quote:The basic argument of the apologists Zacharias and Vitale is this
And that is at best pontificating on subjects they do not understand.
Hoyle and Wickramasingh’s calculation has little relevance because nobody proposes that life began with randomly assembled proteins.
Hoyle is regarded as a crank in the subject of the origin of life, and most of his work is intended to promote his own ideas of panspermia. Let us also note that he was an astronomer, not any sort of biologist, and that he died in 2001. Citing his work is hardly a good sign. Indeed it’s evidence that Zacharias hasn’t got any good arguments.
quote:Essentially, the apologetic arguments focus on the need to acknowledge God as part of what it means to be human. They argue that throwing God away or going on as if he doesn't exist will not lead to complete life.
And they are wrong. Indeed their main argument is that Micah and Jesus included the love of God as a great commandment therefore it must be vital. That’s not much of an argument.
Indeed the main point seems to be to belittle the good that non-believers do - with no justification.
Let us also note this assertion:
quote:When you look at the Mosaic Law, there are 613 laws given in total. They were divided into the moral, ceremonial, and civic codes
There is no clear division in the text. Look at Deuteronomy 22 - what Is civic law and what is moral and what is ceremonial ?
quote:You cant find a lie in any of this. The apologist speaks a basic truth
I’ve found falsehood - and do you really think that Zacharias doesn’t know that the Mosaic Law is not divided in the way he says ?
And your point? Is this an excuse not to belong to one? Ask yourself if you are skeptical of human nature in general or of Biblical Christians and Apologists specifically. Then ask yourself what you dislike and why and how your criticism was founded.
The point is that all religions, including Christianity grow based on marketing.
What I dislike are basic coman tactics; a great example is the whol group of cults that are swayed by total falsehoods like the Chicago Statement of Faith. What I dislike is someone telling me the Bible actually means something other than what is written. What I dislike is marketing of Salvation when there is absolutely no possible way anyone can honestly claim to be saved.
The question is really simple. Does Jesus exist?
No, that is not the question it's a bumper sticker slogan. First tell me how someone determines if the supernatural exists or how that might be tested. The question is not simple.
If you can call yourself a Christian and yet say that humans can learn from the stories and to throw God away, I suggest that you are lying. To yourself.
You, of course, are free to believe any such nonsense that makes you feel all warm and gushy, but it just sophomoric.
What is dishonest is telling yourself that you know. It is, in my opinion, also dishonest to call yourself a Christian and yet not know if GOD exists.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness. ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith