libertydude

Hi, I just lost big time to a student here at college, we jumped around on several topics and here are some things he told me that I left with:

The Second law of thermal dynamics proves that matter is not eternal (I asked him that if god was eternal why not matter) because the universe would run down so how did we get a universe to start with?

energy (like the sun) needs to be converted (like a gas engine) to produce mechanical work) like the first life forms forming. Since there was no engines to start with, the evolution process could never have started.

he gave analogies like cars and windmills

he said a world renouned physicist or scientist said that the probability of evolution occuring was the same as a car forming in a junkyard.

The fact that mythic hero stories have the characteristic of virgin births in no way discredits jesus's virgin birth.

I know some of this sounds silly now that I'm writing this down but this guy talks fast and down to me. I need some good comebacks and techniques to humble him, I'm thinking like asking him questions then putting together his answers so he can see the foolishness.

libertydude

Oh yea one more thing, I asked him about the immanent kingdom of god jusus preached, he believes it has been the church age and that our christian university is an example of the kingdom

alek0

You can see plenty on Second Law of Thermodynamics and <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org</a>

Try these articles:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html</a>

You can also ask him how is forming of lifeforms mechanical work, and which equations would he use to describe it. What engine did his god use to transform energy into matter and create universe? Where did engine come from? Where did his god come from?

Good article on probability:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html</a>

On probability: you can ask the guy to flip the coin 10 times and record the sequence. Then inform him that the probability for that exact sequence is 1/2^10 which is quite low and yet it happened. Ask him to explain the miracle.

On virgin birth:

Ask them if Jesus is son of god, why Matthew and Luke give Jesus's genealogy as descending from Joseph. Ask him who was Joseph's father (two genealogies give different names). Ask him how could Jesus be the promised Messiah since if he was fathered by the big guy in the sky himself he cannot possibly descend from king David (which was the purpose of these two genealogies given, i.e. to show that he descends from David).
Ask him whether "virgin birth" myth could possibly originate in mistranslation from Hebrew and ask for detailed explanation why not.

HRG

Taking up some points ....
And you should have told him about rain on the mountain: a perfect production of potential energy (water is lifted from sea level) from solar radiation. Any boulder which is moved by a mountain stream means that mechanical work is done.

Another example is a hurricane. Lots of mechanical work.

IOW, the "no engine" argument is ludicrous.
That's Hoyle's famous GIGO calculation. Since it depends on an absurd mechanism, its results are absurd.

HRG.

David Bowden

Wow! was this a formal debate, or more conversational? Either way, it takes guts to argue - especially on their own turf, so: Kudos to you anyway!

My comments:

World-renowned? How come none of the world-renowned biologists or anthropologists or other scientists I've heard of, would ever think of saying such a thing? Ask him if he really, truly, deep-down believes that the entire scientific community, minus a handful of born-againers (but not all of them; evolution is accepted by many Xtian theologians), is actually engaged in a giant conspiracy to push a falsehood on the rest of the world. Roll your eyes theatrically if he says "yes," and then utterly demolish his case, using what you learn here.

Then... Jesus' virgin birth in no way discredits other virgin birth tales.

"Hey, maybe if I can just overwhelm them, they'll stop thinking and just agree with me!" Bone up on your own arguments and solid reasoning skills, and just dive in whenever he commits a sin against Logic or makes a demonstrably inaccurate assertion. And just hold on tight - dog him with the flaws in his argument; make it perfectly clear that you recognize the invalidities he's spouting, and that you won't let him get away with it.

And turn his negative character traits to your advantage, especially if others are present: Try not to be condescending the way he is, if at all possible. (What is it the Bible says about heaping coals on people's heads...?)

I'm sure the science crowd here will offer accurate criticism of his misinformed claims. Any time he commits the error of 'special pleading' for his mythology over others, point it out to him. You'll learn to jab him with a wide variety of zingers, with some practice and experience - and time spent reading these forums!

As long as you reason consistently and insist that he do likewise, I can't but think that you'll prevail, at least insofar as the truth is concerned. Whether it changes his mind is his own problem.

You may find that he refuses to engage you after he sees that you're learning how to wield your sword with lethal accuracy and force. Unlike you, he has no reserve to turn to, except apologetics smokescreens and sophistry. And increasingly bad manners - but we'll assume the best about him.

If all else fails, invite him here, to sharpen his iron against ours.

-Wanderer

David Bowden

libertydude:

On the problem with Jesus' virgin birth as "prophesied" in Isaiah 7:14 -

In my Biblical Hermeneutics class in college, we were taught what Exegesis means: "reading out of" a text. Eisegesis, on the other hand, means "reading into" a text, and it's considered by Bible scholars to be a poor methodology, tending to result in interpretations that have nothing at all to do with the original author's intended meaning, and liable to produce unorthodox interpretations.

It can be shown that Matthew (or whoever wrote the gospel with his name attached to it) engages in Eisegesis in Mt 1:23: He is not really reading a prophecy concerning Jesus and Mary out of what Isaiah wrote. He is reading his beliefs (or at least what he wants other to believe) *into* Isaiah's passage.

