Originally posted by whodey Wrong again. The Bible is the ONLY religious text in which a scientific discipline is associated with it which is Biblical archaeology. The Bible says it is there and they go a digg'in. If it is historiaclly accurate enough to base a scientific discipline upon it I say chalk it up as evidence as to its accuracy.
You've never heard of Vedic Archeology? Anyway, the scientific discipline in question is simply archeology, and results of the research program of Biblical Archeology have been mixed. Additionally, I see no reason to think that the geographical accuracy of a text lends credence to its claims about angels, talking snakes, hippogryphs, etc.
Originally posted by bbarr You've never heard of Vedic Archeology? Anyway, the scientific discipline in question is simply archeology, and results of the research program of Biblical Archeology have been mixed. Additionally, I see no reason to think that the geographical accuracy of a text lends credence to its claims about angels, talking snakes, hippogryphs, etc.
The statement was made that the Bible has no relavence in terms of evidence for the validity of God. The implication being that the Bible has no evidence to back up its stories and claims. I have shown this to be false. It is true that there is considerable debate in terms of all of the findings within the field of archaelogy in terms of the Bible always being accurate but I would expect nothing less in any scientific discipline.
Originally posted by whodey The statement was made that the Bible has no relavence in terms of evidence for the validity of God. The implication being that the Bible has no evidence to back up its stories and claims. I have shown this to be false. It is true that there is considerable debate in terms of all of the findings within the field of archaelogy in terms of the Bible always being accurate but I would expect nothing less in any scientific discipline.
But isn't there a pretty big leap to be made from one to the other?
I accept that the stories in the bible are probably for the most part based on actual events and actual people. It would be ludicrous to claim otherwise.
But to then suggest that therefore the supernatural elements of the bible are also true is making too big of a step.
The same can be said of many historical accounts.
Historians after the event can interpret and reinterpret events and can add their own particular spin to them.
I'm certain the same has happened in the construction of the bible stories.
Originally posted by amannion But isn't there a pretty big leap to be made from one to the other?
I accept that the stories in the bible are probably for the most part based on actual events and actual people. It would be ludicrous to claim otherwise.
But to then suggest that therefore the supernatural elements of the bible are also true is making too big of a step.
The same can be ...[text shortened]... lar spin to them.
I'm certain the same has happened in the construction of the bible stories.
Again, the statement was made that the Bible could not be used as evidence and I have merely shown that it can. In terms of proving the miracles perhaps Moses took some snap shots of the Red Sea being parted, who knows?
Originally posted by whodey So our existence is not extraordinary? If I recall, this planet is the only one that we know of that contains life upon it. Therefore our very existence is exrtaordinary as well as the very existence of the universe itself. There is no evidence for the universe being eternal. We can look as far back as the Big Bang and that is it. Also, abiogenesis is no ...[text shortened]... mpressed by all of this and am sure you have heard it before. Nonetheless, it is evidence. 😀
Our existence is a given. We do not know if it is extraordinary, or if its common. If ours is the only planet in the universe with life on it, then it would be extraordinary. But it may turn out that life is common on planets that are able to support it.
Even if all the current scientific theories about the universe turn out to be wrong, it doesn't mean that your position is right. It's not an either/or proposition.
I am familiar with all the fine tuning arguments you trot out, and I am unimpressed with them. I would continue with the counter-arguments if I had the time and patience. Then again, I am sure you are largely unimpressed by all of this and am sure you have heard it all before.
Originally posted by rwingett [b]Our existence is a given. We do not know if it is extraordinary, or if its common. If ours is the only planet in the universe with life on it, then it would be extraordinary. But it may turn out that life is common on planets that are able to support it.
I suppose it is my turn to say, "This claim you make is for you to prove and not for me to disprove".
Originally posted by whodey The statement was made that the Bible has no relavence in terms of evidence for the validity of God. The implication being that the Bible has no evidence to back up its stories and claims. I have shown this to be false. It is true that there is considerable debate in terms of all of the findings within the field of archaelogy in terms of the Bible always being accurate but I would expect nothing less in any scientific discipline.
