The Bible's Credibility

[Athelas]

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Well there it is, the unvarnished, absolute proof. My doctors used to say that I had an unhealthy obsession with the suffering that the unsaved will suffer in hell. "Pathological," they said. Ha! I'll show them! I'll show them ALL! Someday I'll escape, and then I'll send all such sinners to SATIN where I will LAUGH by Christ's side as they writhe and scream in endless agony and eternal TORMENT!!! because they would not accept the love of my merciful god. They may have been the most loving, kind, compassionate people that ever lived, but God will see that they suffer FOREVER for their disobediance.

[LOTRfan2]

unhealthy obsession............? Yikes......doesn't sound good.

LOTRfan2

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Athelas
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Well there it is, the unvarnished, absolute proof.

I can destroy 99% of that with one question: Who says that you can trust the Bible?

There is absolutely no strong scientific proof that it is the word of a supreme being.

[Eriol]

I think Athelas was being sarcastic... but Beorn, I can make a question that sounds facetious but is quite serious: what is the strong scientific proof that only strong scientific proofs are acceptable as the truth?

Either you accept that "a strong scientific proof" is only one subset of the truth, and that other parts of it -- like "Beorn just posted on this thread" -- are not subject to strong scientific proof, or you get cut off from the real world -- from which every "strong scientific proof" derives... in a process without any scientific proof.

[Dr. Ransom]

I can destroy 99% of that with one question: Who says that you can trust the Bible? There is absolutely no strong scientific proof that it is the word of a supreme being.

Beorn, I just wanted to point out that your post shows a misunderstanding of what Science really is.

Science is a method for discovering truth about the physical world. The spiritual, meta-phycial, and even historical realms are outside of the ultimate concern of science. As such, it is impossible to prove OR disprove a high power by scientific methods.

Science may be used to offer evidence as to the truth of the past physical world (such as Jesus). But it may not offer proof, as something must be repeatable and testable for proof to be offered. It may show whether something is reasonable, or unreasonable in regard to history, but even that is extremely subjective. And true science is not subjective. For example, it is a scientific fact that animals tend to have the same body structure and design. Some say this is proof of a common ancestor. Others point to a common creator. But the evidence does not lay claim to either side, it only shows what is reasonable.

What your quote actually shows, is that it is reasonable to believe that you do not understand science very well. :D

P.S. It is a repeatable scientific observation that Eriol knows much on the discipline of science, so ask him if you need more information, and I'm sure he'd love to enlighten you. :cool:

And just to keep beating a dead horse, I'll point out that the phrase "strong scientific proof" is a misnomer. That implies that there could be "weak scientific proof", which is impossible.

[Beorn]

Beorn, I just wanted to point out that your post shows a misunderstanding of what Science really is.

Science is a methoid for discovering truth about the physical world. The spiritual, meta-phycial, and even historical realms are outside of the ultimate concern of science. As such, it is impossible to prove OR disprove a high power by scientific methoids.

I never said that science would disprove the existance of God or some higher power. I said that it cannot prove it. You cannot use evidence from a source that is not bona fide, rendering a lot of that article moot.


What your quote actually shows, is that it is reasonable to believe that you do not understand science very well. :D [/B]

Science is knowledge, the truth. Science is not a means for finding the truth. With my statement above, the scientific truth about The Bible is not known.

science

\Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.] 1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.

Note: Science is applied or pure. [b]Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws.[b] Pure science is the knowledge of these powers, causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all applications. Both these terms have a similar and special signification when applied to the science of quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact science is knowledge so systematized that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

Science may be used to offer evidence as to the truth of the past physical world (such as Jesus). But it may not offer proof, as something must be repeatable and testable for proof to be offered. It may show whether something is reasonable, or unreasonable in regard to history, but even that is extremely subjective. And true science is not subjective. For example, it is a scientific fact that animals tend to have the same body structure and design. Some say this is proof of a comman ancestor. Other point to a comman creator. But the evidence does not lay claim to either side, it only shows what is reasonable.
Does creationism explain why there are trace amounts of heat in space (around 3°K)--which according to science is from the Big Bang?

Animals don't tend to have the same body structure and design, except on the most rudimentary levels. A gecko is certainly structured different than me, but we both have arms, legs, and a head. There are skeletons which show a progression from one species to another. Skeletons from different ages are similar to ones before and after them.

