consensus of what the important parts of their memory were in order to teach the church. Mark is considered to have learned from Peter but not neccessarily in isolation of anyone else. Peter being a lead apostle would have been a primary source of those early teachings and sources.
If Mark constituted this early source taught by the church and considered collectively by the apostles to be important then why would Matthew be required to depart from that and entirely write a brand new account? No. Waste of time for a busy apostle – subsequent Gospels would only be penned to fill in areas leftout that the writer thought had importance or for perpective as is the case with John. Despite arch’s claims HIS OWN article admits to Matthew having uniqueness from Mark
“drew not only upon the gospel according to Mark,but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. ”
So the insinuation its just a copy of Mark is false. Next Arch highlists this
“The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (1,2)”
Notice the BLATANT twisting of Luke 1:1-2 done here. Another VERY COMMON practice in textual criticism. luke says NOTHING about a generation before him. Heres what he says
Luke 1:1-2 (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
all this says is that there were Apostles/Disciples who delivered the word NOT that they were in a generation before him. In fact Luke suggests the exact opposite IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE
Luke 1:3 (KJV)
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
This suggest rather than later Luke was on the scene from very early on and not in a later generation. However he was an eye witness but had a very good idea of things from very early on.
THIS IS WHY I ASK ARCH FOR PRIMARY EVIDENCE because alot of the times when you see how cnclusions are drawn in textual criticism it makes you laugh. Skeptics attempt to pass this off as solid science only because it suits them. If textual criticism came to the conclusion that the text was from an apostle and say AD 45 the same atheists would claim it was just junk from fundamentalists. Its to a very large degree circular reasoning and not scientific at all.
LikeLike
“What do you care who others worship? Why so much thought and focus on what others do?” – I personally don’t Kathy, I feel no compulsion, as Christians do, to go out into the world and convert people to my way of thinking. But you came onto OUR site, remember? Telling us all about your imaginary god. We are simply refuting your arguments.
LikeLike
“Finally at least get your basic facts straight the NAB is not my guys of a feather. I am Protestant not catholic.” – actually, they very MUCH are, horsefeathers!
Just because “The Church” divided in the last few centuries, doesn’t mean you didn’t take with you the vast majority of the presuppositions promoted by the RCC for a millennia and a half preceding that. If you have a problem with their evidence, take it up with the Pope – maybe you can convince him to kiss your ring.
LikeLike
“Thanks Mike.. that saved me an hour of listening to/viewing
embarrassing attempts at humor. ”
actually Krauss has a video up on youtube where he says in QM you can have a man popping into existence fully formed out of nothing. I had to rewind it and made sure I heard him right. See Krauss believes in an infinite nothingness ANYTHING can happen
except God
LikeLike
“Thanks Mike.. that saved me an hour of listening to/viewing embarrassing attempts at humor.” – you’ve just demonstrated your own ignorance, Kathy, by taking Mike’s word for ANYthing, and not acquainting yourself with it personally, as well as your own close-mindedness. I predicted it would be over your head, and that would seem to be yet another fulfilled prophecy.
LikeLike
“If you have a problem with their evidence, take it up with the Pope – maybe you can convince him to kiss your ring.”
First things first. Perhaps some evidence first? I am right aren’t I? you have no clue what the difference between a conclusion drawn from evidence and the actual evidence is. You think they are one and the same.
oh dear
LikeLike
‘Round and ’round and ’round he goes, and where he stops, nobody knows! The dervish spins again —
RE: “Here you get all kinds of reaching and conclusion based on nothing more than conjecture” – you should be accustomed to that, that’s what your entire religion is based on!
Still waiting on your scientific evidence that your god created the universe – from outside space and time, no less!
LikeLike
Arch:
““me: What do you care who others worship? Why so much thought and focus on what others do?” –
I personally don’t Kathy, I feel no compulsion, as Christians do, to go out into the world and convert people to my way of thinking. But you came onto OUR site, remember? Telling us all about your imaginary god. We are simply refuting your arguments. ”
Yes, you do.. you all feel strongly compelled to silence Christians.. because we are a constant reminder of the truth of what you choose to dismiss due to pride and ego.
