Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[H.sapiens]

Erexsaur's effort to make belief palatable for what God is or isn't is of no relevancy to me.........

I don't care whether the God of the Bible is the greatest thing since sliced bread or a complete sociopathic evil manipulator........

.....neither makes the Bible and its world view more or less palatable to me.

After all the reality I deal with in nature doesn't care whether I like it or not but I better learn to deal with it regardless.

For instance, I don't like the idea that I can't breath underwater without the assistance of technology but I have to accept that if at sometime in the future I would have to deal with the reality of being underwater for any length of time.

So therefore the only thing I want to know is if you can validate the Biblical world view as a consistent and demonstrable fact in reality.

And that is where the Bible totally fails........

I prefer breath-hold diving myself, SCUBAs and SSs are for work.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Perhaps these things are not subject to empirical verification.

They do not, however mean they are not "real" ...most are transcendant and have to be taken on faith.

Some things, like the existance of God Himself, the existance of a soul, or the existance of an afterlife are unverifable by the Scientific Method. And so far cannot be proven or disproven one way or another.

Other things, such as stories of particular miracles, are pretty much unrepeated and unrepeatable, at least in modern times, and fall into the mythic category of "Once Upon a Time"

Does not mean they have no value, myths can and do point to deeper, "poetic" (to avoid the disputed term Spiritual") truths and can and do inspire.

shnarkle: Interesting ideas. I'm not sure exactly why you would think that most of these things have to be taken on faith. I read an interesting opinion concerning the story of the new testament story known as "the multiplication of the loaves and fishes" where Jesus is preaching and gets everyone to sit down to eat some bread and fish. The story seems to indicate that he turns a few fish and loaves of bread into enough to feed 5000 people. So on the surface one could claim that it needs to be taken on faith, but this commentator suggested that Jesus was instrumental in getting people to share what they had starting with some kid with a few fish and loaves of bread. People see everyone else sharing and the idea infects the entire crowd so much so that there are leftovers. Some would say that in and of itself would be a miracle, but it happens today (albeit rarely enough for one to exclaim, "It's a miracle!) and one doesn't have to take it on faith either.

Why do you capitalize "Scientific Method"? The reason I ask is that I agree with what you say about myth, but I also can see that mythology is necessary as a setting for any culture, society etc. We have our modern day myths that we need to give us a stage to act on; it's the setting, the foundation. At some point the horizon of a current myth becomes too small and we have to grow out of it in order to function.

Your capitalization reminds me of the reverence that is now bestowed on Science and the high priests, i.e. the scientists that minister to this modern day god. As just one of many examples: The theory of Evolution has this mysterious deity known as "The Mechanism". The Mechanism is the cause of what we effectually see in this theory or myth. We see "stochastic shuffle" adaptation, variation, "selfish genes" etc. The old myth saw God carrying all of this out, but modern day skeptics rant that there's no proof (e.g. "If creation points to a Creator, let's see this Creator."), but in the same hushed and referent whispers talk of "the Mechanism" doing the exact same things. I suspect that no one will ever produce the "mechanism". It will be replaced by the next mythological deity when we've outgrown this one.

[Zzyzx]

.

I suspect that no one will ever produce the "mechanism". It will be replaced by the next mythological deity when we've outgrown this one.

The mechanism is evident each time bacteria become antibiotic resistant. Millions are killed by the antibiotic initially but occasionally a few mutants (genetic variants) survive. When they reproduce they pass on their genes to offspring who inherit the resistance (whatever it is). Soon previously effective antibiotics (such as penicillin) become largely ineffective against such bacteria.

Does anyone doubt this happens?

Does any of it require a “mythological deity�?

Perhaps those who adhere to mythological deities in their religious beliefs are prone to project their needs onto others.

