Atheists’ Myths: Part 3 Richard Deem
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Atheist Myth #3: Christianity Was Invented by Paul, Not Founded by Jesus of Nazareth
Paul Invented Christianity? • Atheists claim that Paul invented the majority of Christian doctrines • Jesus did not teach the majority of doctrines taught by Paul • Paul did not know anything about the Jesus of the gospels, but just knew the “Cosmic Christ”
Paul Meets Jesus "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' "(Acts 22:6-8)
Conclusion • The core doctrines of Christianity are taught not only by Paul, but also by Jesus, the apostles, and Old Testament saints. • The atheist claim that Paul invented Christianity is a myth
More In-Depth Research Papers • Paul Invented Christianity? Is the Founder of the Christian Religion Paul of Tarsus or Jesus of Nazareth? • History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us • The Bible Has Been Changed Over the Centuries From the Original?
More Atheist Myths GodAndScience.org
Did Cooperation Evolve? • Evolutionary psychology claims that human interaction is largely a function of the genes and that it evolved along with our physical characteristics to make us what we are • Accordingly, humans possess an innate social psychology evolved for cooperation within our small-scale Paleolithic societies • With the emergence of agriculture these behaviors were mistakenly extended to non-kin individuals, as societies expanded
Did Cooperation Evolve? • Determinism claims that humans lack free will, but react to stimuli in a predictable, programmed way
Study Design • Money-swapping games were played by 2,148 people from 15 small societies around the world • The amount of money used was the equivalent of one day’s wage • Market Integration was measured by the percentage of calories that that were purchased
Dictator Game • Two anonymous players are allotted a sum of money (the stake) in a one-shot interaction • Player 1 must decide how to divide this sum between himself and Player 2 • Player 2 receives the allocation (offer), and the game ends • Player 1’s offer to Player 2 provides a measure of Player 1’s behavioral fairness
Ultimatum Game • Two anonymous players are again allotted a sum in a one-shot interaction • Player 1 can offer a portion of this to Player 2 • Player 2, before hearing the actual offer from Player 1, must decide whether to accept or reject each of the possible offers • If Player 2 specified that he or she would accept the amount of the actual offer, then Player 2 receives the offered amount and Player 1 gets the remainder. • If Player 2 specified that he would reject the offered amount, then both players receive zero • If people are motivated purely by money maximization, Player 2 will always accept any positive offer • Realizing this, Player 1 should offer the smallest nonzero amount • Because this is a one-shot anonymous interaction, Player 2’s willingness to reject provides a measure of punishment • Player 1’s offer measures a combination of social motivations and an assessment of the likelihood of rejection, providing a second behavioral measure of fairness.
Ultimatum Game Example • $100 stake • Player 1 offers $20 to Player 2
Third-Party Punishment Game • Two players are allotted a stake and a third player also receives the equivalent of one-half of the stake • Player 1 must decide how much to allocate to Player 2, who has no choices • Player 3, before hearing the actual amount that Player 1 allocated to Player 2, has to decide whether to pay 20% or more of his allocation to punish Player 1 for each of the possible offers • If punished, Player 1 loses triple the amount paid by Player 3
Third-Party Punishment Example • $100 stake • Player 1 offers $10 to Player 2 (keeping $90)
Mean Dictator Game Offers for Each Population vs. Market Integration J. Henrich et al. 2010. Science 327: 1480-1484.
Creation Update:Should Extremely Small Probabilities be Considered Scientifically Possible?
Background • Many atheists claim that if something is possible, it should be considered as having a basis in scientific reality • Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility • This paper presents a method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric – UPM)
Calculating the UPM • 4.4 × 1017 seconds since the Big Bang • Plank time (minimum time interval) is 10-43 seconds • Number of possible quantum transitions since the Big Bang would be 1043 × 1017 = 1060 • number of protons, neutrons and electrons is 1080 • Universal probability bound is: 1043 × 1017 × 1080 = 10140
Calculating the UPM • qΩu = Universe = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1080 particles = 10140 • qΩg = Galaxy = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1067 particles = 10127 • qΩs = Solar System = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1057 particles = 10117 • qΩu = Earth = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1042 particles = 10102
Origin of Life • Origin of life theories are dependent upon the maximum chemical reaction rate • Shortest transition time is 10-15 sec • Complete chemical reactions require 10-12 sec • Biochemical reactions require 10-9 - 10-6 sec • Exceedingly generous time of 10-13 sec
Origin of Life • qΩu = Universe = 1013 reactions/sec × 1017 secs × 1078 atoms = 10108 • qΩg = Galaxy = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1066 atoms = 1096 • qΩs = Solar System = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1055 atoms = 1085 • qΩu = Earth = 1043 trans/sec × 1017 secs × 1040 atoms = 1070
Conclusions • Any scientific claim that produces probabilities less than the UPM are implausible and must be rejected on a scientific basis • Atheism is irrational