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

[We_Are_VENOM]

Do we?!?!

Well, you already stated that you reject the Bible. Are you not making that choice?

Sure there are some things that can be verified and shown to be true. But when it comes to miracles and supernatural happenings? It's more of a fictional piece than historical. At what point do we say 'X% = historical"?

Why dismiss miracles and supernatural happenings?

Not sure about the 'anything' part, but mostly, sure.

Well, if you weren't there to witness it, then you really can't know anything for sure, can you?

But, if the bible is god inspired, I would expect no inconsistencies, for starters.

Inconsistencies such as?

Though science tends to answer questions based on factual evidence and (should be) open to change.

I'm not too sure about that.

The bible offers no such thing.

Neither science nor the Bible "changes". It is our understanding that changes; and genuine, open-minded believers will certainly change their ways of thinking in light of new evidence....in the same way the science community are said to change in light of new evidence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #110]

And where science stops, theology begins.

And so does astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, geocentrism, seonces, flat earth beliefs, etc. etc. Science has a far better track record of explaining things and getting them right, without having to invoke the supernatural or miracles and the like. Living in the real world as it exists is much more preferable (to me) than living in an imaginary one.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #110]

And where science stops, theology begins.

And so does astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, geocentrism, seonces, flat earth beliefs, etc. etc. Science has a far better track record of explaining things and getting them right, without having to invoke the supernatural or miracles and the like. Living in the real world as it exists is much more preferable (to me) than living in an imaginary one.

Well let me put it to you this way; before the universe began to exist, there was no science to play with.



However, something out there had to be big/powerful enough to create an entire universe.

So, as I said, where science stops, theology begins.

[brunumb]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #110]

And where science stops, theology begins.

And so does astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, geocentrism, seonces, flat earth beliefs, etc. etc. Science has a far better track record of explaining things and getting them right, without having to invoke the supernatural or miracles and the like. Living in the real world as it exists is much more preferable (to me) than living in an imaginary one.

Well let me put it to you this way; before the universe began to exist, there was no science to play with.



However, something out there had to be big/powerful enough to create an entire universe.

So, as I said, where science stops, theology begins.

And the science tells us that this iteration of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and modern humans about 200,000 years ago, all of which knocks theology into a cocked hat. So far we have nothing that confirms that a god is necessary let alone that one even exists.

ETA: Where the science stops, meaning that it is currently unable to answer some questions, theology begins by simply inventing the answers.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #113]

Well let me put it to you this way; before the universe began to exist, there was no science to play with.

I'm pretty sure the practice of science is limited to Homo sapiens, and (as brunumb pointed out) we're a very recent addition having appeared only during the last 0.0065% of Earth's existence (not even considering what existed before our solar system formed). No science was practiced before then because there were no humans, but science is a means of explaining how nature and other things work. The "laws" of physics, chemistry, etc. as we understand them today existed long before we came along ... there were just no animals around smart enough to be able to figure out how to study them and build a framework called science. It was certainly there to be played with though, but had to await evolution of a suitably capable brain (that's us).

However, something out there had to be big/powerful enough to create an entire universe.

And maybe it was a god being, or maybe it was just nature doing its thing (Big Bang, or ??). We can't confirm either at the moment, but one is a pure guess and one has at least some evidence for it that isn't just pulled from the hind end, or ancient holy books.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #110]

And where science stops, theology begins.

And so does astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, geocentrism, seonces, flat earth beliefs, etc. etc. Science has a far better track record of explaining things and getting them right, without having to invoke the supernatural or miracles and the like. Living in the real world as it exists is much more preferable (to me) than living in an imaginary one.

Well let me put it to you this way; before the universe began to exist, there was no science to play with.



However, something out there had to be big/powerful enough to create an entire universe.

So, as I said, where science stops, theology begins.

We are well aware that, when all else fails, Theism resorts to 'Who made everything, then?'

Where 'science stops' - nobody knows how the Cosmos (not the universe, which began with the Big Bang) started - that is NOT where theology begins but knowledge ends. Theists would like to pop God into that gap in our knowledge but Gap for god faith -claims are a fallacy.

Tinkering about with semantics like there is no 'science' only the thoughts of humans is just playing with words. We all know that humans have only been able to do 'science' with the invention of writing. Before that there was technology - how to do things. But no science, what things are, how they work and why. That we've only done this in the last 4,000 years is beside the point.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #111]

Well, you already stated that you reject the Bible.

Not at all. The bible is a real book and people use it. Some things in it are worth a read, for sure. But the word of god? Not that I've seen nor experienced.

Why dismiss miracles and supernatural happenings?

Miracles and supernatural can be quite different. Miracles seem to be attributed more to one (or a couple) beings that are 'mystical' and unable to be explained. Supernatural seems to be things that happen that aren't explained (yet).
I don't dismiss things I've experienced totally.
So until I see a burning bush that talks and isn't consumed, I choose to dismiss it as fanciful and or a misunderstanding of a natural event. I suspect many others would do the same thing.
Additionally, 'miracle' seems to be used a lot when not necessary. Like 'hero'.
From my POV, a professional athlete isn't a 'hero' for making a goal or shot; they're a good athlete. Nor is that a 'miracle'. It may seem trite to make such a comparison, but I've seen these things said to be miracles and people deemed a hero.
Someone surviving a car crash may be a miracle. Or it may be that it's something so horrible that your mind can't comprehend it and thus, claim it a 'miracle'.

Well, if you weren't there to witness it, then you really can't know anything for sure, can you?

Which is why I said "...sure about the 'anything' part, but mostly, sure."

Inconsistencies such as?

There's a myriad of online lists and talks on this very forum for your review. You might want to start with the gospels.

