Why can't Christians just admit the truth?

…that Christians can’t empirically prove, as being real, the BIG 3–Jesus, god, or hell!

I’ve noticed, when confronted with such a simple request (to empirically prove the BIG 3), some Christians (my opponents from yesterday!) start freaking out, name calling, questioning ones credentials, ad hominine attacks, and the works!

  • Wow, can you imagine if your kid asked a space alien believer to prove Space aliens are real; and the person started swearing at the child, berating the child, asking the child’s credentials to able to ask such a question, ad hominine attacks galore, and the works–wouldn’t you be APPALLED?

But yet this is exactly what Christians engage in (at some level)…and it happens all the time! But yet (shockingly!) Christians don’t seem at least bit APPALLED by such errant behavior that they would abhor if someone returned that favor to their child or wife or mother over a question!

  • Note: as Kurt knows, Britain is loosing Christians by the boatload and America loses a SHOCKING 75% to 95% of their youth by college–is it any wonder?

Ask a Christian to empirically prove the BIG 3–Jesus, god, or hell and watch the venom pore from Christians (not all though for people like Kurt are purely respectful when engaged but most Christians are brutal)

But the funny thing is, Christians demand empirical proof all the time in their daily lives…but yet freak out when one asks them to empirically prove the BIG 3–Jesus, god, or hell! Is that hypocrisy or what!

What makes the Christian even more of an oddity is that their very own STORYBOOK bible, the fictional characters Jesus and god used empirical evidence, all the time, to prove themselves as being real but yet in reality ask the Christian to empirically prove the BIG 3 as being real (using their own bible as the standard of empirical evidence) and not just storybook characters you not only get NOTHING!, as the way of empirical proof but you get attacked any way possible!

  • Again: its no wonder 75% to 95% percent of Christian youth abandon Christianity in college!

Brett Strong…the next wave is here and I am he!

Final note: Christians, you claim to be truth seekers; then just admit to the world that you can’t empirically prove the BIG 3 as being real (you hear that JP and Nick?) and simply lose the dogma!  No more hell talk or obey the bible talk or sinner talk or god is made at you talk or ad hominine attacks; just lose the dogma but keep the love of your storybook Jesus (feed the poor, help the sick, and just be happy 🙂

To my friend JP Holdings (and his buddy Nick): you have this huge ministry and theology website but yet when simply pressed to empirically prove the BIG 3 (Jesus, god, or hell) you come up empty handed–doesn’t that bother you? …Man, if I dedicated my entire life to something but yet when pressed to empirically prove it and I came up empty handed that would tell me–something’s wrong! Big time! Yikes! Ouch!

  • …know this JP and Nick: Science, modern medicine & reality 100% rebukes you guys, makes you two out to be delusional when you two say you can prove such things as hell as being factual! …but like I already said, if you have a pic or video of this place called everlasting hell simply post it here (realclearapologetics) or post it on YouTube so we all can check it out…until then you are allowed to stay in fantasy land (self delusion)–just lose the dogma my friends…fair enough 🙂
  • and by the way: Science, modern medicine & reality 100% backs Brett Strong as being true, correct & right!, in that the BIG 3 can not be empirically proven to be real! ..and that’s why I call the BIG 3 pure fiction; because in the storybook bible (the BIG 3) they defy science, modern medicine, and reality again and again and again; so the logical conclusion is to deem the bible for what it is, what science/modern medicine/and reality shows the bible to be: pure fiction the BIG 3 (Jesus, god of the bible, and hell)

Also to JP Holding and NIck: you asked my Credentials (not bad for someone who’s only been doing these for 3 years as a side hobby 🙂

  • I’ve recently finished studying online at Yale University; soaking in the teachings of the great Dale Martin ,Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University! Taking in there Jesus-New Testament course! Besides intently studying the lectures of Bart Ehrman to William Lane Craig…and you know that I’ve debated some of the top Christian apologists in the world: like being (the only one in history!!!!) a special call in guest at the great STR (Stand to Reason) where I debated J Warner (Nov 21st 2011) and I’ve also called in and debated Greg Koukl as a regular call in; I’ve also called in and debated Matt Slick of Carm radio; I’ve also dialoged with Dr Paul Copan (book: Is god a Moral monster?), Brian Auten (of Apologetics315), Todd Friel (Wretched TV), Mary Jo Sharp, Sean McDowell, and others to many to name; I’ve also done over 15 other radio debates across America in the last year or so; my Redemption radio July 2012 debate was their number rated show in history within 6 months–easily surpassing Dan Barker (world famous) and Lawrence Krauss (world famous) shows; and etc, etc, etc…so JP anytime you want to do a radio, phone in debate or Skype debate I’m more than game!

