This is getting to be a serious pain, since underneath each of your posts there is no way for me to reply. Therefore to address one of your points. You claim the Bible must be true because of a,b,c, etc. But the things you list are all subjective, not empircial evidence. You claim it must be true because of the way it was written. Again, people did write fiction at that time. And even if they didn't simply because the methodology of one particular piece of writing seems "real" does not necessarily make it factual. You claim it should be true because of how many people believe it or in your terms "its impact". While Islam and Hinduism, etc, have many followers and each has made quite a large impact and this does not make any of those religions true. You need to address the contradictions: Why are all the gospels very different, one has Jesus appearing to 12, one to 11, one to 10. One has Jesus telling them to go to Galilee, in the other Jesus tells them to stay and not go anywhere. These are serious discrepancies within the Gospels.
Steping out of the mythology for a moment. The Bible's version of creation, etc. Does not account for the fact of evolution and the geologic column with invertebrates on the bottom and Homo Sapiens on the top. Creation story is utterly diametrically opposed to these facts.
In the same way, the Bible may have the occasional historical reference within it, but other than that all other claims are not able to up to the test of science. The reason is very simple. If the Bible contained testable material, or falsifiable “evidence” it would be dismissed out of hand as a fraud. But by claiming these things are beyond science, religion enters the realm of astrology and psychics by claiming an erroneous claim that is it beyond reproach and beyond the scope of evidence thereby making sure it CAN NOT be falsified using reason and logic because it is faith-based, not evidence based.
Erm...no. The reason it cannot be tested is nothing to do with its validity, but its nature. You cannot test history. You can examine it.
Interesting tact but metaphors by definition ARE NOT truth. If the truth was being referenced it would not be a metaphor.
I said metaphors can contain truth. I did not say they were truth.
What you have provided me was most certainly NOT evidence. It was conjecture. There is a large difference.
It is conjecture founded upon interpretation. IE the Hebrew word used is not "create" but "let there be", implying something different.
What you have provided me was most certainly NOT evidence. It was conjecture. There is a large difference. And yet again you are changing your story more often than I can keep up with. First you posit “light” was through the atmosphere, then it was the Sun light as the Earth turned, now you are back to “through the atmosphere” again. Please make up your mind. Your quote “The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night”
I'll be as clear as I can. The arrival of the light was it coming through the clouds, the separation of the light from the dark is day and night (IE the rotation of the planet) and the evening and morning were metaphorical for the ending of a phase, in conjunction with their use elsewhere. IE the Bible describes the process of day and night, but the days themselves (the first day etc) are described differently.
Again you are providing nothing more than conjecture. If the Bible is either written by God, or His divine word (however you wish to interpret it) why would God not say “one evening, one morning, one billion years.” Because the people of the time had no understanding about just how old the universe really was. But as God, he should have known if He created it.
The fact that it is not literal would suggest that the literal nature is not important to our salvation. How God made the world isn't as important as the fact that he did.
Moreover, if the term “day” is used poetically in various places in the Bible (of this I do not argue) why is it being used metaphorically and not literally in what can only be described as the most important part of Biblical faith--the creation of the world? Simply because it is man-made. Ockham’s razor most certainly applies here.
What gave you the idea that the creation of the world is somehow the most important part of the Christian Faith? You'll find actually the most important part is Jesus's life, death and resurection. After all, that is what pretty much the whole of the OT points towards and the NT either points at or back to.
No. You have a belief system based on faith that what was written in the Biblical story is true. It is only your belief. The idea that in one religion you reach to God or God(s) reach to you makes no difference to it’s truth value, it is still a faith-based belief and nothing more.
Untrue. We can test the gospels for their historical accuracy to see if they have the authority to claim that what they saw was true.
Moreover, according to the mythos God created the mess, i.e., we are born in sin (I don’t know any baby that has sinned, but nevertheless), and He came to Earth and gave us a “choice”: either worship me or suffer the eternity of Hell. That does not seem right to me. Something is definitely wrong here. You’ve claimed before that God cannot tolerate imperfection so we must accept Christ, be washed of our sins and only then can we enter heaven. If that is true then you must admit that God does not have anything to do with the universe anymore or with us since there are still sinners on the Earth and He cannot tolerate imperfection, he must have to, according to your rules, stay away from the Earth altogether.
Firstly, God did not create the mess. We did. We sinned. It was 100% our choice. Secondly, I did not say God could not tollerate imperfection/sin to the point of not being with us. I said he could not tollerate it in heaven and could not be in our presence in the same way he was prior to the fall in Eden. He can still have his presence here, but it is not as it was. It is not the totality of his presence in the way it was in Eden.
All of the Christian religions have a core dogma they adhere to, but what else would they differ over if not interpretation as I’ve already stated.
And as I've stated, plenty of much more petty things. It is well recorded that churches have split because of personal disagreements and differences, as well as simple differing areas of focus.
It must be interpretation. And since each has a different interpretation it follows that if there is only one correct one, each has it’s own claim to being that “right” one.
Again, no. Many Churches simply disagree on style. IE they may worship in a different manner. Or they may focus in a different way. Pentecostal churches focus on gifts of the spirit more, where as evangelicals are more about direct outreach. Methodists focus primarily on practical mission, yet none of these three would disagree about the nature of salvation. They just focus on different areas. None of them would say that any of them are unsaved. They might say that they disagree with the level of nessecity placed on their focus, but even that is rare. They just say "That's their focus, this is ours". Very few churches of a different denomination would actually say that the other is unsaved.
