What makes the bible true

[mustangguy289]

Are you being facetious, or are you serious? I hope you're being facetious.

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

Whom are you mocking, exactly?

[The King]

Along those lines.....history books tell us that President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address, but I never heard him deliver it.

Prove that he did.

[mustangguy289]

Yes, it does.

Whom are you mocking, exactly?

Really? That dense huh?

[mustangguy289]

Along those lines.....history books tell us that President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address, but I never heard him deliver it.

Prove that he did.

Yea, I read that in an old book that someone made up.

[Maddhattter]

Along those lines.....history books tell us that President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address, but I never heard him deliver it.

Prove that he did.

Really? That dense huh?

Yea, I read that in an old book that someone made up.

While, on the surface, it would almost seem that you have a point. What fails to be taken into consideration are 2 major factors.

The first being contemporary sources. Before he gave the Gettysburg address, we have documents and articles referencing Lincoln; birth certificates, report cards, addresses, jobs and election platforms. From his time as president, we have congressional speeches, signed bills and laws, veto's, public addresses, and, of course, the Gettysburg address. We have ticket stubs for the last play he didn't finish, the gun that shot him, and news reports from all over the nation reporting the event. To historians, this is what's called a preponderance of evidence. It's more than enough to support the claim that one President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address.

The second problem being Occam's razor, which states that if you have two competing ideas, the simplest idea must the more accurate one. While this is more of a scientific principal, it is still relevant in historical context. With the preponderance of evidence, we can draw only one of two possible conclusions. Either Lincoln did or did not deliver the Gettysburg address. When bringing Occam's razor into play, you must look at these two conclusions in a bit more detail. For all the evidence to be planted, it would have required a level of secrecy that has never before been demonstrated within populations. The amount of bribe money to keep people quiet about Lincoln not giving the speech, not to mention pushing legislation based on said speech that never occurred would have been more than enough to raise the national debt by percentages that would make the current US Congress blush.

The amount of effort required to keep the knowledge of Lincoln never giving the Gettysburg address quiet increases the complexity of the concept. While all of the evidence being, well, evident of the events they are reporting is simpler in every aspect.

[racrguy]

Those stupid scientist keep saying there is Oxygen in the air... but I can't see it. Therefore they are wrong.

Let's not forget to mention that we can take a sample of the gasses found in the atmosphere and find Oxygen in it, therefore producing observable, measurable, and verifiable evidence.

[mustangguy289]

Let's not forget to mention that we can take a sample of the gasses found in the atmosphere and find Oxygen in it, therefore producing observable, measurable, and verifiable evidence.

So you can observe but you cannot see ... therefore you believe in oxygen.


I observe but cannot see my Lord... therefore I believe.

There also been proof that a lot of things in the bible are true. One example is the unearthing of the of the stone the ten commandments was written on.

Whether or not you believe the message in the bible is one thing... but there are many account that prove a lot of the stories in the bible.

[The King]

While, on the surface, it would almost seem that you have a point. What fails to be taken into consideration are 2 major factors.

The first being contemporary sources. Before he gave the Gettysburg address, we have documents and articles referencing Lincoln; birth certificates, report cards, addresses, jobs and election platforms. From his time as president, we have congressional speeches, signed bills and laws, veto's, public addresses, and, of course, the Gettysburg address. We have ticket stubs for the last play he didn't finish, the gun that shot him, and news reports from all over the nation reporting the event. To historians, this is what's called a preponderance of evidence. It's more than enough to support the claim that one President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address.

The second problem being Occam's razor, which states that if you have two competing ideas, the simplest idea must the more accurate one. While this is more of a scientific principal, it is still relevant in historical context. With the preponderance of evidence, we can draw only one of two possible conclusions. Either Lincoln did or did not deliver the Gettysburg address. When bringing Occam's razor into play, you must look at these two conclusions in a bit more detail. For all the evidence to be planted, it would have required a level of secrecy that has never before been demonstrated within populations. The amount of bribe money to keep people quiet about Lincoln not giving the speech, not to mention pushing legislation based on said speech that never occurred would have been more than enough to raise the national debt by percentages that would make the current US Congress blush.

The amount of effort required to keep the knowledge of Lincoln never giving the Gettysburg address quiet increases the complexity of the concept. While all of the evidence being, well, evident of the events they are reporting is simpler in every aspect.