How can you show that The Bible is the word of God, when it's not even clear there is a god.

Religion has been wrong before. This is a bit weak, but the Catholic Church said that the earth was the center of the universe once, and that everything revolved around it. Of course, the Church then wasn't exactly following The Bible...

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Beorn
Religion has been wrong before. This is a bit weak, but the Catholic Church said that the earth was the center of the universe once, and that everything revolved around it. Of course, the Church then wasn't exactly following The Bible...

Funny you should bring that up. Of course, the Church was simply following the science of its time -- before Copernicus, it was pretty much common scientific knowledge that the Earth was in fact in the center of the Universe.

As soon as science established that the Earth was moving, and since this belief is not contradicted by the Bible, the Church (as well as everyone else) changed its stance.

Your argument simply tells us that science can be wrong, and has been wrong before -- the Church was simply following the errors of science.

[Dr. Ransom]

LOL... Beorn, listen to yourself. Your first post said: There is absolutely no strong scientific proof that it is the word of a supreme being.

Than you back-tracked and said:

I never said that science would disprove the existance of God or some higher power. I said that it cannot prove it. You cannot use evidence from a source that is not bona fide, rendering a lot of that article moot.

Well obviously!!! It could be 100% true and there still would be no scientific proof, so your first post was pointless if that was what you really ment (which I doubt in the first place). You were implying that it could be proven or disproven. Taking what you said in any other context doesn't make sence.

You cannot use evidence from a source that is not bona fide, rendering a lot of that article moot.
-Big words with no point Beorn. I never used evidence from a source that is not bona fide, so how does that render my article "moot". Come again?

My point about creationism is that often the same evidence can be used in mulitple ways, which shows that evidence in itself is not science. I couldn't care less if we use evolutionism or whatever to prove my point, either way it's the same.

If science can't disprove the existance of God (which it can't, regardless of whether God really exists or not), why did you post that you don't believe in God because of science... You're not making much sence Beorn.

[Eriol]

I think the article that was rendered "moot" was Athelas's article... which I wouldn't care much to defend, myself.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Eriol
Funny you should bring that up. Of course, the Church was simply following the science of its time -- before Copernicus, it was pretty much common scientific knowledge that the Earth was in fact in the center of the Universe.

As soon as science established that the Earth was moving, and since this belief is not contradicted by the Bible, the Church (as well as everyone else) changed its stance.

Your argument simply tells us that science can be wrong, and has been wrong before -- the Church was simply following the errors of science.

Hrmm...

In the 1690s, after observing through a telescope the moons orbiting Jupiter, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei beheld clear evidence that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Catholic authorities considered the idea heretical, and Galileo was threatened with death if he did not recant. Finally he did, although legend has it that, as he left the presence of the pope, he muttered under his breath: “But it [the earth] still moves.”
“When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,” says Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, “it was not because their teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo’s notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial” (How Shall We Then Live?, 1976, p. 131). Ironically, these first battles between scientists and the Bible were over biblical misinterpretations, not what the Bible actually says.
http://cgca.net/ucg/booklets/evolution.pdf

Galileo's Sentencing (http://exchristian.net/xtains/galileo3.html)

Hrmm...

[Eriol]

Are you accusing Aristotle of being a religious thinker, Beorn?

:D

As your post says, Aristotle -- the first scientist -- was wrong. Does this prove that religion can go wrong?

:confused:

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Well obviously!!! It could be 100% true and there still would be no scientific proof, so your first post was pointless if that was what you really ment (which I doubt in the first place). You were implying that it could be proven or disproven. Taking what you said in any other context doesn't make sence.

What I said, and what I meant is that The Bible cannot be used as evidence. I was referring to the article Athelas posted. I was not implying that it could be proven or disproven. I was implying that the whole article rests on a table with one leg.

-Big words with no point Beorn. I never used evidence from a source that is not bona fide, so how does that render my article "moot". Come again?
Referring to Athelas' article.

My point about creationism is that often the same evidence can be used in mulitple ways, which shows that evidence in itself is not science. I couldn't care less if we use evolutionism or whatever to prove my point, either way it's the same.
Well, what the heck is your point, if it's not to twist my words?