Moreover, there have never been any fulfilled prophecies that have not been written within the same text as fulfilled.
The Psalms. Unless you are seriously going to suggest that the Psalms were written after the gospels. If so, this conversation is going to end because you clearly have no regard for history.
Moreover, if we have empirical evidence of billion year old meteors carrying amino acids, and partial DNA codes, why can we not have empirical evidence of Biblical occurrences?
For the same reason that we do not have empirical evidence of Caesar. We have historical evidence of him, not scientific empirical evidence. What he did did not have scientific consequences. It had historical consequences. Empiricism does not study written history. It's just that simple.
Sorry, but if you can empirically examine pre-history, than you can likewise examine history.
The distinction between history and pre history is that pre-history is not based upon that which is written down. Here's something to try. Try proving Caesar's existance without refering to a single written word. Not one. It's impossible. You can talk about statues, but you wouldn't be able to prove they are all the same person. You wouldn't be able to date them or even tell who they were of (to do that, you'd need to read). History is based upon written accounts. It would be impossible to prove Casar's existance, or WW2 happening without access to written texts. You could give some vague outlines, but you could not prove it.
“What you see to be true.” Can you give me one contemporary (within our lifetime) example of “seeing” that God exists or that Jesus exists, or that heaven is waiting, or that a soul is real?
90 minutes in heaven, 23 minutes in hell, A12 to heaven, the experiences of Brother Yun. Three off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could find more with proper research.
Atheists do have evidence of at least a possible way in which the universe began without a man-made God to create it (see Stephen Hawking).
No they don't. See infinite regress and the fundimental misunderstanding that Hawking makes about agency and design
Moreover, Christians do not have evidence. If they did, as you claim, everyone would be a Christian. There would be no atheists, no Muslims, no Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.. Yes Hawking’s views are not totally accepted by all atheists, but he has made a logically valid point as to how the universe came to be without the aid of a magical deity
There is evidence, but many people refuse to accept it because they demand higher standards of evidence. But there is enough.
Please send me a link to a subject of the Bible for example about the resurrection that has been peer reviewed by people who do not already presuppose its occurrence, like an atheist. What is meant by peer if not people working in the same field of study? A biologist is not going to peer review a physics paper.
There are many non believers who are none the less Biblical academics.
History: the study of past events, particularly in human affairs
Though not necessarily human affairs. It is the study of PAST EVENTS.
If you did X yesterday, is it part of history? Of course it is. Was it recorded? Probably not.
You are using a colloquial definition. The accademic definition is written. If it was not, then why do we refer to the "Prehistoric era" etc. History is not merely the past. It is the recorded past. Colloquially, yes it is the past, but not in an accademic sense.
That is exactly what you wrote verbatim. That is why I was laughing because there is no barrier though you claim the dew “falls”. And again I must correct you, the dew doesn’t fall it forms upon the item because air is everywhere. Though not according to your previous post it isn’t.
The air is not everywhere. The ground is not air. If you were to measure from the Earths core how high up "air" was, compared to where ground is, the air would be higher.
Those people didn’t care that they were getting sick? And this makes sense how?
They may have expected shorter lifespans. It may have been the cultural norm. They may have had a level of resistance to the illnesses, but they still lived less anyway. Much like the way people today eat unhealthily.
You believe a picture is worth less than words written on paper several thousand years ago? The coins at least provide a semblance of evidentiary “proof”, a likeness.
And how do you know it is a likeness? Because they wrote that it was. Without the writing, you would have no idea who that person is. It would just be a face. An important face perhaps, but a face only. You wouldn't even know if it was real. It may have been a symbol of a mythical figure etc. Without written context, the picture means nothing. Once again, you are thoroughly reliant on writing.
A man-made account of what allowed Christians to seize power over people and in the Catholic form, to enslave nations and torment disbelievers and so-called heretics. That is all it amounts to.
While Catholics may have in the past used it to attack heretics, I see no evidence to suggest that that is what it was intended for
1) I've already been through a lot of the contradictions in the Bible whether in verse form or just generally what does not comport with true empirical science and don't wish to go through them all over again. However, that is the main problem with religion is that it is faith-based, therefore lack of evidence based. If you claim you have evidence that God exists than you don't need faith, therefore the entire religion is based upon an asumption and not empirical evidence, where science is based on empirical evidence and if and when it is proven incorrect on a point it corrects itself, unlike religion which claims to have the only and absolute truth. I would never trust a idea that claims to be the absolute truth and which is NOT self-correcting.
Science has its own sacred cows. Areas which are not self correcting. The main one being, the method. Scientists argue that the method is either self evident or not open for discussion. Here though is my problem with that. The method is founded upon logical absolutes, absolutes which do not physically exist, and which cannot be proven to physically exist, and yet allow for the examination of all that does physically exist. I would say then, that since scientists, in every femto-second of their work, rely upon that which they cannot show to physically exist in order to function, should therefore be less critical of religious people. Especially since that which they rely upon can be demonstrated to support the proof of a God (see the Transcendental argument)
It's ashame you feel that way since there is no demonstrable evidence to support what could even remotely be considered a "proof" of God's existence. And of course if you did have proof you wouldn't need faith. The scientific method has taken us from a primative, pagan, superstitous culture to our current abilities and discoveries. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method and has proven useful throughout it's history by dint of actual empirical evidence.
It is useful, but you cannot rely upon it as the proof of all that is. Also...
There is nothing wrong with the scientific method and has proven useful throughout it's history by dint of actual empirical evidence.
Ok, you are going to justify the universal value of the scientific method using...the scientific method. Does that not seem circular to you.