Final note to all: the main point of my ministry is to simply point out to Christians that they can’t empirically prove their BIG 3–(a big fat 0!) so drop the dogma (as said before) but definitely keep your Jesus faith (as said before)…and that alone makes me different, as I say “the next wave”, because I want all Christians to remain Christians! Just lose the dogma…thanks for reading my post everyone and please feel free to comment and Kurt thanks for letting me post here!

 

 

 

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Comments

  1. Jonathan Cousins - June 10, 2013, 5:26 am

    Dear Brett,

    You obviously have smelly feet, an 80’s hairstyle and have been educated by reading kindergarten books!

    (I am Christian, had to get that out of the way before I responded!)

    Thanks for your post and I hope you take it as a compliment in some way that I am replying with what is my first post on RCA.

    I must say I agree with a lot of what you have written in your post. Many Christians are afraid to admit they can’t prove a lot of what they believe. Not because they know it is wrong, but rather because they feel if they cannot provide a strong argument, they are in some way failing as Christians.

    Like you I would encourage fellow Christians to simply admit when they don’t know something or can’t really prove something.

    Instead focus on the things that they do know and the reasons they do believe in God.

    After all that is the whole point of apologetics, give reasons for your belief, not someone else’s!

    • Brett Strong - June 10, 2013, 3:27 pm

      Hi Mr Cousins…finally a Christian gets it! Thank god 🙂 Come be my disciple!

      …just kidding…anyways have a great day and thanks for being honest thus true and worthy of praise…may your Jesus bless you all the days of your life as you bring glory to his name and honor…

      Brett Strong salutes Mr Cousins as being a true seeker of truth!

  2. Brett Strong - June 10, 2013, 7:34 am

    Hi JP (and Nick): as far as arguments, w/you I don’t need any; my mission with you is to simply show the white elephant in the room—that you cannot empirically prove what you claim is true, a big fat 0! NOTHING! You’re simply bluffing! Now you’ve been exposed as a bluffer 🙂 …now you understand why William Lane Craig and all top Christian Apologists would NEVER claim they can empirically prove Jesus or god or Hell as being factual! Learn from your peers JP & Nick 🙂 …you two seriously overplayed your hands by stating you can factually prove hell to be real…stop fibbing JP (& stop your play on words)

    And here’s another fact for you JP; many times in court the defense NEVER gives an argument, they just punch holes in the prosecutors case—and the jury and judge concedes the winner to the defense, having not placed one argument the entire case!

    Catch my drift JP & Nick 🙂 …

    Also JP, your Greek translation makes no sense whatsoever on our case because you and I and everyone here knows facts to mean: something empirically proven! So with that you lose again!

    I’ve read your comment to Kurt concerning me and the bottom line you still lose JP, because you cannot prove the BIG 3 as being empirically factual thus you are neutralized, defused, found to be fibbing!

    Like I said JP, the next wave is here and I am he! Brett Strong

    …still I offer you a Skype debate ASAP! Today JP and NIck: You don’t need Skype JP, I have it & all I have to do is call your cell or home phone and the debate starts…bingo!…and when its over I’ll give you a copy and we can both present it to the world…I’m sure with all this back and forth everyone wants to hear us debate live, so lets do it JP, help me out NIck, I’ve got everything done just give me your phone # and it’s on!

    JP, you’ve debated Richard a d few others, live!, so step up to the plate and face Brett Strong!

  3. Brett Strong - June 10, 2013, 8:01 am

    Gotcha JP! You just said in a post: “Brett, I don’t do audio debates” …but look what I found JP? You doing an audio debate 🙂

    …here’s the link: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={6F8A97D2-2B10-475F-B0DD-3D0A13E7F98B}

    …do you have a problem with fibbing JP? Seriously?

    Brett Strong…I rest my case :-).game over JP!