If science can't disprove the existance of God (which it can't, regardless of whether God really exists or not), why did you post that you don't believe in God because of science... You're not making much sence Beorn. [/B]

The scientific evidence presented to me in general tells me that.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Eriol
Are you accusing Aristotle of being a religious thinker, Beorn?

:D

As your post says, Aristotle -- the first scientist -- was wrong. Does this prove that religion can go wrong?

:confused:

And I suppose since I drew on the wall with crayon once I'm a bad kid? One mistake does not prove anything...

[Eriol]

It just proves that your "religious mistake" was in fact a scientific mistake. Other than that, it proves nothing :D

Science is continually improving. To say that it reveals the ultimate truth is risky.

[Beorn]

Splitting this now...

[Thorin]

Why this link is named in this thread as to the Bible's reliability is beyond me. This should be in the "Hell" thread. As it is, it has nothing to do with the Bible but some ramblings of some doctor. I don't even have the time to point out the numerous horrific fallacies and poor biblical interpretation done in that article but let me make a few points:

The good doctor makes the unfortunate mistake of not distinguishing the different uses of the English hell. The references to the "pit", "abyss" and Christ's "soul" being there are mere references to the grave, hence the reason why it is under the earth. The references to eternal torment, fire and brimstone is to Gehenna at the end of time. To lump them in together to create another mish-mash meaning of hell is faulty to say the least and deceptive at the worst. This superstitious clap-trap is the exact reason why we have such error in the world today.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Thorin
This should be in the "Hell" thread.

It is! I put a copy of it in both threads...That post sparked this discussion, and it was also part of another...

[Dr. Ransom]

Why this link is named in this thread as to the Bible's reliability is beyond me. This should be in the "Hell" thread. As it is, it has nothing to do with the Bible but some ramblings of some doctor. I don't even have the time to point out the numerous horrific fallacies and poor biblical interpretation done in that article but let me make a few points:


Is this refering to me? I'm confused.

[Thorin]

Initially quoted by Thorin:
Why this link is named in this thread as to the Bible's reliability is beyond me. This should be in the "Hell" thread. As it is, it has nothing to do with the Bible but some ramblings of some doctor. I don't even have the time to point out the numerous horrific fallacies and poor biblical interpretation done in that article but let me make a few points: Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Is this refering to me? I'm confused.

:D LOL

No, Ransom. It is referring to the doctor from Athelas' article. You're not there on my list yet! ;)

[HelplessModAddi]

Uh-huh. Ok, Mr. Watkins. Because some guy being resusucitated is screaming and there are worms and stuff under the Earth, the specific brand of Christianity you have chosen to accept is right and the practitioners of every other religion in the world are going to be damned to eternal torment.

God damnit. I'm a Christian and I'm still repulsed. You are like the guys in the Weekly World News who say they see Satan in clouds and take it for a sign of the apocalypse. Do I even want to go into the hideously underhanded scare tactics you are using to promote Christianity? No, I guess I don't.

NOTE: I am referring to the article's author, not the author of this thread.

[HLGStrider]

Actually, I read that Coppernicus thought his beliefs were backed in scripture. I don't know where. . .

I got into this arguement (the Coppernicus one) with my writing teacher who was inclined to blab on any subject he wanted to rather than teach writing. . .I suppose it is part of his contract. . .I got a score on him because he said Coppernicus was Galileo and I know my ancient scholars better than that. . .

[Eriol]

That's odd. Did he say that Copernicus was Galileo's pen name? Or was it just "They are the same person! He had multiple personality disorder!"

:D

[Thorin]

Actually, I'm reading about the errancy and/or inerrancy of the Bible from a Biblical scholar so I should have more to say about this at a later date. This article may also shed light on some of the things we've been discussing on both "Question on the Bible" dealing with Eriol's heretical 'mythical' views :D as well as Malbeth's Sola Scriptura bashing on 'The Protestant Reformation' thread....Just kidding guys. Thought I'd throw those in for Scatha. :)

[HLGStrider]

That's odd. Did he say that Copernicus was Galileo's pen name? Or was it just "They are the same person! He had multiple personality disorder!"

He just said Copericus everytime he meant Galileo.