105 Could you be wrong about everything?

 Believer asks: Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

Skeptic answers: Well, if I were to answer "Yes," I would be making a truth claim. So, I could be wrong about that truth claim, too. So we start all over again! I myself, however, answer "No," because I don't see how a person could be wrong about everything.

By the way, the question itself is supposed to lead to God; you can know certain things thanks to God. But it makes grand assumptions: One) that a God told you things, and Two) that a God told you truths.

Anyway, it's really a trick question if you answer it "yes." But the believer never tells you so. If the believer doesn't know it's a trick question, he needs to learn it is. But if he knows it's a trick question, he's being disingenuous. 

104 Is atheism a religion

Believer says: Atheism it’s a religion because it ends with -ism.  

But skeptic says: Well, the economics of capitalism isn't a religion. And socialism isn't a religion. Artistic realism isn't classified as a religion, either. But all of them end with -ism. While I'm at it, I can mention sexism and autism. They aren't religions, either, although they end with -ism. Thus the guy who says all of the -isms are religions has misspoken himself.

Recap: An -ism isn't always some kind of religion. So it's silly to define atheism as a religion just because the word ends with -ism.

103 Is science a religion

Believers may say: Science cannot explain everything. 

But skeptic says: Yes, that’s completely true. But science will do fine until everything can be explained. Ha. 

Believer says: Science is just another religion.

But skeptic says: Well, it doesn't really matter what you choose to call it. The point is, church religion has never landed a rocket on the moon. But the “religion" of science has done it. Church religion hasn't given us computers or the internet. But the “religion" of science has given us those things.

A friend of mine once asked a Christian, who was down on science, would he go to a doctor or a church if he were really sick. The Christian chose the doctor--medical science. It was obvious which one the Christian would rely on although “science couldn’t explain everything” and “science was just another religion.”

102 When Kalam goes ka-plop

Believer says: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument that the uncaused cause of the cosmos is God. 

But skeptic says: Well, theists may assume that they get off to a good start with the introduction to Kalam. The Kalam Argument: 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning. 

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

4. That cause is God (a popular extension to the Kalam argument).  

5. God is an uncaused cause (another popular extension to the Kalam argument).

Of course modern astronomy agrees with the Kalam premise that “the universe began to exist.” However, physicists don’t know how the cosmos came. They assume that a pre-existing energy field was the cause. Kalam doesn’t carry us very far about it, the cause of the universe. 

Kalam doesn’t talk about a creator God but theists mix Genesis (“in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) with Kalam. They say "God did it" and make it part of Kalam. They preach in disguise, "I believe Genesis chapter 1 and take it on faith." I say theists should skip Kalam altogether (it can't help them) and should just say they believe Genesis. At least they would save time!

101 How others made you a god in those days

In the New Testament Book of Acts, a snake bites the apostle Paul on the island of Mata.

So the people there say that Paul must be a murderer. They say to one another, The Fates are punishing the murderer with a snake bite 

Acts 28:3 Paul gathered up a bundle of sticks and was putting them on the fire when a snake came out on account of the heat and fastened itself to his hand. 4 The natives saw the snake hanging on Paul's hand and said to one another, "This man must be a murderer, but Fate will not let him live, even though he escaped from the sea storm."  

After a long time Paul shows no ill effects. And so the natives assume that Paul is a god  

5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire without being harmed at all. 6 They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after waiting for a long time and not seeing anything unusual happening to him, they changed their minds and said, "He is a god!"  

In the Book of Acts again, Paul and his comrade, Barnabas, go to another town and heal a lame man. Seeing this, the superstitious townspeople assume that the two apostles are manifestations the gods Zeus and Hermes. In fact the locals seek to make a sacrifice to the apostles 

Acts 14:11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they started shouting in their own Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us!" 12 They gave Barnabas the name Zeus, and Paul the name Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of the god Zeus, whose temple stood just outside the town, brought bulls and flowers to the gate, for he and the crowds wanted to offer sacrifice to the apostles.

