Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Feb 12, 2004, 05:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
Now on to your belief in God. You claim that your belief in God is just as valid as your belief that the train will arrive or that a ball will fall, once thrown. What I would like you to do is point us to the evidence that you used to come to this conclusion and come up with a way that it can be independantly verified.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The existance and divinity of Jesus WAS independantly verified, by those who hated him at the time. Firstly, a number of Roman (and therefore pagan) historians verified his existance, and the fact that he could perform miracles, less than a hundred years after he died. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm not sure that there is much evidence that Jesus existed apart from the Bible. Josephus, a Jewist historian, talked about Jesus, but that's about it. Can you cite documents showing that all these pagan Romans verified that Jesus existed.

And all of this shows neither that Jesus did or did not exist, did or did not perform miracles, was or was not divine.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
Secondly, there is an inference of verification, when people who hate you do not tell you you are wrong. Can you imagine if a politician said something completely outrageous, and the opposition let him go? The only situation that could have caused this is if the politician's outrageous claims were obviously and evidently true. The same thing happened to Jesus, except that those who hated Jesus hated him a lot more than the lefties hate the righties and visa versa. How much verification do you want?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is unfortunately very untrue. Look at what the Democrats let Dubya get away with until quite recently. They let Dubya lie us into invading another country based on information the world know to be false and violating principles to which they supposedly adhered. And Dubya's outrageous claims were obviously and evidently untrue, which has been subsequently demonstrted, but which most of the world recognized when he made them. Still, the official 'opposition' offered little objection, while the millions of us who protested were largely ignored.

Really, n00bie, you should be careful to not offer as principles of reasoning arguments that are so clearly falsified by recent history.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
In fact, the only reason I can think of that would cause you to doubt the factuality of the Bible, is that you have not experienced what it recounts first-hand. In which case I ask you, why do you believe... anything?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, there are the matters that it contradicts itself, is often rather looney, and emerged from a pre-scientific civilization.

But then there's the question of what is to be believed about the Bible. Should the Bible, including Genesis, be believed literally, as describing actual events and the nature of the universe? Unless one is a hopeless young-earth-creationist, this is easily dispensed with: yes, science has disproven such possibilities.

Should the Bible be seen as an allegorical document that does tell the truth about the existence of a deity that takes an interest in humanity? Well, then, science can tell us nothing about that; and I am an agnostic personally about it.

Should the Bible be seen as a moral guide? If so, it is a rather contradictory one, one with prescriptions and proscriptions that no logical human would or could abide, one that endorses slavery but prohibits interest banking.

Should it be seen as an allogorical moral guide, one reflecting the imperfect human understandings of various times and cultures, but striving toward greater moral truth? Well, along with a good many other documents (e.g., the Quran, the Torah, sacred scriptures of many peoples, the works of Shakespeare, and so on; not to mention the pracical knowledge of science), it could reasonably be used as one of the places to look for moral lessons.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
This may be shifting the burden of proof from a legalistic one to a more scientific one, but I challenge you to try to disprove the Bible. Try to avoid insulting me, and also, please try to come up with an argument other than "The Bible recounts events entirely outside my range of experience, so it must be completely false." If you can, this should be quite interesting.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's not scientific approach at all. It is not scientific to take a weighty claim and ask that it be accepted if it cannot be disproved. The burden of proof is on those who would validate the weighty claim.

As to science, it says nothing at all about God or gods, afterlife, the supernatural, or any metaphysical or moral claims of the Bible. It clearly disproves any Biblical literalism. And, by the way, science recounts events (and principles) entirely outside my range of experience, your experience, that of all of us -- so, no, unfamiliarity is no guide at all.

Feb 12, 2004, 05:06 pm	#98 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) Now on to your belief in God. You claim that your belief in God is just as valid as your belief that the train will arrive or that a ball will fall, once thrown. What I would like you to do is point us to the evidence that you used to come to this conclusion and come up with a way that it can be independantly verified.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The existance and divinity of Jesus WAS independantly verified, by those who hated him at the time. Firstly, a number of Roman (and therefore pagan) historians verified his existance, and the fact that he could perform miracles, less than a hundred years after he died. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not sure that there is much evidence that Jesus existed apart from the Bible. Josephus, a Jewist historian, talked about Jesus, but that's about it. Can you cite documents showing that all these pagan Romans verified that Jesus existed. And all of this shows neither that Jesus did or did not exist, did or did not perform miracles, was or was not divine. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,) Secondly, there is an inference of verification, when people who hate you do not tell you you are wrong. Can you imagine if a politician said something completely outrageous, and the opposition let him go? The only situation that could have caused this is if the politician's outrageous claims were obviously and evidently true. The same thing happened to Jesus, except that those who hated Jesus hated him a lot more than the lefties hate the righties and visa versa. How much verification do you want?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is unfortunately very untrue. Look at what the Democrats let Dubya get away with until quite recently. They let Dubya lie us into invading another country based on information the world know to be false and violating principles to which they supposedly adhered. And Dubya's outrageous claims were obviously and evidently untrue, which has been subsequently demonstrted, but which most of the world recognized when he made them. Still, the official 'opposition' offered little objection, while the millions of us who protested were largely ignored. Really, n00bie, you should be careful to not offer as principles of reasoning arguments that are so clearly falsified by recent history. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,) In fact, the only reason I can think of that would cause you to doubt the factuality of the Bible, is that you have not experienced what it recounts first-hand. In which case I ask you, why do you believe... anything? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, there are the matters that it contradicts itself, is often rather looney, and emerged from a pre-scientific civilization. But then there's the question of what is to be believed about the Bible. Should the Bible, including Genesis, be believed literally, as describing actual events and the nature of the universe? Unless one is a hopeless young-earth-creationist, this is easily dispensed with: yes, science has disproven such possibilities. Should the Bible be seen as an allegorical document that does tell the truth about the existence of a deity that takes an interest in humanity? Well, then, science can tell us nothing about that; and I am an agnostic personally about it. Should the Bible be seen as a moral guide? If so, it is a rather contradictory one, one with prescriptions and proscriptions that no logical human would or could abide, one that endorses slavery but prohibits interest banking. Should it be seen as an allogorical moral guide, one reflecting the imperfect human understandings of various times and cultures, but striving toward greater moral truth? Well, along with a good many other documents (e.g., the Quran, the Torah, sacred scriptures of many peoples, the works of Shakespeare, and so on; not to mention the pracical knowledge of science), it could reasonably be used as one of the places to look for moral lessons. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,) This may be shifting the burden of proof from a legalistic one to a more scientific one, but I challenge you to try to disprove the Bible. Try to avoid insulting me, and also, please try to come up with an argument other than "The Bible recounts events entirely outside my range of experience, so it must be completely false." If you can, this should be quite interesting.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's not scientific approach at all. It is not scientific to take a weighty claim and ask that it be accepted if it cannot be disproved. The burden of proof is on those who would validate the weighty claim. As to science, it says nothing at all about God or gods, afterlife, the supernatural, or any metaphysical or moral claims of the Bible. It clearly disproves any Biblical literalism. And, by the way, science recounts events (and principles) entirely outside my range of experience, your experience, that of all of us -- so, no, unfamiliarity is no guide at all.