Isaiah did not mean "virgin." He meant, very simply, an otherwise anonymous young woman referred to in the passage - a girl who by all appearances was already living in Isaiah's own time. Isaiah wasn't talking about some carpenter's fiancee hundreds of years later. Some suggest that it might refer to Hezekiah's mother, the wife of Ahaz, and that the birth of King Hezekiah, who plays a role later on in Isaiah, is supposed to be anticipated here a sign of hope for Israel.

It doesn't really matter who else Isaiah might have had in mind; we may never know for sure. The point is that this woman whom Isaiah is thinking of is not Mary, and her expected child is not Jesus. Isaiah says nothing about Mary. He shows no knowledge of or interest in Mary and he says nothing about the circumstances of the unnatural virgin impregnation/birth as described in the gospels. Matthew, on the other hand, is motivated by his own belief in Jesus' virgin birth to *think* that this unnamed girl is supposed to be Mary - the common Greek translation of Isaiah used "virgin" in place of the more precise "young woman" - and so he "interprets" this to be a prophecy about the messiah's birth.

That's eisegesis though: a bad interpretation. He's inventing a more specific prophecy than Isaiah was trying to make.

As I mentioned, the change in Isaiah's apparent meaning from "young woman" to "virgin" became all-important via Matthew's literal reading of a poor but widely available Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures called the Septuagint. Apparently Matthew didn't know what the Hebrew said, or decided in favor of the Greek because it suited his ends better. But English translations of the Jewish Bible do not say 'virgin' in Isaiah. (Perhaps Jewish linguists don't know Hebrew as well as conservative Christian scholars do? Unlikely.) And even many recent Christian translations have honored the original language, and now use 'young woman' (New Jerusalem Bible, for instance). Anyone can see the pattern - translators are no longer forcing Matthew's interpretive error onto Isaiah; they're allowing Isaiah to say what he meant all along.

Since Isaiah isn't around to explain that he meant anything else, it's perfectly fair to hold to the literal interpretation, and discount Matthew's much later interpretation as a sorry bit of proof-texting. Unfortunately for Matthew, Isaiah never wrote:

"Hey, fellow Jews, and anybody else who's reading! The messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, will be born of a virgin - yep, a real, live virgin - named Mary. Now you'll know I was exactly right when you see it; no need for interpretive shenanigans here, buddy. Crystal clear prophecy straight from God, who oughtta know how to reach people unambiguously when he wants to. And by the way, no, I didn't mean all that about his name being Immanuel; that was a rough draft mistake that didn't get edited. It's Jesus, baby. Definitely Jesus."

Christians have turned the clear original meaning of Isaiah's passage on its head, and "found" a prophecy. But Isaiah's passage simply wasn't about Jesus' birth. Matthew is just plain wrong to have used him this way. Just because Isaiah was reputed to be a prophet doesn't mean that Matthew or anyone else can stretch him into saying things about Jesus. But stretch him he does, to the gospel's obvious embarassment.

Now, to drive home the point, note the passage which follows and is connected to the young woman's pregnancy: Isa. 7:14 all the way through Isa. 7:25. Exactly how much of that stuff occurred in the days of Jesus? Now, how relevant was Isaiah again, concerning Jesus? Clearly, Isaiah wasn't writing about the virgin Mary or about Jesus. Matthew just wanted - needed - him to be.

This is a lot like the folks who are now wasting their time "interpreting" all sorts of stuff in the Bible, the Koran, or Nostradamus relating to Sept 11. People find something in these 'prophecies' that sounds close to some important event, and they hail it as a sure thing when they can force-fit them together. That's a baloney method, pure Eisegesis. No different from what Matthew did.

When Christians critique other faiths/superstitions, and aren't defending their own creeds, they recognize this eisegetic methodology to be false. But when it comes to something as indispensible to them as the virgin birth of Jesus... well, that standard of judgment, that intellectual integrity goes out the window, and they blindly affirm Matthew's authority and divine inspiration in spite of the obvious error in Matthew's "interpretation" here.

-Wanderer

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

excreationist

here's a link:
<a href="http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/library/rabbi02.html" target="_blank">Jews for Judaism (includes anti-Christian resources) - Virgin Fallacy</a>

Hugh Jass

Clear, simple explanation. That is a useful site not just for Jews combatting xian missionaries but for non-scholarly atheists doing the same thing.
Sandy

SharonDee

I find Jews are an excellent source of rebuttals to Christianity. After all, it was their faith that was perverted to come up with this Jesus as Messiah business.

A coworker converted to Judaism after having been raised in the Church of Christ. We have had many clandestine discussions about the illegitimacy of Christianity.

NOGO

Never take any these assertions at face value. Fundamentalists tend to repeat things that they have heard without verifying them. Simply ask who it was and in which book or publication did he make such a statement. Chances are that he will never be able to come up with an answer. If he does look up the name that he comes up with. Chances are that he is also a fundamentalist.

I have had discussions with e fundamentalist before. I believe that discussing evolution and other things like that is a waste of time. Instead you need to go on the attack. Bring the battle onto his turf, the bible. I very quickly put my fundamentalists on the defensive.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>