You Can't Disprove Christianity ( Don't Even Try )

[Yozavan]

Premise Of Debate: Can you disprove Christianity or the Bible?

Open Challenge: I know a King James Bible, Charismatic Christian. His name is Jethro. Present your best arguments against Christianity or the Bible. I will post Jethro's response to your argument. We work at a warehouse. He doesn't believe in the Internet, but he does believe in defending the Bible.

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!


Jethro: Bring it on. I will smash your arguments!

[JehovahsWitness]

A copiest error or discrepancies in reporting details does not "disprove Christianity" * ( whatever that means).

* I've yet to meet anyone that uses the expression "disprove Christianity" with the presence of mind to define their terms.

[1213]

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!

Actually there seems to be a translation error in 1 Chronicles 18:4 and seven should be seventeen.

David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
2 Samuel 8:4

David took from him one thousand chariots, and seven (=seventeen) thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
1 Chronicles 18:4

[TRANSPONDER]

It is axiomatic that one cannot totally disprove anything, because the denialist can always find an excuse - or one that enables them to dismiss the whole argument, leaving them with a Draw (let's agree to differ' or 'my belief is as good as yours'. Which actually is logically wrong as the simpler explation is the one to be preferred, or that is close enough to the principle of parsimony and the materialist default.

Natural mechanics are known to work without a god; there is no need to invent one.

But Faith does not work that way; it works as above by making the claim for God, Jesus and Christianity, demanding to be proven wrong and denying everything and pretending it won the discussion.

Two can play at that game. Disprove evolution, or another religion, like Islam, or that atheism is logically the correct mindset.

They can't if the other side denies everything. But that is not the way evolution or atheism argues, and neither should religion.

The other thing is the method of denial. While still in Mode A (debating the evidence) it is what i suspect to be a crafty trick to pretend the debate is only about minor matters, like how many angels at the tomb, or how many chariots or enemy slain. When there are Biggies like the prophecy of Tyre failing or John denying there was any angel at the tomb at all.

And I need hardly revisit the tortured excuses, evasive tricks and downright denial used to try to explain those away.

But we know what is going on here vs what the Christian apologists Think is going on. They think it is about Their Faith, and if they maintain it by denying everything, they win, but in fact, if they lose point after point, the audience will see it and, if they still have an open mind, they know who had the better case.

And the better case had made it so the Theist, Christian or Bible - apologist does not have the default, though they want to do what the OP tries to do - pretend that Christianity and the Bible is the default theory and all they need do to win is argue everything fiddle everything and deny everything.

But the real win is wen the apologist runs away (with some attempt get the last Word...which is what they need to tell themselves they Won) with the silence until they resurface in another thread a week later making the same debunked claims. The win is if the reader looks and sees what they are doing, which is denying they lost the debate.

cue pot - kettle.

[Yozavan]

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!

Actually there seems to be a translation error in 1 Chronicles 18:4 and seven should be seventeen.

David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
2 Samuel 8:4

David took from him one thousand chariots, and seven (=seventeen) thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
1 Chronicles 18:4

Jethro only recognizes the King James Bible.

[Yozavan]

It is axiomatic that one cannot totally disprove anything, because the denialist can always find an excuse - or one that enables them to dismiss the whole argument, leaving them with a Draw (let's agree to differ' or 'my belief is as good as yours'. Which actually is logically wrong as the simpler explation is the one to be preferred, or that is close enough to the principle of parsimony and the materialist default.

Natural mechanics are known to work without a god; there is no need to invent one.

But Faith does not work that way; it works as above by making the claim for God, Jesus and Christianity, demanding to be proven wrong and denying everything and pretending it won the discussion.

Two can play at that game. Disprove evolution, or another religion, like Islam, or that atheism is logically the correct mindset.

They can't if the other side denies everything. But that is not the way evolution or atheism argues, and neither should religion.

The other thing is the method of denial. While still in Mode A (debating the evidence) it is what i suspect to be a crafty trick to pretend the debate is only about minor matters, like how many angels at the tomb, or how many chariots or enemy slain. When there are Biggies like the prophecy of Tyre failing or John denying there was any angel at the tomb at all.