Christians, on the other hand, believe that if we can get you to SEE how you are being MANIPULATED by your sin of pride.. that you’ll be saved.
That’s my goal anyway… and I know of few Christians who have a different motive than to help you all get past your self imposed barriers to truth.. to help you get out of the trap you’ve fallen into.. set for you by God’s ultimate enemy.. aka your chosen “friend”. Because only friends help others to achieve their goal.. unless it is also your goal, then, well, that’s even worse.
And I came here because of the CLAIMS being made.. they are false claims.. and unfortunately many people buy into it.. because it’s what they WANT to hear.. which is why so many books and blogs etc have come forth lately.. lot’s of lost people looking for confirmation of their biased, selfish beliefs. Sorry if my “interference” in you spreading these false claims is inconvenient.. well, no, I’m not sorry. I enjoy spreading TRUTH.
LikeLike
Arch said:
““me: Thanks Mike.. that saved me an hour of listening to/viewing embarrassing attempts at humor.” –
you: you’ve just demonstrated your own ignorance, Kathy, by taking Mike’s word for ANYthing, and not acquainting yourself with it personally, as well as your own close-mindedness. I predicted it would be over your head, and that would seem to be yet another fulfilled prophecy.”
I’m already “acquainted” with atheist bs Arch.
Ok, tell you what, if you can give me a short summary of what Krauss is claiming.. just give me some idea of why spending that hour won’t be a waste of time.. tell me what I’ll “learn”.. I’ll watch it.. I promise.
LikeLike
Kathy, you’re too steeped in the fabrications of your Bible, to even recognize truth any more.
LikeLike
“I’m already ‘acquainted’ with atheist bs Arch</em" – and there's that open-mindeness at work —
RE: "just give me some idea of why spending that hour won’t be a waste of time.. tell me what I’ll ‘learn’.. I’ll watch it.. I promise.” – frankly, you’re just not worth the effort, Kathy – you asked for evidence, I’ve given it to you, over and over – what you do with is is up to you, but don’t bother asking for any more. After all, YOUR idea of evidence is people stupid enough to die for a fabrication.
LikeLike
“Kathy, you’re too steeped in the fabrications of your Bible, to even recognize truth any more.”
I’m assuming this is your answer to 1) my request for you to give a short summary to Krauss’s video so I can feel fairly confident it won’t be a complete waste of time..
and 2) it’s probably also your response to my request for you to give a “better” explanation for our existence if not the Christian God.. OR to acknowledge there isn’t one.
I’m not sure if I’ve stated this here on this site yet but.. I know liberals/ atheists better than they know themselves.. you all are so predictable. In the end, you cannot defend your beliefs/ views and instead try to deceive your way out by making silly, pointless, empty comments/ personal accusations like this: “Kathy, you’re too steeped in the fabrications of your Bible, to even recognize truth any more.” If I had a nickel… sigh…
LikeLike
“frankly, you’re just not worth the effort, Kathy – you asked for evidence, I’ve given it to you, over and over – what you do with is is up to you, but don’t bother asking for any more. After all, YOUR idea of evidence is people stupid enough to die for a fabrication.”
Oh, or this option.. also very popular… ” I’ve given it to you, over and over – ”
um, no. you. haven’t. I have no idea what your alternate theory is for our existence if not a Supreme Being. And you actually HAVE been given the evidence you’ve asked for.. lots of different forms of evidence.. martyrdom is only one.. and regardless of your dishonest non objective need to trivialize it.. it’s extremely compelling evidence.
LikeLike
“Kathy – you asked for evidence, I’ve given it to you, over and over”
which being interpreted means you should buy my rhetoric AS evidence. As For Kathy being on your site – as I recall an atheist suggested it to her. So at least some of you ARE trying to use this site to proselytize for atheism by suing your past alleged Christianity as some kind of calling card.