[shnarkle]

The mechanism is evident

shanrkle: Ah yes, evidence of the Mechanism itself (Himself, Herself?), or is this simply the effects of the Mechanism?

each time bacteria become antibiotic resistant. Millions are killed by the antibiotic initially but occasionally a few mutants (genetic variants) survive. When they reproduce they pass on their genes to offspring who inherit the resistance (whatever it is). Soon previously effective antibiotics (such as penicillin) become largely ineffective against such bacteria.

Does anyone doubt this happens?

shnarkle: There are always those who will doubt, but that's beside the point. We aren't doubting what we see, we're doubting what we don't see: e.g. God, The Mechanism.

Here's what the Christian says: "Look at all of creation. Does anyone doubt that creation exists? Isn't it clear evidence of the Creator." The reasonable response would be to ask, "Where is this Creator you're talking about?" I"m simply pointing out that our modern day deities are subject to the same requirements. Show us the Mechanism.

We see the effects of this Mechanism. We aren't disputing the effects of this Mechanism. We just want to see The Mechanism itself. It isn't too much to ask the Christian to produce this God they keep ranting on about so it shouldn't be a problem to ask the same of the new God on the block, i.e. The Mechanism.

Does any of it require a “mythological deity�?

shnarkle: I see no necessity for it, but then I'm not the one making the claims that all of this evidence is enough to prove the existence of this so-called "The Mechanism" anymore than it proves the existence of God or the gods.

Perhaps those who adhere to mythological deities in their religious beliefs are prone to project their needs onto others.

shnarkle: I couldn't agree more! So stop insisting that this "mechanism" exists because of the vast amount of evidence we see all around us. No one is doubting the evidence. I'm just simply pointing out that even if all this evidence points to "The Mechanism" or a 'Creator" I'd still like to see "The Mechanism" itself, or Himself, or whatever it or he is. Show me the "Mechanism"

What people are doing without even knowing it is creating a new myth to explain reality, but the new myth is really just a new and improved myth. This skeptic doesn't discriminate with these myths; old or new. Until these Evolutionists, these religious zealots who feel the need to project this mythological deity they refer to in hushed reverent whispers as "The Mechanism"; can produce this "mechanism" rather than just pointing to bacteria; they are simply restating the same tired old argument the creationists have been bombarding us with for centuries.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 503 by shnarkle]

If one is sincerely interested in learning about "the mechanism" they can take university graduate courses in biology and genetics, where they can actually study such things in well equipped laboratories.

I did that fifty years ago (though it was not my major field of study) while many contemporaries were studying their "scriptures" and learning "all the answers" and also perhaps learning to distrust, dismiss, demean "science" (which provides them with modern medicine, transportation, communication, food production and processing, refrigeration, air conditioning, etc).

[Blastcat]

Hi, shnarkle

To a skeptic, science might not be a religion

The mechanism is evident

shanrkle: Ah yes, evidence of the Mechanism itself (Himself, Herself?), or is this simply the effects of the Mechanism?

When it comes to science, the "mechanism" is a methodology. That isn't a "himself" or a "herself".

shnarkle: There are always those who will doubt, but that's beside the point. We aren't doubting what we see, we're doubting what we don't see: e.g. God, The Mechanism.

Here's what the Christian says: "Look at all of creation. Does anyone doubt that creation exists? Isn't it clear evidence of the Creator." The reasonable response would be to ask, "Where is this Creator you're talking about?" I"m simply pointing out that our modern day deities are subject to the same requirements. Show us the Mechanism.

I suppose that in a world with close to 8 billion people, we MIGHT find people who take the scientific method as a "deity", but that would be stretching the meaning of the word "god" to the extreme.

We see the effects of this Mechanism. We aren't disputing the effects of this Mechanism. We just want to see The Mechanism itself. It isn't too much to ask the Christian to produce this God they keep ranting on about so it shouldn't be a problem to ask the same of the new God on the block, i.e. The Mechanism.

You might be able to visit a good science lab.

