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

[brunumb]

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

Loaded question. Please demonstrate that all of those were indeed created.

[brunumb]

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.

Since the absence of evidence for God means that what we do have is pointing elsewhere. With that being the case, theology relies on inventing answers.

[brunumb]

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.

This represents a classic case of science denial. Evolution through natural selection is supported by mountains of observations and evidence, readily accessible to everyone willing to investigate it with an open mind. The process does not allow for one to see changes during our limited lifetimes, so using that as a rebuttal is worthless. Of course, with that mindset, one should also refuse to believe that a three day old corpse reanimated without having seen it. As for nonliving material coming "alive", it happens every day. Just think of plants taking in non-living materials like carbon dioxide, water, minerals and energy from the sun, and all of that becoming 'living' matter. The first living matter arose in the distant past. Not being able to see how, we are not really able to believe any proposed mechanism, including God-magic.

[brunumb]

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

Now all we need is for someone to irrefutably demonstrate that said opinion expressed in the Bible is in fact true.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #119]

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

Belief is up to the individual. I don't recall ever saying "all of the supernatural stuff, scratch that stuff".

You have that right.

Friend, I have everything right

Which is why I said "...sure about the 'anything' part, but mostly, sure."
Not mostly sure, but all the way sure.

No, you see I said "...but mostly, sure."

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

I don't know of, nor have seen, lists that debunks all of them.
It seems pretty simple, really. If one writer says "X" happened, but the other writer says nothing about it, and both are 'god inspired', either there is no god, no god at play, or one writer pulled the wool over the eyes of others and got their story 'published'. Aside from the 'no god at all' point, god could have fixed or prevented this error. Yet it didn't.
Sorry excuse for a deity, really.
But like everything 'christian', it's up to 'belief'. Which god, instead of proving, relies on 'believing' and 'faith' knowing full well the doubt this sows within the minds of the being he (is said to have) created.

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

So the bible is better than their bible? More christian bickering that god's not putting an end to, much less prevented to start with?
Shameful.

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

Another reason not to trust the bible.
The bible is lying out of it's appendix, as there are many (millions, perhaps) that have sought god, or are still seeking god, to no avail.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

We see it occur every time humans reproduce. Notice the child doesn't look exactly like either parent. Carry this out to it's logical conclusion and after enough time, genetics come into play with new species.

We have volumes of data to support the conclusion, the fact, that evolution occurs. To say otherwise is folly.

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

All living things are composed of atoms, which are not living before assembling to become living things.

You're not believing that fact has no bearing on its truthiness.

Snip remainder.

[TRANSPONDER]

So far I have seen only one 'good' reason to believe in (Bible) god.

The evolution - debate has come up of course. The funny thing is that it is irrelevant. Even if a case could be made for evolution being wrong,. that wouldn't mean that a creator - god has to be the answer - only that 'we don't know'. Never mind not knowing which god it is. But I am aware that the believers think that only One god is the possible one, and really I think the whole point is what I dub 'Genesis - literalism'. It's not enough that the gospels be credited and the OT be regarded as broadly correct history, and we can be indulgent about a few metaphors, myths and fairy -tales. No, no, Genesis has to be literally true, either by denying the science or by fiddling Genesis to fit the science. Like dividing the age of the universe into 7 and calling each a 'day', thereby making the earth rotate once every 2 billion years.

So, even if Creationism could be proved, that wouldn't be a good reason to believe in Christianity. Neither of course is Personal Conviction that it is true a Good Reason.

The only good reason there is to believe in Christianity is (with Jesus and the god of the Bible, changing his rules or preferences with the NT) to find the Bible credible, and specifically the NT as the OT could be cherry - picked as required, only Genesis - literalist, cove -to -cover fundamentalists insist on it ALL being true. And I hardly need labour the point that it is the fact of the resurrection ,or rather the claim, upon which Christianity stands or falls.

Paul was actually talking about something else, or something a bit different, but he hit the nail on the head. If the resurrection is not true, Christianity collapses. Totally. Even if the believers deny it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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)

And that insistence, in my opinion, is also unwarranted. Evolution (macro) is a false theory, regardless of whether one believes a god is behind it or not.

to which we say 'Your evidence for that?'

Your evidence that reptiles evolved into birds?

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.

Correction; there is no scientific/natural answer. There is an answer, though.

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'.

Yeah, but there is never a problem with the statement "the universe is eternal".

Taxi cab fallacy.

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.

Yeah, but then you would have an infinite regression problem, which isn't going anywhere regardless of how hard you try to ignore it (not you personally, but in general).

[We_Are_VENOM]

We see it occur every time humans reproduce. Notice the child doesn't look exactly like either parent. Carry this out to it's logical conclusion and after enough time, genetics come into play with new species.

Evolutionist: "Given enough time, anything can happen, such as a reptile evolving into a bird".

Christian: "Given enough time, Jesus will return and welcome his followers to the kingdom of God".

I guess we both have our hopes, don't we.

We have volumes of data to support the conclusion, the fact, that evolution occurs. To say otherwise is folly.

The only data I see is; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

There has been no exception to the rule, so far as I can see.

All living things are composed of atoms, which are not living before assembling to become living things.

Those atoms are not sentient, but they are living. You do realize living organisms are composed of living cells, don't you?

You're not believing that fact has no bearing on its truthiness.

Snip remainder.

Well..

[We_Are_VENOM]

Belief is up to the individual. I don't recall ever saying "all of the supernatural stuff, scratch that stuff".

It is/was implied.

Friend, I have everything right

Do you have Christ?

No, you see I said "...but mostly, sure."

I understand what you said.

I don't know of, nor have seen, lists that debunks all of them.

Well, pick one and lets talk about it.

It seems pretty simple, really. If one writer says "X" happened, but the other writer says nothing about it, and both are 'god inspired', either there is no god, no god at play, or one writer pulled the wool over the eyes of others and got their story 'published'. Aside from the 'no god at all' point, god could have fixed or prevented this error. Yet it didn't.

"Because writer X did not corroborate a specific detail of writer's Y story, therefore, God does not exist"

Non sequitur.

Sorry excuse for a deity, really.

Man, you sure know how to draw some hellafied conclusions based off a little of nothing lol.

But like everything 'christian', it's up to 'belief'. Which god, instead of proving, relies on 'believing' and 'faith' knowing full well the doubt this sows within the minds of the being he (is said to have) created.

I need specifics, not generalizations.

So the bible is better than their bible? More christian bickering that god's not putting an end to, much less prevented to start with?
Shameful.

Yeah, that is shameful when you have people creating, modifying their "bibles" to match their theology.

I agree.

The bible is lying out of it's appendix, as there are many (millions, perhaps) that have sought god, or are still seeking god, to no avail.

It says God will show himself to those who "earnestly" seeks him (Heb 11:6). I am in no position to determine who is seeking God "earnestly", and neither are you.

However, since we know that it is not God's will that anyone be left behind (2 Peter 2:9), then we should assume that those that are left behind weren't as genuine as they should have been.