LikeLike
“I’m assuming this is your answer to 1) my request for you to give a short summary to Krauss’s video so I can feel fairly confident it won’t be a complete waste of time.. ”
Kathy I gave to links which the bender of Truth tried to wave away
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/
I don’t know if you are aware but the link above is by Coyne an AVID outspoken atheist agreeing for the most part with the nytimes review and backing up the credentials of the person who gave the review.
Krauss’s entire thesis that quantum mechanics works in the absence of spacetime and therefore can create the create spacetime is entirely meta physics. So Arch is presenting with you with a meta physics no evidence to support it position in order to refute what he says is your metaphysics no evidence position
pure hypocrisy
By presenting it he is proving that your position of belief in God is just as valid as his atheism. In fact when you think about it Krauss’s position is less viable than theism because Krauss’ position has absolutely nothing creating everything which is MORE miraculous than A god creating some things.
IF I am misrepresenting Krauss then ask Arch for one single experiment done that verifies that Quantum mechanics operates outside of the time and space in an already existing universe
My bet is all you will get is spittle and anger because he has none
LikeLike
Exactly Mike. And really, all of that is unnecessary because it leads us right back to my claim that it’s at BEST, for atheists, a 50/50 chance that we aren’t created beings. I don’t need any of that ridiculous ego boosting ranting of Krauss’ or any other atheist.. no amount of math calculations, fancy, complicated words changes the FACT that it’s 50/50 based on what we know today. You are right, their arguments only bolster believer’s claims that we are created beings because their alternative is even more “absurd”.
Every time they try to come up with a new “theory” of how something “can” come from nothing.. they ALWAYS start out with SOMETHING. Yet they can’t seem to grasp this reality. It’s sad atheist desperation on full display.
LikeLike
@Nate, “It never even has to come up, because kids know their parents. If God had made himself known to people long ago, they never would have needed to invent false gods. It’s as simple as that. ”
When you think about the 30 days Moses spent on the mountain only to return to the Israelites worshiping a golden calf. Keep in mind , earlier the bible says they heard the voice of god when he revealed himself through smoke which covered that same mountain. And yet , they were already worshiping something else.
it’s pretty obvious God didn’t actually reveal himself or the outcome would have been different.
LikeLike
I have a better idea, Mikey – put up or shut up – you don’t care for my evidence, and I’ve already asked you for yours – trot out your scientific evidence that your god created the universe from beyond space and time! Until you’ve done that, you have nothing more to say, that I want to hear – we’re all waiting, show us your brilliance! Come on Mike, shine for us!
LikeLike
“Every time they try to come up with a new “theory” of how something “can” come from nothing.. they ALWAYS start out with SOMETHING.” – as do you, your egomaniacal magic man, lounging out there somewhere beyond space and time —
Here’s a great idea, Kathy – why don’t you and Mikey get together and compose a paper, explaining how that magic-man-beyond-space-and-time theory works, and submit it for scientific review – you could share the Nobel prize!
LikeLike
Arch..
It’s not us who claim to have a scientific explanation.. it’s not us who relies/ TRUSTS in science to give us the answers, that would be you all, the atheists.. even though.. IRONICALLY, your god aka science actually agues AGAINST the logic of existence. 🙂
See.. this is God putting it right in your face.. yet you all choose deliberate ignorance instead.
LikeLike
ROFL…Arch your coming apart at the seams. go watch some gunsmoke 🙂
LikeLike
“It’s not us who claim to have a scientific explanation.”
Actually kathy we actually started to put some evidence up. Didn’t get that far into it when I saw nate’s handwaving..err….ummm….but this a part is still unfulfilled (in end times prophecy) . I was like Bleh..enough of this silliness. If your defense is going to be there is no fulfilled prophecy because there are some prophecies yet to be fulfilled your just blind as abat and want to be that way.
Anyway my lady let me know when you are done. I don’t see the point of making an atheist blog no one much knows about look like its a hundred time more popular that it really is. let the rubberstampers have their playground back I say.
LikeLike