You cannot use the bible to prove the existence of god. That is circular reasoning. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you many times, but you seem determined to ignore the fact. Either that or you honestly don't understand what circular reasoning is.
Originally posted by rwingett I am familiar with all the fine tuning arguments you trot out, and I am unimpressed with them.
The prophet Whodey strikes again. 😛
I will only say that here we have the same data to work with yet draw different conclusion based upon what we believe or want to believe. In my opinion, that is why belief is so important. Perhaps we can agree upon this if nothing else?......that is if the prospect of agreeing with me is not too repugnant.
Originally posted by whodey The statement was made that the Bible has no relavence in terms of evidence for the validity of God. The implication being that the Bible has no evidence to back up its stories and claims. I have shown this to be false. It is true that there is considerable debate in terms of all of the findings within the field of archaelogy in terms of the Bible always being accurate but I would expect nothing less in any scientific discipline.
The statement was made that it is possible to prove the existance of God without reference to the Bible. Is this true?
Originally posted by whodey Again, the statement was made that the Bible could not be used as evidence and I have merely shown that it can. In terms of proving the miracles perhaps Moses took some snap shots of the Red Sea being parted, who knows?
Imagine that you are back to 2000 yrs ago; your knowledge will also be that of 2000 yrs ago. No light bulb, no modern vehicles driven by gasoline etc, everything so primitive.
OK, now imagine that David Copperfield gets into a time machine and goes back to 2000 yrs ago. You see him fly in the sky (he flew over London); he makes the pyramid disappear (he made the statue of liberty disappear); he cuts his body into two, and then joins them up again. You see all this with your very own eyes. 2000 yrs ago, with your limited knowledge, if David were to claim that he is god, would you have believed him?
Originally posted by whodey I suppose it is my turn to say, "This claim you make is for you to prove and not for me to disprove".
Here's the post you responded to:
Originally posted by rwingett
Our existence is a given. We do not know if it is extraordinary, or if its common. If ours is the only planet in the universe with life on it, then it would be extraordinary. But it may turn out that life is common on planets that are able to support it.
I think that rwingett is saying that if life only exists on this planet then life is an extraordinary phenomenon and could be used as evidence to support extraordinary claims. However, if life is found on many 'earth like' planets then the phenomenon of life is not extraordinary and cannot be used as evidence in support of extraordniary claims. If it is found on non earth-like planets as well then that makes it even less extraordinary.
So far, we have found 1 earth-like planet in our solar system (on which there is life) and 1 possibly earth-like planet in another solar system, about 20 light years away and it's going to be pretty tricky (understatement of the decade!) to discover whether there is life there or not.
Essentially, since we've only explored a vanishingly small fraction of the universe, we cannot say whether the phenomenon of life is extraordinary or not and therefore cannot use it as evidence for or against extraordinary claims.
Originally posted by Penguin Here's the post you responded to:
Originally posted by rwingett
Our existence is a given. We do not know if it is extraordinary, or if its common. If ours is the only planet in the universe with life on it, then it would be extraordinary. But it may turn out that life is common on planets that are able to support it.
I think that rwingett is sa nd therefore cannot use it as evidence for or against extraordinary claims.
--- Penguin.
I would say that life is extraordinay in the sense that even man, as smart as he is, has never been able to create it in the lab.
IMO that can be used as evidence that something smarter than man is responsible for the existance of life.
Originally posted by Phuzudaka I would say that life is extraordinay in the sense that even man, as smart as he is, has never been able to create it in the lab.
IMO that can be used as evidence that something smarter than man is responsible for the existance of life.
So, since are unable to make a mountain this is proof that the mountain was made by someone smarter than you? What rubbish. The complexity of a product is not a direct function of the intelligence of its creator.
Has anyone even made a pebble 'in the lab' that an expert could not differentiate from a natural pebble? If not, then does that mean that every pebble was individually crafted by an intelligence superior to man? Given that there are well understood natural processes that give rise to pebbles given enough time, pressure and erosion I think we would have to say 'No'.
Proving the Existance of God sans Bible
04 May '07 02:27
Back to Top