Disprove the Bible

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
If we found that water was present on mars at one time, and that there was life at one time, would this disprove our bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the Torah, the Koran, and Dianetics would all still be intact, so you could just go join one of those religions and everything would be perfect again.

eastbay

[Luzion]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. But the Torah, the Koran, and Dianetics would all still be intact, so you could just go join one of those religions and everything would be perfect again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, dianetics? You mean the crappy and fake religion Scientology?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bible it self tends to disprove itself.....it has been re-written thousands of times and each has been interpreted fromt greek and latin documents which as a result of their fairly basic language can be interpreted in many ways......

for example...religious fundamentalists interpret and read a diffrent bible from your average anglican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first point is true for most ancient works of antiquity. There is much evidence, documental and archalogical that supports the Bible. The stories about King David, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has become increasingly corroborated. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been examined and reported by archaelogist Clifford Wilson.

Every reference to an Assryrian king has been proven correct, an excavation in the 60s confirmed that the Israelites could have entered Jerusalem by way of a tunnel during David's reign. There is evidence the world did have a single language at one time.

Archaeologists digging in Turkey have discovered records of the Hittites. The great archaeologist William F. Albright declared "There can be no doubt that archaelogy can confirmedthe substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition".

Noted Roman historican Colin J. Hemer (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History) shows how archaelogy has confirmed not dozens but hundreds and hundreds of details from the biblical account of the early church. Prominent historian Sir William Ramsay started out as a skeptic but after studying Acts he concluded that "in various deatils the narrative showed marvelous truth"

Classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White said "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming" and that "any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd"

[/ QUOTE ]

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am already constrained from doing lots of other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but those constraints are due to the laws of physics, etc. Moral constraints are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made a lot of posts on the religion threads in the last few months. One rule of thumb I've learned is that the number of responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post. That's because people love to correct stupidity but are hesitant to take on intelligence.

That sucks though, because it means stupid posts get all the attention while the smart posts get lost in the noise.

Maybe someone else has observed this before and gave it a name. Until we find out the proper name, let's call this the Law of Stupid Posts. LSP for short.

Jason, I answered your question about God as arbiter of good with my quotation of Kreeft, but you didn't respond to that. Nobody else either. So LSP says that part was smart.

I also made the quoted response above. You didn't object to that either. I guess that part is okay too.

Of course, LSP wouldn't apply here if someone came up with a substantive criticism of my points. That could happen soon, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Luzion]

[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of posts on the religion threads in the last few months. One rule of thumb I've learned is that the number of responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post. That's because people love to correct stupidity but are hesitant to take on intelligence.

That sucks though, because it means stupid posts get all the attention while the smart posts get lost in the noise.

Maybe someone else has observed this before and gave it a name. Until we find out the proper name, let's call this the Law of Stupid Posts. LSP for short.

Jason, I answered your question about God as arbiter of good with my quotation of Kreeft, but you didn't respond to that. Nobody else either. So LSP says that part was smart.

I also made the quoted response above. You didn't object to that either. I guess that part is okay too.

Of course, LSP wouldn't apply here if someone came up with a substantive criticism of my points. That could happen soon, but it hasn't happened yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad you pointed out exactly what I was thinking right now. I answered Jason_t's question twice on "the problem of evil," but he did not acknowledge my post. Again I posted a even more simplistic explanation on Christians view on what evil is, but again no response from anyone. Do people really just ignore posts? Are the people here even qualified to discuss things on the Bible? Ive gone through 13 years of Catholic schooling; 9 of those years learning about Catholicism and Christianity... I would think at least my points would arise some discussion.

Btw Felson, your posts bring up very good points and Im glad that you and I both have made the argument that the consequence of having free will is the choice to do evil.

[omega_mail]

dinosaurs are in the bible, Job and Psalms (see: leviathan, and behemoth), if you do a search and read about them in their respective passages, their descriptions are what we consider dinosaurs to have looked like; and by the way, you cant just skip from day one to day seven, cuz on days 5 and 6 come the big animals, check it

[csmart]

What does reason have to do with a creation story?

You're about to reason your way straight to Hades, mister

[Shajen]

[tpir90036]

Keep in mind that I am an agnostic and do not necessarily disagree with the conclusion to the problem of evil.

However, the problem with this argument is that it tries to tie down "God" to our rules of logic. Assuming that a supernatural entity exists...there is no reason why it would have to care about or follow our rules of logic (or any other physical "rules" for that matter.)

Or put another way, attempting to argue logically about something which may exist outside of our capacity for understanding is useless.

[jstnrgrs]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person to think this. (I'm sure you've read the rest of this thread, where there is discussion of this topic.)