Does any of it require a “mythological deity�?

shnarkle: I see no necessity for it, but then I'm not the one making the claims that all of this evidence is enough to prove the existence of this so-called "The Mechanism" anymore than it proves the existence of God or the gods.

Do you doubt that the scientific method exists?

Perhaps those who adhere to mythological deities in their religious beliefs are prone to project their needs onto others.

shnarkle: I couldn't agree more! So stop insisting that this "mechanism" exists because of the vast amount of evidence we see all around us. No one is doubting the evidence. I'm just simply pointing out that even if all this evidence points to "The Mechanism" or a 'Creator" I'd still like to see "The Mechanism" itself, or Himself, or whatever it or he is. Show me the "Mechanism"

Do you mean a scientific method deity?
I really don't think many people in this forum believe in one of those.

What people are doing without even knowing it is creating a new myth to explain reality, but the new myth is really just a new and improved myth. This skeptic doesn't discriminate with these myths; old or new.

Your using the word "myth" interchangeably with "metaphor". All language is metaphorical to a point, in that it merely REPRESENTS reality, and the scientific method isn't any different in that regard. It's true that the skeptic should keep an open mind, but the skeptic doesn't have to deny reality, either.

The difference between a mythical story like the feeding of 5000 and a science story, is that using science, we can actually test it with a high degree of certainty, whereas the Bible story can't be verified at all. Science and religions are just not on the same playing field.

Both science and religion make guesses about reality, but with science, we can actually test the guesses out. A scientific explanation is always more reliable than a religious one, which is more akin to poetry.

Poetry has a kind of truth, but it's way more subjective than science. Science approaches what we call "objective" truth. To me, science and religion aren't the same, but at polar opposites.

Until these Evolutionists, these religious zealots who feel the need to project this mythological deity they refer to in hushed reverent whispers as "The Mechanism";

That's a pretty intense characterization, there!
You wildly exaggerate your case.

can produce this "mechanism" rather than just pointing to bacteria; they are simply restating the same tired old argument the creationists have been bombarding us with for centuries.

Some people see the difference between actual religious zealots and scientists for some reason.

[JLB32168]

I think I asked this a while back but what makes evidence verifiable and/or unverifiable?

[marco]

Your capitalization reminds me of the reverence that is now bestowed on Science and the high priests, i.e. the scientists that minister to this modern day god. As just one of many examples: The theory of Evolution has this mysterious deity known as "The Mechanism". ..... It will be replaced by the next mythological deity when we've outgrown this one.

Sometimes undue reverence is given to Science. You parallel this with the mythology surrounding God. That's fair enough.

However, people working in science are not spending their lives seeking to replace God or explain our existence; they work to make human life better. There is no requirement on anyone to hypothesise how life started, and any hypothesis would be subject to criticism, and possibly replaced - as you indicate.

Many people who respect science have no interest in speculating. They may not accept the notion of a personal God, but they don't pretend to have the ability to propose something better. I trust you are among these honest folk.

[Zzyzx]

.

I think I asked this a while back but what makes evidence verifiable and/or unverifiable?

Verify is defined as:

To demonstrate the truth or accuracy of, as by the presentation of evidence: http://www.thefreedictionary.com

Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified http://www.oxforddictionaries.com

In other words, check for truth and accuracy.

Most of us are aware that it is unwise to believe everything we are told, read, see on television / in movies / Internet. It IS wise to “fact-check� or verify what is presented.

Gullible and naïve are terms that characterize those who believe what they are told and are easily deceived or duped.

Some "evidence" presented cannot be checked for truth and accuracy (verified). For instance: "God told me" cannot be verified. Whereas: "A major earthquake occurred in San Francisco in 1906" is verifiable using multiple disconnected sources.

[Monta]

[Replying to Zzyzx]


"Gullible and naïve are terms that characterize those who believe what they are told and are easily deceived or duped."

If you are an American Republican, half of your country's population
will brand you as gullible and naive (and the other way around).