This atheist thinks you’re committing a “logical and hypocritical fallacy” by believing Christian miracles and rejecting the miracles of other religions:
Christians accept without reservation that the miracles described in the Bible were actual historical events. However, at the same time they discount the miracle stories of other religions, such as:
Mohammed’s night journey to Jerusalem and then to heaven
Mohammed splitting of the moon
Mohammed’s food and water multiplication
The spider web protecting Mohammed in the cave….
What should be evident to an objective person is that the evidence for the Christian miracles is no more convincing than the evidence for non-Christian miracles. To selectively believe one religion’s miracles while discounting all of the others is a logical and hypocritical fallacy. It is highly unlikely that all of the world’s proclaimed miracles are true, still unlikely that the miracles of one religion are true and the others false, but otherwise it is very likely that they are all false.
How would you answer this objection? Give it a try in the comments below, and we’ll hear Alan’s answer on Thursday.
[E]xclusivity is petty and dangerous. Many people do get upset when told their religion is not as good as the next guy's—this is why Jews, Muslims and Christians have been slaughtering each other in Palestine for centuries. So it occurs to me that exclusivity runs contrary to the general moral character of Christ, as people tend to portray him at any rate, and I can't imagine him being particularly happy with his followers preaching it with such vehemence.
Is preaching Jesus as the only way “contrary to the moral character of Christ”? How would you respond to this challenge? Give us your answer in the comments below, and we’ll post Brett’s video response on Thursday.
Here’s a challenge I received from an atheist on Twitter:
Is a God who endorses slavery worth following and truly moral?
How would you respond to someone who said this to you? I think you could come at this from different directions. You could respond to the slavery part, or challenge him on the concept of something being “truly moral,” or do both. Tell us what you would say in the comments below. Then come back here on Thursday to hear how Brett would answer this challenge.
For this week’s challenge, here’s a comment left by an atheist on this blog:
I have always wondered about the statement that “something cannot come from nothing.” Isn't this a complete refutation of the ex nihilo creation? If something cannot be created from nothing, there cannot be a created universe since there is nothing to create from. Adding “magic” or “supernatural” to the equation does not solve anything since “magic” is by definition doing something impossible.
However, if for any reason we assume God can create something indeed out of nothing, then the premise “something cannot come from nothing” is false.
If it’s really the case that “something can’t come from nothing,” does that prove creation ex nihilo is impossible? If we believe in creation ex nihilo, does consistency demand we stop using the claim “something can’t come from nothing” to challenge atheists?
Take a shot at answering this challenge in the comments below. Alan will be here on Thursday to give his response.