God vs. Science

[The12lber]

Calling lack of belief in god "faith" is a very misleading use of the word. Choosing not to believe in something for which there is no evidence isn't faith in the same sense believing in god is at all, especially since by choosing to believe in god you are not only choosing to believe in the supernatural but something very specific.

Take this very nondescript example to demonstrate the logic behind this. An event happens, did it happen without any outside intervention or did something unknown cause it to happen?

Its one thing to decide that it was something unknown or that the event happened without outside intervention without evidence. Its something else altogether to decide that something else did it and that something was bigfoot. This is EXACTLY what you have done when you choose to believe in god or in anything more specific than that. Supernatural creation or design don't have to be god. Why couldn't it have been space aliens? Or the cosmic design committee? The Hindu or Olympian Pantheon?

More over, those who have concluded there is no supernatural intervention in the natural world can rely on increasingly accurate science (hence, its not faith in any sense of the word) to explain the operations of this world in the abscence of the supernatural. And the thing is, no matter how advanced science becomes, it can never be advanced enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant being. Don't call not believing in something like that "faith", its ridiculous

[NAG2I]

well for a believer there is a little evidence. you make it sound like people who believe in a God just got there ideas from there imagination. most people who believe, have a source where they get there beliefs from. whether it be the bible or the koran or whatever.

[The12lber]

well for a believer there is a little evidence. you make it sound like people who believe in a God just got there ideas from there imagination. most people who believe, have a source where they get there beliefs from. whether it be the bible or the koran or whatever.

What you're talking about is only evidence of man's ability to create and disseminate mass media.

The Bible and the Koran are evidence of god's existence the same way rednecks with incoherent stories of anal probing on the history channel are evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials.

[NAG2I]

What you're talking about is only evidence of man's ability to create and disseminate mass media.

The Bible and the Koran are evidence of god's existence the same way rednecks with incoherent stories of anal probing on the history channel are evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials.

That might be the way you look at it and thats fine. but thats what makes people have different beliefs. different people choose to believe different things. i dont think one side of this will ever win over the whole other sides beliefs.

[The12lber]

That might be the way you look at it and thats fine. but thats what makes people have different beliefs. different people choose to believe different things. i dont think one side of this will ever win over the whole other sides beliefs.

Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

[NAG2I]

Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.

[The12lber]

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

This is plainly false. A specific and significant example. Jews in bondage in Egypt? NOWHERE BUT THE BIBLE. Moses? NOWHERE BUT THE BIBLE. There is no other evidence. NONE.


a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

This is undoubtedly true. Notice he refers to The Book of Acts only, though. The bible is full of individual books. One being true doesn't make the entire thing true by association, I'm not sure if you're trying to be misleading or you're that dumb.

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

ORLY? This one isn't even worth refuting. I can find plenty of quotes arguing that Nostradamus and Mayan priests were flawless fortune tellers as well.

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

The New Testament is only part of the bible. The New Testament is indeed more or less historically accurate. The New Testament is also, more or less, far less fantastic in its storytelling than the Old.

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.

This is true. Obviously, you didn't understand what I said. "Back in the day", meant to insinuate the somewhat distant past, there were indeed meetings during which the contents of The New Testament was decided upon. It will only take, in your words "very little research" to verify this.

Past iterations of The New Testament are indeed similar to the current one. Not all "Books" by theological writers were added to the bible, however.

You haven't really demonstrated anything here. Not only is this a collection of falsehoods and half truths, it also fails in respects to demonstrating how literature can be explicit evidence of the existence of the supernatural. If I were you I'd watch Penn & Teller's BS episode on The Bible's historical accuracy if you want further education.

[David88vert]

Calling lack of belief in god "faith" is a very misleading use of the word. Choosing not to believe in something for which there is no evidence isn't faith in the same sense believing in god is at all, especially since by choosing to believe in god you are not only choosing to believe in the supernatural but something very specific.

Take this very nondescript example to demonstrate the logic behind this. An event happens, did it happen without any outside intervention or did something unknown cause it to happen?

Its one thing to decide that it was something unknown or that the event happened without outside intervention without evidence. Its something else altogether to decide that something else did it and that something was bigfoot. This is EXACTLY what you have done when you choose to believe in god or in anything more specific than that. Supernatural creation or design don't have to be god. Why couldn't it have been space aliens? Or the cosmic design committee? The Hindu or Olympian Pantheon?

More over, those who have concluded there is no supernatural intervention in the natural world can rely on increasingly accurate science (hence, its not faith in any sense of the word) to explain the operations of this world in the abscence of the supernatural. And the thing is, no matter how advanced science becomes, it can never be advanced enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant being. Don't call not believing in something like that "faith", its ridiculous

Trusting in men to tell you what to believe takes faith. Who decides who is credible and who is not? If you believe in evolution based on "credible scientists", you are having faith in their words and books. There is no difference in believing in their books or the Bible, Koran, etc. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that - those are your beliefs.

I see you repeatedly confusing science and philosophy. You do realize that they are two different subjects, correct?