First, contemporary sources are not by default more "accurate" than non-contemporary sources. You simply choose to believe they are, which is fine but that does not change the actual truth or falsity of earlier historical recollections.

Second, to state that the simplest idea "must" be the more accurate one is not proof in any shape or form.

[BlackSnake]

First, contemporary sources are not by default more "accurate" than non-contemporary sources. You simply choose to believe they are, which is fine but that does not change the actual truth or falsity of earlier historical recollections.

Second, to state that the simplest idea "must" be the more accurate one is not proof in any shape or form.

Well said.

[racrguy]

So you can observe but you cannot see ... therefore you believe in oxygen.


I observe but cannot see my Lord... therefore I believe.

There also been proof that a lot of things in the bible are true. One example is the unearthing of the of the stone the ten commandments was written on.

Whether or not you believe the message in the bible is one thing... but there are many account that prove a lot of the stories in the bible.

There are a few flaws with your post. 1) your definition of belief is incorrect. You are equating belief to truth. It's already explained in this thread, so there's no need to revisit it. 2) if you observe something, that means there is evidence to corroborate the observation. There is evidence, through testing, that oxygen exists in the atmosphere. What evidence do you have to support your observation of your "lord" 3) please cite your source that supports your claim to the unearthing of this stone you're talking about. 4) bring forth your evidence that proves the stories in the bible so they can be scrutinized. After all, if what you say is 100% accurate then no amount of scrutiny can prove it incorrect.

[mustangguy289]

If you are 100% sure, then why do you even care?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Really? That dense huh?

Incredulous at your ignorance, actually.

I didn't think it was worth the effort to respond earlier, and I'm not sure it's worth it now. You don't seem to have the education to understand the flaws in your argument to begin with (else you wouldn't have made it); and while I could attempt to show you, your religious bias would almost certainly cloud your ability to grasp the concepts I would put forth.



The King put forth a much better argument that is itself worthy of discussion despite his overt bias and tendency to be an annoying dick.

Along those lines.....history books tell us that President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address, but I never heard him deliver it.

Prove that he did.

(...) Before he gave the Gettysburg address, we have documents and articles referencing Lincoln; birth certificates, report cards, addresses, jobs and election platforms. From his time as president, we have congressional speeches, signed bills and laws, veto's, public addresses, and, of course, the Gettysburg address. We have ticket stubs for the last play he didn't finish, the gun that shot him, and news reports from all over the nation reporting the event. To historians, this is what's called a preponderance of evidence. It's more than enough to support the claim that one President Lincoln gave a speech called the Gettysburg Address.

(...)

First, contemporary sources are not by default more "accurate" than non-contemporary sources. You simply choose to believe they are, which is fine but that does not change the actual truth or falsity of earlier historical recollections.

Might have been better to go with some classical account where a preponderance of evidence does not exist and writings would predate New Testament accounts. Few people will dispute the existence of Aristotle or Plato, for instance.

The point is valid insomuch as: though we ourselves never experienced the existence of historical characters, we choose to accept their existence and works on the faith that the historical accounts are correct. The reason that some figures in history are known about today is because of what the writers of the time recorded, or what they themselves wrote. For this reason I believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth. The compilation of selected writings called 'The Bible' is presumably considered complete by most Christians and authoritative, but stem from many writings attributed to many authors. There are those that think the whole things was contrived, but I believe there is possibly a basis in historical fact at some level of the New Testament, and even parts of the Old Testament.

Jesus of Nazereth's divinity and the testaments of his miracles are dubious to reason. At what point does a man's legend deviate from the reality of his life? Despite accounts refuting George Washington cutting down a cherry tree, the legend lives on. While entirely believeable, it has no basis beyond the propagation of morality. The difficulty in believing in Jesus as something beyond a man is that we are asked to believe in something supernatural. The purported implications of his death and resurrection, and the consequences of disbelief in it are profoundly wild. Many supernatural beliefs have been promoted throughout millennia. Why is this one true? If written records are enough, why not Islam? Or Mormonism?

[racrguy]

If you are 100% sure, then why do you even care?

Don't change the subject. Are you, or are you not going to answer my questions?

[mustangguy289]

Don't change the subject. Are you, or are you not going to answer my questions?

You want proof that would required me to go and research and spend time. After doing said research and time it would not help. Yes, some events in the bible can be proven, some can't. It is called faith when you believe in something that you can not see.