    I told you I was the next wave! :-), now you’ve learned your lesson! have a great day JP and Nick, seriously, just lose the dogma and stop overstating your position…

  4. Profile photo of Steve Carroll

    Steve Carroll - June 10, 2013, 11:03 am

    I think the problem with Brett Strong’s argument is epistemology. I agree with Alvin Plantinga’s claim that we can only know with God.

    This deductive argument outlines the problem:

    1. Naturalism claims there are no supernatural agents;

    2. Naturalism claims all phenomena, including beliefs, have a physical origin;

    Therefore:

    3. Naturalism has a physical origin;

    4. If something is caused, it cannot be an explanation;

    Therefore:

    5. Naturalism is false.

    • Brett Strong - June 10, 2013, 3:22 pm

      Hi Steve Caroll …its Brett Strong…FYI: I’m making a FACT statement (not an argument) that no one can prove any immaterial god exists! If you want to talk theory then go for it…but I’m stating an indisputable FACT!

      I know exactly what I’m saying and mean…I’ve been featured on several radio debates and had deep on line interactions with the likes of Dr Paul Copan…and they have all had to concede what I said was indeed true, that any god talk ultimately is improvable; and that’s a FACT!

      Heck, even Alvin Plantaga said the same, that you can’t prove god factually, but you can believe in him all you want…I totally agree; just lose the dogma–which Plantaga does none of…

      Brett Strong…the next wave is here and I am he!

      PS Stevie: I never claimed naturalism in any post (so why the 1-5 stuff???) …I’ve made indisputable FACT statements that you can’t prove any immaterial god to be real–impossible…and once again: Alvin Plantaga totally concedes this FACT! …he has no choice 🙂

      …and this is where I easily stump Christians every time when I debate them because just by pointing that out (that its impossible for them to prove what they claim to be true/god, Jesus, hell) they are immediately neutralized, defused; their tough talk laid open as mere bluffs…I’ve done it to Greg Koukl & J Warner & now to JP Holdings and NIck–totally defused & neutralized w/little else to say …and that’s why I say lose the dogma–because since you can’t prove what you claim is true then why be dogmatic? Go figure? I truly don’t understand such behavior…anyways have a great day friend and thanks for responding and Kurt thanks for letting me post here…

  5. Nick Peters - June 12, 2013, 12:29 pm

    Why is it that Brett doesn’t have the courage to come to TheologyWeb.com and do an actual written debate there, but can debate written on blogs left and right?

    Apparently, the new wave of the future, the greatest atheist/agnostic debater the world has yet to see, just can’t handle a written debate.

    Good to know the best is so bad.

  6. Profile photo of J. P. Holding

    J. P. Holding - June 12, 2013, 12:33 pm

    Hid this in a corner without giving us notice, eh? Interesting how you brag of us being “totally defused” etc when it was you who ran from the field…huh? Didn’t the wife and kids keep you busy long enough?

    We’re still waiting for you:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156250

    I posted a link to this entry there so that everyone could see you are hiding. Any more I have to say will be said there.

    And by the way…

    1) As I made clear in postings before and after, the debate with Humphreys was done to prove the point I had been making for years, before and after — that such “oral” debates ARE useless. It was done specifically to answer those who claimed that I ought to try it, and that I would find out I was wrong. That’s why you won’t find any more, save the one I did with Richard Carrier — but that was so that my wife could visit an elderly relative in the area of the debate, as I have also publicly stated. Next time, do a little more research! 😉

    2) Watching YouTube videos isn’t getting credentials. It’s watching YouTube videos. The bottom line is you have NO credentials. Strange how you didn’t have the nerve to answer that when and where I asked you to.

    3) Calling into podcasts and making a nuisance of yourself, and finagling appearances by requesting to be featured when you have no prior credits, doesn’t earn you a reputation as anything but a nuisance.

    4) “Also JP, your Greek translation makes no sense whatsoever on our case because you and I and everyone here knows facts to mean: something empirically proven! So with that you lose again!” Really? Then let’s see you argue the point by directly answering the details in:

    http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

    Since your knowledge of Greek and the social world of the Bible is essentially “0” (your favorite number), and since since you can’t likely find any scholars who made YouTube videos on this subject, I expect the usual slack-jawed vacuous slogans in reply, followed by “WHOA!”, that your record shows are your highest competency.

