What makes the bible true

[racrguy]

WRONG. As already stated several times in this thread, science has no use for faith, and will not accept it.

I also refuse science from a source that isn't an authority on the subject just like I will refuse counseling from a person that doesn't have a degree (Dr. Phil) or legal counsel from someone who doesn't have the accreditation required to practice law.

For instance, say I had a medical problem, would it be a smarter decision to seek your help, or that of Dr. Dave's? Essentially you're telling me to go to you for my cure vs the good Dr.

And your law of gravity analogy doesn't work. You're quoting the material from a valid source.

[stephen4785]

WRONG. As already stated several times in this thread, science has no use for faith, and will not accept it.

I also refuse science from a source that isn't an authority on the subject just like I will refuse counseling from a person that doesn't have a degree (Dr. Phil) or legal counsel from someone who doesn't have the accreditation required to practice law.

For instance, say I had a medical problem, would it be a smarter decision to seek your help, or that of Dr. Dave's? Essentially you're telling me to go to you for my cure vs the good Dr.

And your law of gravity analogy doesn't work. You're quoting the material from a valid source.

How do you know if the science in those books is a from a "Valid source" or not? So, you refuse counsel from anyone who is not a Dr but you come one here to get counsel on the mysteries of God from guys on here? Follow your own logic and go to a Dr of Divinity and see if your arguments can stand with them.
"For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the person of Jesus who said, ""I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the father but through me..." (John 14:6). Jesus, who claimed to be divine, performed many miracles, and rose from the dead said that he alone was the Truth. He was either right or wrong. There is no in-between. If Jesus is wrong, then Christianity is a wrong. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we should abandon our faith because he would be no different than anyone else. If Jesus is not God in flesh, then we should denounce him as a madman because you can't claim to be God and be sane -- unless the claim is true. Therefore, if what Jesus said about himself is true, then Christianity is true."
So answer this...do you believe the person Jesus existed? Not do you believe He was God...but did He exist?

[Maddhattter]

How about reading them before you decide...that's my whole point. I didn't say they were scientific experts...I said there is a lot of science in the books.

The problem, in this regard, is that if they are not scientists, there is no reason to assume the science they give is sound, regardless of what science they claim.

I also have to say, that when Mr. McDowell’s personal website describes his book as “a Christian classic that provides a wealth of historical, archaeological, and bibliographical evidences for the basic tenets of Christian belief”, I’d say it safe to not read the book to judge the contents of said book. The only science he claims he gets into is archaeology. In 2000+ years, by archaeology alone, the Spider-man comics would have the same historical validity since many of the locations in the comic demonstrably exist. So, by your statement, the “very scientific/harder read” falls short of being capable of proving the bible scientifically. It would then be safe to assume that More Than a Carpenter would fall short as well, as it is less scientific, by your words.

I don't have a doctorate in physics but I know the law of gravity. So, by your standard that means when I tell you an apple will fall if you drop it...you shouldn't listen to me?

No, I should not listen to you. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, just that I shouldn’t believe you, as you are not an expert in your field. If you are not an expert in your field, then there is no reason for me to think that you have all the foundational knowledge to be able to support your claim.

In the hypothetical scenario you give, you could show me that you are right. All you would have to do is perform a simple experiment; dropping said apple. In doing so, your science could be terribly wrong, but by the experiment meeting expectations, it’s the practical application of the claim that becomes relevant. Should the experiment follow expected results, we could tentatively agree with your gravity theory, but I would not believe your statement. I would be following the evidence of the experiment.


However, putting the analogy in the context of our conversation, if you were a, say, journalist and you were trying to tell me what string theory meant, I would have no reason to believe you. You could not and do not have the foundation of scientific knowledge that would be required to even interpret the data. Now, if you claimed that a person who has been shown to be an unreliable source, that would make your claim even less credible. Again, that would not mean that your interpretation is wrong, it just means that no one should listen to you on it because you, nor your source could be relied upon for an accurate interpretation.

The science is solid, read it and decide for yourself.

If the science is solid, the peer review process would eliminate any reason I would need to decide for myself. I’m sure that the books would move into topics I am not qualified to argue. The peer review process would have put those topics in front of others who are qualified to argue, so I wouldn’t have to decide. I could look at what others, who are experts, have said on the topic and defer to my betters in that regard.

If you want to believe Christianity is a farce fine but go to whomever you see fit as a reliable scientific mind that defends Christianity and listen to both sides. You judge the quality of the evidence from books I mentioned without even looking at them.

I have dismissed two of the three books without reading the books. I don’t argue this. However, above I explained why I did it, and how I am justified in doing so.

Watch the movie "Expelled", get on a apologetics board and talk with someone there about questions.

Seen it and researched the topics. The movie is intentionally misleading and provides no supporting evidence for their claims other than some arguments from ignorance, straw man fallacies and being out right dishonest in some places.

If I want to know about cars I come on a cars forum, if I want to know about the bible I don't go to a cars forum. Sadly I believe most Christians need to be able to defend their faith better, including myself.

Previously, you implied that a person's credentials were irrelevant when considering in what someone knows, I fail to see how you can hold both that point and the one above….?

There are many brilliant scientific minds out there who are Christians http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

There were monstrous people who were Christians as well, that used their religion to justify their actions. I’d assume that you would say that Hitler was wrong, so I fail to see how brilliant Christians do anything to validate or invalidate the biblical inerrancy claim. Hell, Newton was a self proclaimed alchemist. Just because someone is brilliant on one topic does not mean they make wise decisions in all topics.

We can both name names, compare education, argue all day and we will never have what anyone could consider a 100% answer.

Agreed. Science never has nor expects a 100% answer. All answers in science are tentative. There will be new information brought to light that will invalidate current theories, just like we have replaced or supplanted old theories.

