A response to “responses to common theist arguments”


Hey guys. I’m back.

I know this is my first post in about a month. The reasons why are mainly because of both the holidays and that I received a lot of Christian apologetics for Christmas that I’m still trying to read. And because I have so much to read (not to mention a number of questions that I need answers to), don’t be surprised if I publish my posts non-consistently.

Anyway, I came across this blog called “Why there is no god,” and it featured an article that really caught my attention. The article was called “Responses to common theist arguments.”

Now, for the sake of space, I’m not going to address each and every one of these responses in this post. In fact, I probably won’t even respond to all of them altogether, simply because there’s actually a few responses that I completely agree with. However, there are some that I feel the need to address, so I will do my best to address them. For this post, I will address the first one.

“1. The Biblical God is real.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.”

Let’s address the first paragraph of this section first. It states that there is no evidence to support the claims that are made in the Bible concerning the existence of God, and I simply disagree. If you look into the works of natural theology, I think you will find that there are many ways that you can argue for the truth of Christianity, such as the Kalam cosmological argument, the moral argument, and the argument for Jesus’ resurrection (and no, none of it advocates creation science).

Now let’s talk about the second paragraph. For the most part, I suppose I agree with what it says about it not being self-authenticating. However, I do want to point out that one can use methods of historicity (such as the criteria of embarrassment) to fish for evidence from within the Biblical documents themselves.

Now for the third paragraph. To be honest, I really can’t say that much about the Bible’s historical accuracy as a whole. I haven’t done any studying on the Old Testament’s reliability, and I’ve just barely started on the New Testament’s. However, I will make some points concerning areas that I do have knowledge about. A lot of the contradictions that this paragraph is talking about when it says that the Bible is contradictory are literary devices, while the rest are probably due to mistranslations.

Besides, even if the Bible were historically inaccurate and had a bunch of contradictions, that would not mean that Christianity is false. At most, it would mean that we as Christians would have to adjust our view of Biblical inerrancy, along with the way that God inspired the books of the Bible to be written. While it certainly would have an impact, at the end of the day it’s just not that big of a deal.

I honestly don’t know what the author means by the Bible being “artificially constructed.”  I know that it was constructed “by a group of men in antiquity,” but I really don’t see that as much of a problem, especially since God was the one that inspired these men to do all of this.

The rest I don’t find to be too much of a problem either. Even if the rest were true, I don’t think it would necessarily mean that Christianity is false, especially when you consider the evidence from natural theology.

But is the rest of it true? I can’t say that much about the claim that it’s been “heavily altered” and “selectively interpreted.” However, from what I know, the part that says that the Bible is “poorly translated” is completely false. If you pick up an English translation, what you’ll be picking up is a translation that has 99.99% of the original text. So I don’t see any reason to believe that the Bible is “poorly translated.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s