Recap: First-century superstition held that a god could take a human form and walk among the people. The Book of Acts says Paul performed a marvel and so the people reasoned that he was a god. The inhabitants of Malta believed it and another town did, too. I say Christians believe along the same lines. They assume that Jesus was God thanks to the Gospel legend about his working miracles. They accept it although they can't check to verify if it was a fact.

Related post:
51 Was Jesus God walking on earth

100 Atheists believe that non-life produces life

Believer says: To be an atheist, you have to believe that non-life produces life.

But skeptic says: Well, it isn’t hard to believe that non-life might have produced life in the distant past. After all, exactly what is life that non-life couldn’t have given it a kick-start? 

Science can’t explain the origin of life yet, though. It only explains that the atmosphere of the “young” earth was different from today. Current-day theists and non-theists speculate from there, regarding abiogenesis, the origin of life on Earth.

Recap: It could be possible although it's not yet proven that non-life produced life on the primordial earth. Nobody knows yet.  

Related post:
47 Did Isaac Newton suggest the God of the gaps

99 Do atheists believe everything came from nothing

                                               



Believer says: Atheists have to accept the premise that everything came from nothing. However, everybody knows that nothing comes from nothing.

But skeptic says: Uh, you don't have to accept the premise that everything came from nothing. You can say that you don't know and still be an atheist.

Even if a theist says science can’t explain what brought the Big Bang about, the declaration doesn’t do anything to support the Bible. Science simply doesn't know yet, may never know. But it doesn't mean we must go to the Bible.

Related post:

56 Atheist asks how God made the cosmos come

98 Does the Bible include women prophetesses

Believer might say: The Gospels relate that women were the first to see the risen Jesus. It’s obvious that the Gospels give the facts because women belonged to a low social status, and so their testimonies were to be distrusted in the first century AD Jewish world. Women were never prophets, either.  

But skeptic says: Well, the Gospel of Luke appears to differ with you. It reports a Jewish prophetess of the times 

Luke 2:36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then had been a widow for eighty-four years. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to [Mary and Joseph] at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

A Jewish prophetess is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Judges, too. She lived in the 11th century BC 

Judges 4:4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, judged Israel at that time. 

And she was a judge, too 

Judges 4:5 [Deborah] held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided. 

The Old Testament book 2 Kings mentions an Israelite prophetess, who lived in the seventh century BC  

2 Kings 22:14 Hilkiah the priest ... went to Huldah the prophetess

Recap: Yes, the Bible mentions several women prophetesses. 

Related post:

70 Did men trust women's testimonies

97 Will end time and Judgment Day ever get here

 

Believer might say: No man knows the hour of Christ’s return to earth and the Judgment. We must always prepare as if it could come at anytime.   

But skeptic says: Good luck with that. It seems the end won't ever come. In the AD 80s, the Gospel of Matthew commanded believers of the day to keep watch  

Matthew 24:42 Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.  

But Judgment Day didn't come in the first century AD two millennia ago, or in the second or third century, and so forth.  

So, telling the first-century Christians to “keep watch” didn't do them much good. It's apparent that Christ's return wasn't set to happen in the first century, and yet they were commanded to “keep watch.” Watch for what? I say it's strange that Jesus told them to keep alert.

Recap: The Gospel enjoiner to “keep watch” was so premature that it sounds like a failed prophecy now.

96 Was animal sacrifice people’s way not God's

Believer says: Animal sacrifice in the Old Testament was commanded for the sake of God’s people, who couldn’t imagine worshipping God without it, and God knew it so he commanded it. 

But skeptic says: A web article agrees with you:

“After the destruction of the Second Temple (AD 70), ritual sacrifice ceased except among the Samaritans. Maimonides, a medieval Jewish rationalist, argued that God always held sacrifice inferior to prayer and philosophical meditation. 

“However, God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. As such, in Maimonides' view, it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice was a necessary part of the relationship between God and man.” 

Maimonides concludes that God's decision to allow sacrifices was a concession to human psychological limitations. It would've been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. 

Well, I say it’s an irony that God kept his people in the Sinai wilderness for forty years (so the story goes) but didn't wean them away from animal sacrifice. Instead God issued specific commandments to imitate the pagans.

