Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #347]

Just making an observation. It is what it is.

But it should bother everyone that peddlers of disinformation and misinformation have it so easy, but those who seek truth have to work so much harder because of it.

It is a pain and wearisome, that anyone can claim an ER alien underground city in Siberia and thousands will believe it and brush aside any queries about it. People just live their secret knowledge that makes them (or their coterie) more informed than the norm (indeed - projection - atheists get accused of doing that), and they get downright shirty and abusive when people start asking awkward questions. And of course science -denial is a sooner rather than later resort.

It is downheartening, but all we can do it keep putting the rational and science -based cased - and there are some pretty entertaining ones out there.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #350]

You think it is pointless to talk about historical methods when making a historical claim? Okay...I’ve got nothing for you then.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #350]

You think it is pointless to talk about historical methods when making a historical claim? Okay...I’ve got nothing for you then.

Tan, I feel the same way as TRANS about your seemingly evasive tactics. I'm not sure if you are trying to be 'the clever apologist' or if you really run up against cognitive dissonance and avoid the hard questions. I don't know, don't really care - except you seem to be one of the few who are marginally willing to discuss and defend the Supernatural, and that makes me want you to stick around and really drill down into the issue. Sorry to get personal, but it's a stumbling block when discussing these things with you. I don't feel you are being forthright, but that you always deflect. I've tried to read your posts with philosophical charity, but I can't find the core of the claim you are making - except that you simply believe, and you will hedge, hem and haw to pacify yourself. Or, I am not reading your posts with the charity they deserve. However, since TRANS posted his comment, I felt that I was justified.

Let's just take your last post. Do you really think TRANS is saying that? Wouldn't you assume that he's a little more nuanced than that?

What do you feel the crux of your argument is? Is it in your penultimate post? Because if so, I didn't see any real meat, you only said you found the Jesus resurrection story convincing, and not other supernatural stories.

Can we get to the heart of the matter?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #350]

You think it is pointless to talk about historical methods when making a historical claim? Okay...I’ve got nothing for you then.

I'll probably get pinged for this but...




It looks to me that you have tried all along to try to redefine the way we reason to wangle unreasonable claims into credibility. I know how historians argue for conclusions (from an archaeological perspective) and they never discuss the philosophy of historical method but debate problems, discrepancies and things wrong. I am well aware of the desire to squeeze out drops of history from a soggy cloth of mythology, like Arthur, Troy or the glass palace chronicles. The epistemology has never been trotted out to block discussion of historical contradictions or run away from discussion of the resurrection contradictions as you have done.

[otseng]

I don't know whether there is a problem with your thinking or this is deliberately evasive.

You are being downright insulting in thinking I'd fall for that. You have been evasive enough about this and you really have to put your money where you mouth is.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but stop pulling these stunts and I'll stop calling you out.

Tan, I feel the same way as TRANS about your seemingly evasive tactics. I'm not sure if you are trying to be 'the clever apologist' or if you really run up against cognitive dissonance and avoid the hard questions. I don't know, don't really care - except you seem to be one of the few who are marginally willing to discuss and defend the Supernatural, and that makes me want you to stick around and really drill down into the issue. Sorry to get personal, but it's a stumbling block when discussing these things with you.

Moderator Comment

By both of your admissions, these are personal comments and are not allowed under any circumstance.

Please review the Rules.


______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[boatsnguitars]

Moderator Comment

By both of your admissions, these are personal comments and are not allowed under any circumstance.

Please review the Rules.

Fair. I'd like to apologize to Tanger. I do appreciate that he engages - one of the few Theists who does try to maintain a philosophy-based approach as oppose to a blatant faith-based approach.

This will be my last comment that is personal. (or, so is my grand plan today)

[TRANSPONDER]

Moderator Comment

By both of your admissions, these are personal comments and are not allowed under any circumstance.

Please review the Rules.

Fair. I'd like to apologize to Tanger. I do appreciate that he engages - one of the few Theists who does try to maintain a philosophy-based approach as oppose to a blatant faith-based approach.

This will be my last comment that is personal. (or, so is my grand plan today)

Personally I thought my comments were justified. There was evasion of the question I asked and I do not see how feeling insulted is a remark about anyone else. But otseng owns the place, so I shall avoid making such comments again.

I of course appreciate all who engage in discussion, but evasion of discussion is something else.

[TRANSPONDER]

However, and rather following Boat'n's lead, i will extend apologies to the Tanager who argues well. I could have handled it better by saying: 'Ok, leave it there'. Though I maintain that discussion of the historical method was a distraction and veracity of the gospels (specifically the resurrection) is the only real debate. I am regretful if I have overstepped the rules and ruffled any feathers. I shall try not to step over the 'fence around the Torah' as the Jews say, though I'm still willing to riffle a feather or two.

[POI]

In an attempt to bring closure to this topic, allow me to raise a 'point.' Until we first know if Genesis was meant to be a chain of literal events, as described, I think the title question is placing the cart before the horse. As I already told The Tanager, science cannot debunk the Bible for him. Why? Genesis is not literal, where science suggests such claims would be false if literal. "The Exodus" has no evidence to support the claim, which means the 'jury is still out and may never adjourn.' And one-time ancient claims to the supernatural are not falsifiable by science either.

Thus, maybe the first question, which might instead be asked, is:

viewtopic.php?t=41373

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. I see this question has been made the basis of another thread. I'll just add that there is indirect evidence about the Exodus-scenario and not just 'absence of evidence' (where the 'does not prove evidence of absence' idea is played to the limit), but there are historically - known parameters. The mention of chariots in Joseph must place all these events after the Hyksos (1). The Egyptians ruled the middle east, Sinai and seaboard to Lebanon up to the 9th c BC when they were beaten by Assyria, and the Merneptah stele puts Israel in Canaan after Ramesses II. So, really, the only time when an Exodus could take place was when Egyptian control lapsed under Akhenaten (3). So it looks to me like the evidence of history limits any possible window for the Exodus to that time.

(1) Though one might make a case that Joseph brought his family to the delta when he obtained high office under a Hyksos ruler who would have chariots. Indeed the Israelites in Egypt are the Hyksos and the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose is (I'm almost sure (2) the Exodus under Moses, but fiddled and legendized history.

(2) since clocking that Josephus had picked up the equating of Manetho's 'shepherd kings' (Hyksos) with the Israelites and as I recall pretty much equates the expulsion of the Hyksos with the Exodus.

(3) indeed the documents of the time mention the depredations of the 'Habiru', which is interesting, if perhaps misleading.