If we could...there would be no debate about it. A certain amount of faith is required on both sides.

I could not flatly agree or disagree with you and be totally honest. Both sides to have a certain amount of faith, but atheistic beliefs, in general, have a different kind of faith than theistic beliefs. If you want me to expand on this topic more, I could find the post or two I’ve made explaining this and repost them. However, I think it would be easier for me, and more informative to you, if you were to read this thread and jdgregory’s thread and see the posts for yourself, in context.

Again, my point is that if you are looking to answers to one of life's most important questions...it might be wise to do your research and not just take the word of some guy (Any of us) on a mustang forum.

Again, we agree. We should look for as many sources as possible, weigh them, via the scientific method, and accumulate all valid data. Then use that to come to a consensus. This is how the peer review process in science works.

We must also concede that we could be wrong. I can’t speak for you, or anyone else, but if I’m wrong, I want to be shown how I am wrong, which would require evidence.

Here is a link I found...never been on it before but it looks good for anyone interested http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

It’s always a good idea to check your sources before you post them. You never know when you might endorse a site that attempts to make an honest argument in favor of demonic possession, which that site has an article doing.

[Maddhattter]

So answer this...do you believe the person Jesus existed? Not do you believe He was God...but did He exist?

I have not seen any evidence that would show that Jesus, as the person in the bible, i.e. not just some guy whose name was Jesus, existed or that the bible has enough evidence to support said character's divinity.

Problem with the question is it's relevancy. Proof can change my mind, so what I believe, or what I lack belief in makes no difference. If the bible can be proven to be true, this would change my mind. This would also mean that the God and Jesus claim are true, by extension.

[stephen4785]

I have not seen any evidence that would show that Jesus, as the person in the bible, i.e. not just some guy whose name was Jesus, existed or that the bible has enough evidence to support said character's divinity.

Problem with the question is it's relevancy. Proof can change my mind, so what I believe, or what I lack belief in makes no difference. If the bible can be proven to be true, this would change my mind. This would also mean that the God and Jesus claim are true, by extension.

Ok, let's start there. What proof would you need in order to believe Jesus was who He said He was? If I can find " proof " Jesus was God then by your admission you would believe. But what level of proof is acceptable to you? The same amount of proof that makes you believe that George Washington existed and did the things he did? Or will you not believe unless you find the Holy grail that makes people live forever? Or somewhere in between?

[davbrucas]

We have documents with Washington's signature and can go dig up his grave and find an actual human. These things make his history more believable. The only evidence of Jesus' existence is contained in the propaganda in the Bible.

[dewayne6243]

We have documents with Washington's signature and can go dig up his grave and find an actual human. These things make his history more believable. The only evidence of Jesus' existence is contained in the propaganda in the Bible.

Since ur an Atheist why to you argue with these guys?

[racrguy]

Since ur an Atheist why to you argue with these guys?

Since some of the other responders are theists, why do they argue with Maddhatter, MOSFET, davbrucas, or I?

Stephen, I'll respond to you later tonight, decent length phone posts FTL.

[dewayne6243]

Since some of the other responders are theists, why do they argue with Maddhatter, MOSFET, davbrucas, or I?

Stephen, I'll respond to you later tonight, decent length phone posts FTL.

IDK. Maybe some are devil worshipers that want to argue with the Atheist. I guess you need to meet in the middle and realize you are both the same people.

[davbrucas]

Since ur an Atheist why to you argue with these guys?

I'm not arguing...not sure about them. I am just participating in the discussion.

[davbrucas]

And I dont label myself as anything. I just choose not to believe in mythology and fairy tales and I can recognize them when I see them.

[dewayne6243]

And I dont label myself as anything. I just choose not to believe in mythology and fairy tales and I can recognize them when I see them.

You already label yourself. Your either for God or against God. If your against that means ur for the devil. If you don't believe in either that makes you an Atheist. Doesn't get any more simple than that.

[davbrucas]

You already label yourself. Your either for God or against God. If your against that means ur for the devil. If you don't believe in either that makes you an Atheist. Doesn't get any more simple than that.

Those are your terms, not mine. And LOL at me being for the devil. I dont believe in that myth either.

You sound quite juvenile with that comment.

[The King]

You already label yourself. Your either for God or against God. If your against that means ur for the devil. If you don't believe in either that makes you an Atheist. Doesn't get any more simple than that.

Those are your terms, not mine. And LOL at me being for the devil. I dont believe in that myth either.

You sound quite juvenile with that comment.

Dr. Dave isn't necessarily for the devil, he's simply been duped by the devil along with many others.

[Maddhattter]

Ok, let's start there. What proof would you need in order to believe Jesus was who He said He was? If I can find " proof " Jesus was God then by your admission you would believe. But what level of proof is acceptable to you? The same amount of proof that makes you believe that George Washington existed and did the things he did? Or will you not believe unless you find the Holy grail that makes people live forever? Or somewhere in between?

I don’t think it’s possible for us to start here. I’m pretty sure that we started at this post, before you changed tracks on the conversation.

With this sudden change of topic, do you concede my points or did you just plan on ignoring them and pretending that there are none? Hell, you never even covered how believing or not believing is relevant to the evidence. You just suddenly asked what proof I need of Jesus’ divinity. Unless it can be illustrated how my belief in the character’s divinity is relevant to the topic at hand, I can’t really be inclined to start down that path.

I would also have to argue that finding the "Holy Grail that makes people live forever" would do absolutely nothing to speak to Jesus’ divinity. It would only prove that Holy Grail, as the bible has nothing to say about that Holy Grail. With no input from the bible about that Holy Grail, there is no linking that grail to Jesus. With no linking of that grail to Jesus, it would more provide evidence for King Arthur than anything in the bible.