    5) “And here’s another fact for you JP; many times in court the defense NEVER gives an argument, they just punch holes in the prosecutors case—and the jury and judge concedes the winner to the defense, having not placed one argument the entire case! ”

    Yes, in criminal law, that’s called a “travesty of justice”. It’s only possible because too many juries have the collective IQ of a box of turnips. Don’t try me on this. I ran a law library for 7 years.

    6) You don’t “stump” Christians. What actually happens is that they are too appalled to speak when they realize that your scholarship amounts to parroting slogans uncritically.

    Like I said…the new wave has only one direction…clockwise down a porcelain facility…you lose…I am JP Holding….I flushed the new wave! (Hm, who’s that sound like? Let me think….)

  7. Profile photo of J. P. Holding

    J. P. Holding - June 12, 2013, 12:42 pm

    Oh yes. I know you’ll ask for documentation re those debates, so:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?127040

    Before debating Humphreys:

    “Some time ago I decided to experiment with radio debating to see if I’d like it. I had planned to do one on a St. Louis radio station but Timothy Freke was too chicken to take me on.”

    After:

    “Overall, it was slightly more productive than I expected but I still don’t know if I care for the format. I think it was only productive to the extent that I was able to keep the topic narrowed down.”

    ” So to sum it up….it’s a good example of why I resisted debates, and still may do so in the future; I’ll just have to wait and see whether it does any good for those who listened, to decide whether any more are worthwhile. But in the meantime, this image tells the story as well as any…”

    On the Carrier debate:

    http://tektonforge.blogspot.com/2011/02/yes-naval-battle.html

    “No, my sentiments on debates haven’t changed. But the invitation will give my beloved Mrs H a chance to see an elderly uncle she probably won’t get to see again, so I put my reservations aside for this one.”

    Like I said…next time…do a little more research! 🙂

    You lose….I am JP Holding….I flushed the new wave!

  8. Profile photo of brettstrong

    brettstrong - June 12, 2013, 1:31 pm

    Hi JP! I just approved both of your post concerning :-), I love them, seriously!, because they show you have ZERO empirical evidence for the BIG 3 (Jesus, god, or hell)…thus you are forced to rant and freak out and try to taint my character and the works…its a smoke screen, a red herring, trying to get everyone off the topic of proof so you don’t have to admit before the world that you and Nick have 100% failed to show any (0) empirical evidence for the BIG 3–because there is no empirical evidence for the BIG 3 (Jesus, god, or hell)…that’s why Christianity is faith based not fact based…cool…as I said JP and Nick…nothing wrong with believing in deities and other things (like hell) you cannot prove to be real…just lose the dogma guys!

    Heck, I would never put down Space Alien believers and likewise I would never put you guys down for believing in storybook characters that fly in the air like Peter Pan…just lose the dogma..

    Brett Strong…the next wave is here and I am he!

    …told you, JP and NIck, you would lose against me and the whole world would see! …I have shown the world you guys are bluffers–and until you show empirical evidence of the BIG 3 you will forever remain bluffers!

    …have a great guys and your Jesus faith serve well!

    • Nick - June 12, 2013, 1:34 pm

      So if you’re sure we’d lose, then get a spine and come to Theologyweb.

  9. Derek - June 21, 2013, 11:31 am

    Go to theology web. Learn something for a change. You weird little borderline-illiterate you.

  10. Graceus - June 21, 2013, 4:44 pm

    Hi, Brett, so your criteria for knowing the truth about anything is that it must be empirically proven? Are you aware that you cannot empirically prove to me that your mind exists? If I go by your criteria, there is no way that you can prove to me that your mind actually exists. For all I know, you could be a robot (you know that technology has advanced where human robots are being developed), and you could be programmed to respond to me or someone else is doing the response. Or I could even be a brain in a vat and what I see are holographic images, and everything around me has been programmed, even the sense of touch. By your standard, me believing that you exist would be believing in a delusion because you cannot prove to me that your mind exists. So it doesn’t seem like the scientific method gives us truth all the time. The scientific method, upon which you base all your knowledge can even prove itself to be true. I think there is a flaw in your use of the scientific method to prove reality all the time.

Leave a Reply