Maimonides: “For to obey such a commandment [to give up animal sacrifice] would have been contrary to the nature of man …” 

Um, I really doubt that animal sacrifice is part of the nature of man. This rabbi seems to know little about “the nature of man," so he must be speaking for himself. I say people can learn and appreciate new ways; so they can do away with animal sacrifice altogether. They can always burn biscuits if they must make sacrifice.

Another rabbi: "In contrast, many others disagree with the idea that 'God always held sacrifice inferior to prayer and philosophical meditation.' In his Torah commentary on Leviticus 1:9, Rabbi Nachmanides (13th century) contends that sacrifices are an ideal in Judaism, completely central." 

It sounds as if Nachmanides claimed that sacrifice didn't have anything to do with imitating the pagans.

Recap: I say these Jewish teachers had relative point of view. Animal sacrifice is "ideal in Judaism" and "completely central" although it has fallen out of general practice. Sounds totally contraditory to me.


Related post on my other blog:
85 Could animal sacrifice remove your sin

Source for web article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice

95 Does the title of Darwin’s book support racism

Believer says: The title of Charles Darwin’s book clearly proves that he believed that northern Europeans were biological superior to others thanks to evolution.

But skeptic says: The title of his 1859 book included the word “races” but didn't imply a lower species of 19th century humans. The complete title was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” 

Yes, it said that. He initially decided to call his book “An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through Natural Selection.” But with publisher persuasion, he changed it to “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

His book uses the word “races” about “the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants."  Catch where it says varieties (races) of plants. 

Reference to the cabbage race didn't make Darwin a racist, just referred to the variety of the cabbage. Even if he was a racist, the title did nothing to reveal his view. 

Recap: The title or content didn't indicate “race” like today. In his later Descent of Man he favors the cultural level of the northern European. He said cultures that lacked technological advancement or modern education were “savage races.” And he expected the civilized races to absorb them. He might have been a cultural snob but insisted that all living humans were one species. That is, his theory says lower human species didn't exist in his day. 

Related post:
38 Nobody was there to see evolution taking place

94 Is the resurrection historical fact

Believer says: An historical resurrection of Jesus is the only reasonable explanation for what really happened. The fact of the Resurrection is just as the New Testament tells it. All naturalistic explanations are doomed to fail.

But skeptic says: I say the most reasonable explanation is the story was made up. There are conflicting versions of it. For example, the Gospel of John says Mary Magdalene took herself to the tomb. She was alone. The other Gospels say she went in the company of friends. Somebody was wrong.  

The Gospel of John gives the impression she was alone 

John 20:1 Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been taken away from the entrance. 2 She went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple.  

The other Gospels say she went in the company of women. For example, Mark  

Mark 16:1 After the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices to go and anoint the body of Jesus. 2 Very early on Sunday morning, at sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3 On the way they said to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?" (It was a very large stone.) 4 Then they looked up and saw that the stone had already been rolled back. 5 So they entered the tomb ...  

As I said, somebody was wrong.  

And Mark says there was an angel, who told them Jesus had been raised.

But John says she took one look inside the empty tomb, then ran to Peter and another disciple and told them.  

Mark says an angel spoke to the women, but they ran away and didn’t tell anyone

Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. 

Other details fail to match up with John, too. I'll provide a link to it on my other blog:   

70 Did Mary Magdalene go alone to the tomb

Recap: I say various and radical differences in the resurrection accounts show there were several rumors of the resurrection. Rumors are the best explanation for the stories. Namely, they're fictions. The rumors are incompatible and attempts to harmonize them have failed. They have too many conflicting details.

93 What about the miracles of Jesus

Believer asks: What about the miracles of Jesus? Are they not proof of the truth of the Gospels?  

Skeptic answers: Even if miracles were possible, we'd still need evidence for the miracles of Jesus. In other words, their possibility doesn't prove the ones in the Bible. So the supposed miracles in the Gospels don't prove the Gospels. First show that they happened. So what about the miracles of Jesus? 

