Good reason

[nobspeople]

In a different thread (listed below), when discussing, in part, if the bible is true, TRANSPONDER said " It is a well known argument that asserting what is in the Bible is true because it is in the Bible is a fallacy. A Lawyer would know that a witness statement is not going to be accepted as true just because he or she has said it. Nor of course rejected without good reason."

The above bolded section caused me to think (not claiming this is TRANSPNDER's assertion): is there good reason to think the bible isn't true?

For discussion: Is there good reason (define what is 'good reason' to you) to think the bible is or is not true*?

*TRUE here being used as 'legitimate, real word of God which was written by men, inspired by God' - this would assume everything written in it is true and agreed upon by God - in other words, nothing written is personal opinion of the writer.



Reference viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38540&start=10

[JehovahsWitness]

Science cannot disprove a miracle. Noah's flood and many of the other miraculous accounts are essentially beyond the scope of scientific examination. It is therefore false to claim they have been disproved.

That is patently false. The great biblical flood would leave characteristic evidence that is well within the scope of scientific examination.

Not if God did not want that to be the case. Are you arguing that an omnipotent God could not do something?





JW

[brunumb]

Science cannot disprove a miracle. Noah's flood and many of the other miraculous accounts are essentially beyond the scope of scientific examination. It is therefore false to claim they have been disproved.

That is patently false. The great biblical flood would leave characteristic evidence that is well within the scope of scientific examination.

Not if God did not want that to be the case. Are you arguing that an omnipotent God could not do something?

Nope. Are you arguing that God miracled the great flood to wipe out the bulk of humanity and then cleaned up after himself?

[JehovahsWitness]

Science cannot disprove a miracle. Noah's flood and many of the other miraculous accounts are essentially beyond the scope of scientific examination. It is therefore false to claim they have been disproved.

That is patently false. The great biblical flood would leave characteristic evidence that is well within the scope of scientific examination.

Not if God did not want that to be the case. Are you arguing that an omnipotent God could not do something?

Nope. ...

Well then obviously you cannot also be arguing an omnipotent God has to leave physical evidence of his miraculous interventions.







JW

[brunumb]

Well then obviously you cannot also be arguing an omnipotent God has to leave physical evidence of his miraculous interventions.

Are you arguing that God miracled the great flood to wipe out the bulk of humanity and then cleaned up after himself?

[TRANSPONDER]

Science cannot disprove a miracle. Noah's flood and many of the other miraculous accounts are essentially beyond the scope of scientific examination. It is therefore false to claim they have been disproved.

That is patently false. The great biblical flood would leave characteristic evidence that is well within the scope of scientific examination.

Not if God did not want that to be the case. Are you arguing that an omnipotent God could not do something?

Nope. ...

Well then obviously you cannot also be arguing an omnipotent God has to leave physical evidence of his miraculous interventions.







JW

I love it. Of course, if you are determined to ignore, dismiss and deny evidence, then you can claim that, however science can demonstrate it looks, if you cannot just deny science, then you can claim that God magicked it all to fool us into thinking there was no flood. It has been also said of the (fossil) evidence for deep time evolution ..to mislead all but the Faithful who would deny that 2+2 = 4 if the Bible said it was 5. Others have accused the devil of doing it so as to mislead some into doubting Genesis.

There is nothing to be done about such people. They are in deep denial and are impervious to reason. What useful purpose they serve however is for those who are still able to reason and care about what the evidence indicates will look and shake their heads and agree (I hope) that the evidence (from Genesis to Revelation) shows that there Is No Good Reason to believe the Bible or the god it talks about.

[brunumb]

Are you arguing that God miracled the great flood to wipe out the bulk of humanity and then cleaned up after himself?

Without any evidence of the biblical flood it is nothing more than a fanciful story in an old book.

[TRANSPONDER]

I can certainly sympathise with those believers who would rather explain off Genesis as 'metaphorical' or rewrite the terms to make it fit science (1) They try not to put too much logical and evidential pressure on what they want to believe. But for those who try to explain away or, if they can't do that, flatly deny science, I can only recall the excellent video series 'Why people laugh at creationists' and shudder at the thought of such people getting their hands on political power and heavy weaponry.

(1) like those who explain why the Bible says '7 days' when science says 14.5 billion years - just divide 14.5 into 7 and call each one 'a day'. And never mind that Genesis talks of each day marked by dark and light; morning and evening.

[brunumb]

I love it. Of course, if you are determined to ignore, dismiss and deny evidence, then you can claim that, however science can demonstrate it looks, if you cannot just deny science, then you can claim that God magicked it all to fool us into thinking there was no flood.

It really is too funny. All that God-magic to fabricate a flood and clear away the evidence in order to wipe out wicked humans, when a simple dose of God-magic could disappear them all with a minimum of fuss and no collateral damage. What did all the cute bunnies and other animals (and plants) ever do to warrant extermination and by such an horrific method? It's no wonder the JWs don't like their members getting an education, because critical thinking leads you away from such absurdities.

[TRANSPONDER]

A discussion on my former board (I was there 20 years or so - great times..but a bit limited in public exposure) produced the idea that the 'Cloud cover' apologetic excuse for Genesis claiming the sun was created after there was daylight would only work if it was a human describing what he saw from earth (cloud blocking out seeing the sun). But there were no humans to see it, so it has to be God putting that view from the ground into the writers' head, rather than showing him that the sun was already made and the earth just covered in cloud.

Well, if it's all misleading information put into the head of someone who wasn't there with regard to Creation, why not the same with regard to a Flood that (on Geological evidence) never happened and makes no sense anyway? God put the myth into the writers' head. That would explain a few things, wouldn't it?

[nobspeople]

I love it. Of course, if you are determined to ignore, dismiss and deny evidence, then you can claim that, however science can demonstrate it looks, if you cannot just deny science, then you can claim that God magicked it all to fool us into thinking there was no flood.

It really is too funny. All that God-magic to fabricate a flood and clear away the evidence in order to wipe out wicked humans, when a simple dose of God-magic could disappear them all with a minimum of fuss and no collateral damage. What did all the cute bunnies and other animals (and plants) ever do to warrant extermination and by such an horrific method? It's no wonder the JWs don't like their members getting an education, because critical thinking leads you away from such absurdities.

When I was a christian, I always wondered why god would use natural events to 'cleanse the world', or the like. Why a flood? Why locusts? Why did a whale swallow Jonah?
Surely it would have made a bigger impact (then and even now) if it was something more grand.
Of course, there's the idea that the writers were only interpreting what they saw based on what they knew at the time (where there whales in Jonah's area?). But if that's the case, why didn't god, all knowing that he is, interject: "Yeah no. That wasn't a flood. It was XYZ. Just write that down for the future - they'll know what it means."