Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #11

Post by rikuoamero »

Jagella wrote:
Wootah wrote: Can you show examples of apologists using those examples?

Especially your last example - I'd like to see who is arguing that.
Just check YouTube and Google for examples.

You are welcome to either make a case that no apologists make these arguments or make a case that these arguments are logically sound.

Or--just admit that apologists don't know what they're talking and/or that they deliberately mislead people.
Unfortunately Jag, I'm going to have to call you out for this one. When in debate, you do NOT tell your opponent(s) to do the legwork of substantiating your argument. That's your job.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #12

Post by Bust Nak »

Wootah wrote: Can you show examples of apologists using those examples?

Especially your last example - I'd like to see who is arguing that.
Oooo, pick me! Pick me!

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 664#819664

"If there were an infinite amount of days which preceded today, how could we ever arrive at 'today'?"

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 418#480418

"A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place."

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 446#442446

"it is impossible because an event in an infinite past requires an infinite amount of time for its effects to reach the present, and an infinite amount of time is an amount of time that can never be realized."

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #13

Post by postroad »

Jagella wrote:
postroad wrote:If they insist that God alone is of a uncaused and eternal timeless substance then it follows that these spiritual realities can not.
As far as I can tell the cosmos can exist on its own without any "uncaused and eternal timeless substance." The universe is very impersonal, and it appears to me that we are just along for the ride. Besides, no god could have created the cosmos because we created all the gods. Apologists depend on people's ignorance of the history of religion to deceive those people into believing that their god created the world.

Anyway, are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers? They're not stupid, so the latter is probably the case.
Professional apologetics are well aware of the nature of what they are peddling .

Anyone who can use the rationale " it couldn't have meant what it states in plain language because it didn't happen" is relying on the recipients not willing to face the truth at any cost.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post #14

Post by Jagella »

rikuoamero wrote:Unfortunately Jag, I'm going to have to call you out for this one. When in debate, you do NOT tell your opponent(s) to do the legwork of substantiating your argument. That's your job.
Rik, I think you neglected to do your job. Please answer the

Question for Debate: Are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers?

This topic is important to me, and I know you're very able to post some good input. Including links!

Anyway, I assumed that most of the members here are already familiar with these apologetics' arguments, and I hope you will agree with me that common knowledge need not be cited using links to sources. Maybe I know a lot more apologetics than many apologists do and didn't realize it.

Another reason I didn't post links to sources is because as I already have explained I didn't have any specific examples of those arguments used by apologists in mind. I watch apologetics on YouTube every day, and I have read many books written by apologists. So over the years I've become familiar with their arguments and cannot necessarily remember specific examples of those arguments or the specific sources for those arguments.

But my main reason for not posting links is that they're not very useful. Christians in most cases don't respond to them and will ignore the evidence or explain it away. So if none of the apologists here concede that apologists do make the sloppy arguments posted in the OP even after one apologist has agreed to make that concession, will you concede that it was appropriate for me to ask them to do their own research?

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #15

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 14 by Jagella]

If you're going to ask the question of "Are Group X this bad thing Y, or this other bad thing Z", it behooves you to give examples. Otherwise, the apologists would be able to accuse you of baseless assertions.
Imagine if the apologists asked "Are atheists Satan worshippers, do they abuse children?", and when pressed on examples, they just fobbed you and I off with a lazy "Look it up on Google".
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post #16

Post by Jagella »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 14 by Jagella]

If you're going to ask the question of "Are Group X this bad thing Y, or this other bad thing Z", it behooves you to give examples. Otherwise, the apologists would be able to accuse you of baseless assertions.
Imagine if the apologists asked "Are atheists Satan worshippers, do they abuse children?", and when pressed on examples, they just fobbed you and I off with a lazy "Look it up on Google".
Well, in that case I'd probably look up "Are atheists Satan worshippers, do they abuse children?" on YouTube and/or Google. It's not hard to fact-check what apologists say using those resources, and I do research on those resources all the time.

Anyway, Rik, please answer the question for debate. That's the topic I would like to discuss on this thread. If you wish to pursue the issue of posting links, then I can discuss that issue with you in the Comments, Suggestions, and Questions sub-forum.

Besides, I did post links to examples of those arguments on this thread.

So is it safe to say that you are not familiar with the arguments I cited in the OP? Do you agree with me that those arguments are not logically sound?

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #17

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 16 by Jagella]
Well, in that case I'd probably look up "Are atheists Satan worshippers, do they abuse children?" on YouTube and/or Google.
Really? Even though you are an atheist, and you know that you (presumably ;) ) don't abuse children, or worship Satan? You'd actually do the legwork for someone else's lazy accusation?
Huh. I wouldn't. I'd tell them to come back once they have some actual evidence.
It's not hard to fact-check what apologists say using those resources, and I do research on those resources all the time.
Except Google isn't a resource itself. It's a search engine, and what you might find may differ from what the apologists might find.
Anyway, Rik, please answer the question for debate.
Nope. I will do the honourable thing and refuse. This is not how debate works, and especially not how we expose shoddy work. You've made an accusation, now back it up with something more than this attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong".
Besides, I did post links to examples of those arguments on this thread.
I see that you did, but my issue with you here is that you did not do so in your OP. You had to be called out for it by our opposition (quite rightly, I needn't say). I see some links in Post 7, but nary an explanation regarding what exactly is wrong with those links.
Think about it. The apologists have probably seen these things before and what's wrong with them didn't click, so merely telling them to rewatch it, with no explanation from you as to what is wrong, is very unlikely to do anything constructive. They'll come back saying something like "...what's wrong with them? I watched them and I don't see anything wrong, so...?"

At the very least, you could have explained that the "Building a Protein" link is from Str.org and they have a Statement of Faith (although it's the least egregious of statements I've seen, with only Point 1 being problematic in terms of science).

I'm urging you to not do lazy accusations like this again in the future. You're better than this.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post #18

Post by Jagella »

rikuoamero wrote:Nope. I will do the honourable thing and refuse. This is not how debate works, and especially not how we expose shoddy work. You've made an accusation, now back it up with something more than this attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong".
Suit yourself, Rik. I have noted your opinion and may take it into consideration in my future discussions here.

Have a great day!
:D

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post #19

Post by Jagella »

Wootah wrote: [Replying to Jagella]

Sure.

With one caveat. They are actually claiming what you claim they are claiming. As I said I have no issue calling out bad arguments. I will facepalm with you if they are.
You have the links to apologists making the arguments I posted in the OP. Please post your concession that apologists make fallacious arguments involving mathematics.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post #20

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 12 by Bust Nak]

I see you have found links to examples of the arguments I posted in the OP. Was it hard to do? Did you curse my name because I didn't post links in the OP?

Post Reply