Related post on my other blog:
35 Could Jesus ever lose the power to do miracles

92 Is skepticism self-defeating

Believer says: The truth is, skepticism is self-defeating. According to the skeptic's philosophy, we should be skeptical of skepticism itself. 

But skeptic says: Um, is that the truth? That is, is skepticism really a philosophy or doctrine? I'd say that skepticism (as it is on this blog) is a position that waits to hear better evidence. Skeptics don’t have a formal philosophy about the Bible, they have an attitude towards it. That is, they doubt that the Bible doctrine as the content of Bible doesn’t ring true for them.  

Further, I say the truth is, Christianism is self-defeating. According to Christianism, adherents to the faith should be certain about the doctrine. But what are their chances of belonging to the one true church when there are so many different churches? Do they ever wonder about that? If they do, they're skeptical. 

I say a little healthy skepticism is fine whether you're religious or not.

Recap: Christians engage in skepticism, too. I say if it's okay for them, it's okay for secularists.

Related post on my other blog: 

57 A rumor the Baptist had come back from the dead

91 "What if you're wrong and there’s a God"

Skeptic answers: I assume what it really means to ask is, “What if you are wrong and there's a Bible God?”   

I'll flip the question: “What if you're wrong and there's no Bible God?” Then what? Should you worship Isis of Egypt or other goddess or god instead? I'd say no; that wouldn't do any good. It seems to me there are Christians who attend church just in case their God exists. But their taking the position of "just in case" fails to convince the non-theist. 

Related post:

49 Pascal’s Wager: Just believe and go to heaven

90 If the smartest man believes ID, why don’t you

Believer says: The smartest man living today believes in ID. Why don't you?  

But skeptic says: Well, he might be real smart in the sciences. But that doesn't make him smart in theology or Intelligent Design. If he knows something special, some coercive facts about ID, what are they? We merely hear, “He’s real smart and believes in ID. Why don’t you?”   

It isn't unusual for somebody to be adept in a field of science, yet when it comes to religion, he throws critical thinking to wind.

Believer says, too: It’s Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957), an American autodidact (self-taught person) who has taught himself mathematics, physics, cosmology and the cognitive sciences. Various media sources report Langan as having an estimated IQ of 195.  

Langan supports Intelligent Design theory. Why don't you? 

But skeptic says:

He could know theological truth that we don’t. Therefore it would make him right. So let’s hear it. But we only get silence.  

Or we might know a theological truth that he doesn’t. Therefore it would make him wrong. So let's hear what we know. Again we get silence. Thus we're both in the same boat. Neither side has anything new to argue really, regarding ID.

Christians argue ID theory, then lead to the Bible. They believe that the Bible God is the Designer. They advocate ID and head for the Bible next. But the deal is, a hypothetical Designer doesn't need to be the Bible God. 

Recap: I infer that this smart man knows something special about ID. Let's not make it a mystery anymore; let's hear what it is. But I only hear, “He’s real smart and believes in ID. Why don’t you?” So something tells me he hasn't anything special to say about ID.  

Related post:
82 Is it arrogant to think churches are in error

89 What motivates you to live honorably in the world

Believer asks: If a man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and live honorably in the world? 

And skeptic answers: Well, if you're ready to do whatever God tells you and don't stop to think about whether it’s right or wrong, what motivates you to live honorably in the world?  

And intellectual dishonesty is in plenty among religious people. That's not very honorable.

Finally, I ask what "the random arrangement of molecules" means. It isn't clear to me.

Related post:
63 Define truth, reality, morals without God

88 Should we overlook differences in the Gospels

Believer says: It doesn’t matter if there are occasional discrepancies between the Gospel accounts ... what really matters most is the spiritual gist of the Gospel message.   

But skeptic says: Well then, preachers should stop planting whole sermons on a few chosen words that relate to what Jesus and the disciples did. After all, by admission in the believer’s above remarks, the Gospels aren’t so much careful journalism as they are just a gist of things. And by the same token, I say it does little or no good for a preacher to tear a verse apart word by Greek word in order to explain what it “really means.” Since the verse in question is merely a spiritual gist of things, it’d only be a waste of time to go beyond the general picture. 

