Why the Bible is true... (Revised June 2015)

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes skeptics need to realize something that they view as a given in science:
That to prove something that can't be directly observed, you may need multiple lines of evidence.

To prove evolution or the age of the universe, multiple lines of evidence are used because no SINGLE one is full proof.
God also falls into the same category ( since He can't be observed directly) and as such then multiple lines of evidence exist so that, even if one or two MAY be refuted, the culmination leads to the correct interpretation of the evidence.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Id find the bible credible in the matter of origins, if so much of what it says is the story is so plainly ad odds with what one finds when an effort is made to cross check.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Audie, this is getting tiring.

Then dont deal wtih it. Im aware that the bible can be read any way someone chooses.

Sorry Audie. I'm going to call you on it every time I see you do it, until YOU deal with it.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Id find the bible credible in the matter of origins, if so much of what it says is the story is so plainly ad odds with what one finds when an effort is made to cross check.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Audie, this is getting tiring.

Then dont deal wtih it. Im aware that the bible can be read any way someone chooses.

Sorry Audie. I'm going to call you on it every time I see you do it, until YOU deal with it.

So can I count on you to provide the one true meaning of any passage I choose?

[Audie]

Sometimes skeptics need to realize something that they view as a given in science:
That to prove something that can't be directly observed, you may need multiple lines of evidence.

To prove evolution or the age of the universe, multiple lines of evidence are used because no SINGLE one is full proof.
God also falls into the same category ( since He can't be observed directly) and as such then multiple lines of evidence exist so that, even if one or two MAY be refuted, the culmination leads to the correct interpretation of the evidence.

I am not a generic "skeptic".

In all kindness, please dont try to give me science lessons if you dont understand that
nothing is ever proven in science.

But sure, multiple lines of evidence are good; it increases the probability that the
data is not a fluke, or the hypothesis wrong.

People have followed what they took to be evidence for various gods and ended up with a lot of different gods.

[Audie]

Audie,
If you truly want a philosophical argument for the existence of God, then Aquinas is the place to start because, IMO, his arguments are as close to a "scientific argument" as you can get in terms of philosophical arguments for God.

Thanks Paul and I have read through it.

And you don't find it convincing?

Well, no, I dont.

He starts out with common sense observations. But common sense is often quite wrong.
A lot of what is learned in research is that what is really going on is very counterintuitive.

You dont find the counterarguments convincing? By no means do all thinkers agree he has it nailed.

I dont think much, generally, of using youtube to present an argument. So rather than seeing this as an argument, lets say, this is a way to boggle your mind a bit on how much weirder things are than Aquinas or you or I can readily grasp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gotl9vRGs

[1over137]

That does not disprove God.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Id find the bible credible in the matter of origins, if so much of what it says is the story is so plainly ad odds with what one finds when an effort is made to cross check.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Audie, this is getting tiring.

Then dont deal wtih it. Im aware that the bible can be read any way someone chooses.

Sorry Audie. I'm going to call you on it every time I see you do it, until YOU deal with it.

So can I count on you to provide the one true meaning of any passage I choose?

Audie,

If you start a thread with a specific passage in the bible that you feel contradicts science, members here can discuss it with you. Then, at least you can make an educated decision about what you think is wrong.

I'm simply trying to get you to see that you are not being open minded about what you're continually asserting. Prove me wrong. Be open minded. Start a thread.

[Audie]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

[RickD]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

And I believe you don't want to be open to the fact that metaphysically, proof is possible. At least, you are not open to discussing it. What are you afraid of?

[1over137]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

So, it is correct to say, that your position is, that yo simply do not know. You do not know there is or there is not God. Plus you believe it is impossible to prove/disprove. Right?

[Audie]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

And I believe you don't want to be open to the fact that metaphysically, proof is possible. At least, you are not open to discussing it. What are you afraid of?

Are you aware that you can use math to prove things that are not true?

Its not about what Im open to, still less what Im afraid of.

It just does not interest me.


Are you open to the ways that the metaphysical proof can be proven false?

[RickD]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

And I believe you don't want to be open to the fact that metaphysically, proof is possible. At least, you are not open to discussing it. What are you afraid of?

Are you aware that you can use math to prove things that are not true?

Its not about what Im open to, still less what Im afraid of.

It just does not interest me.


Are you open to the ways that the metaphysical proof can be proven false?

Audie,

I believe it does interest you. Otherwise you would just stop baseless assertions about the bible contradicting science.
Look, I'm not going to push this on you if you aren't open to see it at this time. But I am going to call you on it when you keep asserting without any basis for the assertion.

[1over137]

Audie, maybe you would be interested in very nice stories http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 589#p72894 (somewhere there is also mine)

(I haven't read them all myself yet - at least I can look forward to some more.)

[Audie]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

And I believe you don't want to be open to the fact that metaphysically, proof is possible. At least, you are not open to discussing it. What are you afraid of?

Are you aware that you can use math to prove things that are not true?

Its not about what Im open to, still less what Im afraid of.

It just does not interest me.


Are you open to the ways that the metaphysical proof can be proven false?

Audie,

I believe it does interest you. Otherwise you would just stop baseless assertions about the bible contradicting science.
Look, I'm not going to push this on you if you aren't open to see it at this time. But I am going to call you on it when you keep asserting without any basis for the assertion.

Im calling you on a post here from you that is unresponsive to what I said.

As for "baseless assertion', I guess its baseless as long as the base ( what the bible is supposed to actually mean by this or that) wont hold still.

[Audie]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

So, it is correct to say, that your position is, that yo simply do not know. You do not know there is or there is not God. Plus you believe it is impossible to prove/disprove. Right?

Short of a god showing up to announce he is it, I say it is impossible to know, to prove.