I'm not too sure about that (science tends to answer questions based on factual evidence and (should be) open to change).

Then you might want to look in to it. There are members of the scientific community that resist change. That's unfortunate because that's not what science is. People should be open to science leading them in new directions if the evidence takes them there.

Neither science nor the Bible "changes".

The bible has changed, literally, throughout history. It's been added to and edited, then translated. Some sects even added books to their bible. and our belief of it evolves along with soceity.
Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Therefore, it changes (its techniques, how it's studied, etc).
Here's some good reading for you
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... es/266145/

and genuine, open-minded believers will certainly change their ways of thinking in light of new evidence

Should they? Didn't god show himself to them enough already? Or has it changed its mind?
If god doesn't change, and it's telling us 'XYZ', shouldn't it allow us to understand it now the same way we'd understand it 200 years from now?
Some would think so. Though, there are some that like to remain in the train of thought they've been told for decades.

Of course, people aren't perfect and open to error in interpretation and understanding. But god's not. Therefore, god should be able to enlighten the human mind enough to understand 'XYZ' the same way in 1410 as in 2021 IMO.
Which you may not share.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And the science tells us that this iteration of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and modern humans about 200,000 years ago, all of which knocks theology into a cocked hat.

Newsflash: Not all religions (or all Christians) are young earth creationists. You do know that, right?

So far we have nothing that confirms that a god is necessary let alone that one even exists.

Please, answer this question..

If you were to create all STEM (SPACE, TIME, ENERGY, MATTER), what would be your existing qualifications...what would be needed to create STEM?

ETA: Where the science stops, meaning that it is currently unable to answer some questions, theology begins by simply inventing the answers.

Inventing the answers? We just go where the evidence is pointing.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not at all. The bible is a real book and people use it. Some things in it are worth a read, for sure. But the word of god? Not that I've seen nor experienced.

Yeah, all of the supernatural stuff, scratch that stuff, huh? Well, that is your choice, isn't it?

Miracles and supernatural can be quite different. Miracles seem to be attributed more to one (or a couple) beings that are 'mystical' and unable to be explained. Supernatural seems to be things that happen that aren't explained (yet).
I don't dismiss things I've experienced totally.
So until I see a burning bush that talks and isn't consumed, I choose to dismiss it as fanciful and or a misunderstanding of a natural event. I suspect many others would do the same thing.

You have that right. And until I see an animal, whether suddenly or gradually, produce something other than what it is, I don't believe it.

Until I see nonliving material come "alive", I don't believe it.

Additionally, 'miracle' seems to be used a lot when not necessary. Like 'hero'.
From my POV, a professional athlete isn't a 'hero' for making a goal or shot; they're a good athlete. Nor is that a 'miracle'. It may seem trite to make such a comparison, but I've seen these things said to be miracles and people deemed a hero.
Someone surviving a car crash may be a miracle. Or it may be that it's something so horrible that your mind can't comprehend it and thus, claim it a 'miracle'.

I understand your distinctions, and I agree with them to a certain extent. Although, miracle in the religious sense is much more than surviving a car cash...it is a person raising from the dead, walking on water, turning water to wine.

Which is why I said "...sure about the 'anything' part, but mostly, sure."

Not mostly sure, but all the way sure.

There's a myriad of online lists and talks on this very forum for your review. You might want to start with the gospels.

There is also a myriad of online lists debunking those lists as well.

The bible has changed, literally, throughout history. It's been added to and edited, then translated. Some sects even added books to their bible. and our belief of it evolves along with soceity.

Yeah, and those sects added to their Bible, but they didn't add to the Bible. See the difference?

That, and the fact that the Bible hasn't changed. I understand you disagree with that, but that is a convo for another time.

Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Therefore, it changes (its techniques, how it's studied, etc).
Here's some good reading for you
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... es/266145/

I agree with that.

Should they? Didn't god show himself to them enough already? Or has it changed its mind?
If god doesn't change, and it's telling us 'XYZ', shouldn't it allow us to understand it now the same way we'd understand it 200 years from now?
Some would think so. Though, there are some that like to remain in the train of thought they've been told for decades.

I mean, we could talk about this too...although I doubt any answer I give will make a difference.

Of course, people aren't perfect and open to error in interpretation and understanding. But god's not. Therefore, god should be able to enlighten the human mind enough to understand 'XYZ' the same way in 1410 as in 2021 IMO.
Which you may not share.

The Bible says God will show himself to those who earnestly seek him.

[TRANSPONDER]

And the science tells us that this iteration of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and modern humans about 200,000 years ago, all of which knocks theology into a cocked hat.

Newsflash: Not all religions (or all Christians) are young earth creationists. You do know that, right?

So far we have nothing that confirms that a god is necessary let alone that one even exists.

Please, answer this question..

If you were to create all STEM (SPACE, TIME, ENERGY, MATTER), what would be your existing qualifications...what would be needed to create STEM?

ETA: Where the science stops, meaning that it is currently unable to answer some questions, theology begins by simply inventing the answers.

Inventing the answers? We just go where the evidence is pointing.

Yes. Not all religions are YE Creationist. Not even Christianity is, always. They may accept the story of evolution but insist a god is behind it (name your own) to which we say 'Your evidence for that?'

Your evidence is apparently to ask what would be needed to create the basics from which energy/matter came. Essentially, there is no answer to that as yet. You can put a placeholder god in there if you want but then the question is 'where did that come from?'

cue 'God is eternal'. That is not 'where the evidence leads'. That is a faith claim that simply ignores the question. We (goddless) could equally say: 'Whatever the basics were, they were eternal'. And not being complex, one doesn't have to explain (or ignore) how a complexity could exist without coming from anywhere.