And I need hardly revisit the tortured excuses, evasive tricks and downright denial used to try to explain those away.

But we know what is going on here vs what the Christian apologists Think is going on. They think it is about Their Faith, and if they maintain it by denying everything, they win, but in fact, if they lose point after point, the audience will see it and, if they still have an open mind, they know who had the better case.

And the better case had made it so the Theist, Christian or Bible - apologist does not have the default, though they want to do what the OP tries to do - pretend that Christianity and the Bible is the default theory and all they need do to win is argue everything fiddle everything and deny everything.

But the real win is wen the apologist runs away (with some attempt get the last Word...which is what they need to tell themselves they Won) with the silence until they resurface in another thread a week later making the same debunked claims. The win is if the reader looks and sees what they are doing, which is denying they lost the debate.

cue pot - kettle.

The King James Bible disproves Islam, atheism and evolution.

Psalm 14:1 " The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. Atheism is debunked.

If Islam were true, the Bible would mention it. It does not so Islam is debunked.

Genesis 1:24 " Let the earth bring forth the living creatures..." God did not say let evolution bring forth the living creatures. Evolution is debunked.

Believe in Jesus, Transponder! You will be saved, Acts 16: 31.

Hallelujah!

[Yozavan]

I am reminded of Matthew Henry who said: " It seemeth unwise unto me, to forget that God is utterly wroth! God never forgeteth that he is wroth, so why should we? If a sinner be wroth in hell, God will laugh him to scorn! God is woefully wroth! Angels tremble at God's fury. Should we not tremble? Are we stronger than He? The Lord of hosts is dreadfully wroth! The sinner has no remedy for this hapless misfortune. Gilead has no balm to assuage God's temper. God Almighty is horrendously wroth! Bother not thy neighbours, they can't avail you. No one can offer you succour. God is astonishingly wroth!

[1213]

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!

Actually there seems to be a translation error in 1 Chronicles 18:4 and seven should be seventeen.

David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
2 Samuel 8:4

David took from him one thousand chariots, and seven (=seventeen) thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
1 Chronicles 18:4

Jethro only recognizes the King James Bible.

Yeah, it seems to be so.

But, I have to say also, it is possible that I have understood wrongly, but by what I know, the words for "seven thousands" can be translated also seventeen hundred. It would be nice, if someone who knows the original text better, could say can it be so, or do I have wrong information.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #6]


You are kidding, right? That wasn't even a snark, let alone evidence, but it was surely a funny.I'm half suspecting you are spoofing.

[Replying to 1213 in post #8]
This is why I go for biggies, not discrepancies that can be dismissed with some translation - shopping, and we have even seen it being twisted even when the grammar of Greek or Hebrew is against it.

Heck, the big contradictions in the Bible are denied with the most egregious attempts at excuses, so never mind the number of chariots.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #1]

1. I think you need to clarify what you mean by "Christianity". There are many Christians (even some who are KJV-only and Charismatic) who would see "Jethros" apologetics as low-hanging fruit that needs to get out of our churches, so making "Jethro" look silly doesnt do much to disprove Christianity. If this thread is really about disproving Christianity and not disproving "Jethro", then Jethro probably needs to be dropped and just discuss actual critiques and all the available responses. If this is just a lets try to make the most ridiculous Christian apologetics look ridiculous, then Ill pass. If not

2. You need to clarify what it means to disprove Christianity.

a. Does it mean to reach 100% certainty? Or is it about the inference to the best explanation?

B. Also, in a few posts here Ive noticed an idea that something cant be disproven if the other side doesnt agree. There is a difference between disproving something and convincing someone else that it is disproven.

Personally, I think 100% certainty is a fools errand in anything but probably definitions and pure mathematics. I think Christianity can theoretically be disproven (in the inference to the best explanation sense) and everyone should try to do it, but talk about why the other side wasn't convinced by the argument is usually empty rhetoric.