Recap: An apologist may claim that the New Testament Gospels convey only the spiritual gist of Jesus' deeds and sayings. But when the apologist reverses his position and closely examines the Greek words, opening his exegesis with his line “What the Greek really means is ...” it seems to me that he claims whatever serves his purpose at the moment.

87 An absolute standard whereby to judge regimes

Believer says: The atheist cannot condemn a murderous and repressive regime by some absolute standard.  

But skeptic says: Well, if a Christian standard is what is meant by “some absolute standard,” the Christian can't condemn a murderous and repressive regime since a New Testament letter by Paul says   

Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  

Recap: It sounds as if human government is God’s will for better or worse and so Christians should accept all forms of it.  

Related post:

69 Is it right to smuggle Bibles 

86 Did God make and well tune the cosmos (2)

Believer says: With regard to cosmic forces, such as gravitational force, science has discovered that the universe’s energy forces have been finely tuned. If gravity strength were universally changed a tiny fraction, our cosmos couldn’t support life. Scientists can’t explain this amazing fine tuning! Only God could have wrought such fine engineering. This isn’t a “God of the gaps” argument, either.  

But skeptic says: Oh, but it is a “God of the gaps” argument (“God did it”). An apologist might claim that only God’s power could fine structure the energy forces; but it’s merely an assertion. The apologist doesn’t really know.  

If a scientist claims that mere chance fine tuned the cosmos, it would be a “chance of the gaps” argument, a mere assertion; the scientist doesn’t really know.  

Or a scientist might want to increase the chance by positing the existence of multi-universes, each one with its own set of laws of physics. Our universe owes its existence to the odds, the role of the dice if you will, which brought about our cosmos’ set of physical laws. This, too, is a “chance of the gaps” argument; the scientist may assert it. But he but doesn’t really know.  

And another scientist might claim that the cosmos’ physical forces can't exist in any other way; ours, a life-supporting cosmos, is the only possible kind of cosmos. This is the “physical necessity” view. But I call it the “physical necessity of the gaps” argument. It’s a mere assertion. The scientist doesn’t really know whether it’s true.  

Thus none of the three--physical necessity, chance, or design--are testable views, and so neither the astrophysicist nor the theologian has tangible or empirical evidence. All are “gap” arguments--the theological one included--period. So the religious apologist's claim falls back on the “God of the gaps” argument although he may deny it.

Related post:
56 Atheist asks how God made the cosmos come

85 If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why

Believer asks: Why would the authorities have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?  

But skeptic answers: It wasn't the authorities who stole the body of Jesus out of the tomb. It was somebody else; Jesus sympathizers might have done it, fearing if their master were to rise bodily out of the tomb, the authorities would have attacked him on the spot. So the sympathizers stole the body and put it elsewhere, to await its reanimation (his re-enlivening which never came about).  

Funny thing, the question seems to say somebody could in fact have robbed the body from the tomb and wants to know why.  

Related post:

84 How could Jesus have eluded a guard at his tomb

84 How could Jesus have eluded a guard at his tomb

Believer asks: If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could he (in his condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at his tomb?  

But skeptic answers: Naturally the question assumes that the story of the execution and entombment of Jesus is factual. If it never really happened the way the New Testament says, the question is moot.  

Assuming it's a true story, I'll say somebody let Jesus out of the tomb. There were a couple opportunities for rescuers to go into action

1) The night the authorities laid Jesus in the tomb and rolled a stone in front of the entrance. They placed a guard at the tomb the next day 

Matthew 27:60 Then Joseph of Arimathea rolled a large stone across the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there, facing the tomb. 62 The next day, the chief priests and the Pharisees met with Pilate 63 and said ... 64 “Give orders for his tomb to be carefully guarded until the third day.” 65 “Take a guard,” Pilate told them; “go and make the tomb as secure as you can.” 66 So they left and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and leaving the guard on watch.

So the rescuers saw their chance before the authorities posted a guard. They let Jesus out alive. The rest of the story, about women seeing angels at the tomb, is fiction.  

2) The guard swooned at the tomb entrance. They collapsed (I'm making this up of course) because the rescuers drugged their food and wine. Soon the guards fell into a drug-induced sleep. Matthew reports a bright angel who frightened the daylights out of them. I’ll say it was a hallucination thanks to the drug they consumed  

Matthew 28:2 Suddenly there was a violent earthquake; an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, rolled the stone away, and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid that they trembled and became like dead men.

And the rest of the story, about women seeing angels at the tomb, is fiction.  

Recap: Matthew is the only one who says a guard was on duty. Other evangelists don't report it. If Matthew made it up, no sentry kept watch. Of course I changed the story around capriciously and included the rescuers of Jesus. The way I see it, though, the resurrection never took place. 

Related post:
85 If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why

83 If evil exists, God’s moral law exists

Believe asks: Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If you say Yes, then you must believe there is such a thing as good. So, you must also believe that there is moral law to determine what is evil and what is good. That moral law comes from God.  

Skeptic answers: Anybody's sense of evil comes from their personal moral values. Moral values are relative, so they tend to change from group to group and subculture to subculture. Groups can have overlapping moral values, yes, but there isn't a set of moral values for everybody in the world. Even if everbody were to universally have the same moral values, it still wouldn't indicate they were from God.

Recap: Having a sense of good and bad doesn’t prove it's moral law from God. Moral law is just relative from culture to culture.

Related post:
82 Is it arrogant to think the churches are in error

82 Is it arrogant to think churches are in error

Believer asks: Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people are all radically in error in their view of the Bible? 

Skeptic answers: I can hear the same religious person say the many Hindus temples and Muslim mosques are in error. All the ancient temples and shines to the Olympian gods are in error, too.

But suddenly it's “arrogant” to suggest that the Christian churches are in error. I could say it's arrogant for a church to suggest that the church across the street is in error in its view of the Bible. Ao many of the "countless churches" don’t agree with each other about doctrine.

What's important is the reasons to say the churches are in error. What's less important is the so-called arrogant attitude towards the churches.

81 We can't imagine depth of God--proof God exists

Believer says: We couldn’t have invented an infinite God. The reason is that what we imagine is limited to our experiences. For example, we have experiences with horses and horns, and so we can imagine unicorns. An infinite God is real, however, since we have no experiences with the infinite and couldn’t have merely imagined an infinite God. 

But skeptic says: Well, folks imagine invisible spirits at work in the world. They imagine spirits of the earth and the ocean and just about everything else. They believe that spirits can influence our thoughts, too.

As far as an "infinite god" goes, I say the idea of one is based on the observation that the cosmos is vast and nature has countless life forms. 

I won't claim an infinite universe exists. I simply don't have any experiences with one and can't really imagine the depth of one. I can only talk about it.

Apologists might say an infinite God is in a class by itself. But I could say an infinite cosmos is in a class by itself. So just words alone fail to establish that either one could exist. Both concepts just get nowhere fast. 

Recap: The apologist can't demonstrate the things God does infinitely. I say the concept of an infinite God is based on experiences and imagination after all. It's an invention, and so are finite gods. 

Related post:
14 What created God

80 Bible claims it’s God’s word, so it must be

Believer says: The Old Testament alone claims to be Gods inspired word at least 2600 times. 

But skeptic says: I don't know how many times the OT claims to be God's inspired word, but such claims can't authenticate that it’s indeed any God-inspired word. The claims don't prove anything.

Besides, other religions have sacred texts claiming to be a god’s word, too. For example: 

The Quran says its Islamic text was taught by a God  

The Merciful 55:1 It is the Merciful [Allah] who has taught the Koran.

The ancient Bhagavad Gita (The Song of the Lord) says most of its Hindu text is the word of Lord Krishna, a God 

Bhagavad Gita 2.1 Krishna, spoke the following words ... 

The ancient Zend Avesta says its Persian text is the word of a God, too 

Vendidad, Fargard 1:1 Ahura Mazda [God] spoke unto Spitama Zarathushtra [the prophet], saying ... 

Recap: The Bible might say it's God word a lot of times, but it's only lying a lot of times.