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?

[The Tanager]

As you have said, the one making the claim must bear the burden of proof. You must proof Miracles happen. That they exist.

Until then - just like the claim 'Hairy Goldfish on Mars" - we can safely say they don't exist.

Therefore, it is correct to say "Miracles don't happen."

'Miracles happen' and 'miracles don't happen' are both claims and both bear the burden of proof. 'I don't know if miracles happen or not' is the agnostic default that bears no burden. But that isn't the context of what you just responded to. I haven't claimed miracles happen. Transponder didn't claim that miracles don't happen either. Transponder claimed that 'miracles don't happen' is an historical approach. It isn't; it's philosophical.

[boatsnguitars]

As you have said, the one making the claim must bear the burden of proof. You must proof Miracles happen. That they exist.

Until then - just like the claim 'Hairy Goldfish on Mars" - we can safely say they don't exist.

Therefore, it is correct to say "Miracles don't happen."

'Miracles happen' and 'miracles don't happen' are both claims and both bear the burden of proof. 'I don't know if miracles happen or not' is the agnostic default that bears no burden. But that isn't the context of what you just responded to. I haven't claimed miracles happen. Transponder didn't claim that miracles don't happen either. Transponder claimed that 'miracles don't happen' is an historical approach. It isn't; it's philosophical.

What's a miracle? Define it.

[The Tanager]

What's a miracle? Define it.

It's something like "an event which the natural causes at any time and place would not have the capacity to produce."

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #338]

I don't see how a discussion on what are good and bad principles to use in one's historical approach is garbage, flam, etc. You also seem a bit confused about the A and the B. A refers to historical approaches. B are the historical facts that come out of that approach. If the A isn’t sound, then B isn’t sound on that basis.

“Miracles don’t happen” is not an A. It is a philosophical position (a C). Are you really advocating this as a historical approach?

“If the textual details we have of event X contradict enough, then X didn’t happen,” is an A. It seems to be your A regarding the resurrection. What you haven’t shown is that it is not your approach or that it is a good A. Instead, you keep saying how your A, when used, combined with your understanding of the texts (that there is enough contradictions) leads to the rational conclusion that the resurrection is not a historical fact. That’s your B: that the resurrection is not a historical fact (that's the B). Why? You say because of the historical principle you are using (the A).

I have not ignored the contradictions. As I’ve said, we can assume your beliefs there are 100% true for my critique. I’m saying it doesn’t matter because your A is not a good historical approach. Historians don’t use it. Historians don’t believe/disbelieve in event X based solely on whether all accounts agree enough on specific details surrounding that event. As you’ve said, historians focus on what can be salvaged from these histories and that includes events happening in spite of ‘enough contradictions’ in the only sources we have concerning that event.

You tell me you posted "but because it isn’t good philosophy working off of good history. In other words, I have an historical approach (let’s call that A)," so isn't your A a correct philosophical approach? 'Good History'of course makes light of my point that some history seems better than others. Histories of the early US seem pretty good, what we can put together about Egyptian, Babylonian and Hittite history seems fair to good, but I despaired over Burmese history, even trying to squeeze a few reliable facts out of it.

A good method of evaluating historical record is more like a science (like witness statement analysis) than philosophy which is rather more speculation about unknowns using their knowledge of how things are or appear. In which case 'Miracles don't happen' is Hume's approach I recall, but a one -off miracle would only have to happen once, which is a logical position, but so is consideration of the old records. We know Herodotus, invaluable though he is, must have been misled and misleading about Sesostris. That king isn't possible compared to what we know of Egyptian history.

So the method I use to evaluate the Gospels is sound, I think. Contradictions may be fiddled together (say the differing accounts of Pilate's 'symbols') or the differring Take on the mutiny on the Bounty. (Bligh's fault or Fletcher's?) which version is on the evidence more probable to be right.

Differing witnesses sure but total different story, no jury would accept it. I don't accept your claim that historians do not take not of contradictions too serious to call a permissible error. Even today 'The guard dies' is accepted (mainly by French historians) as true, and they did die, mostly but eventually broke and the commander (Cambronne) surrendered and hater denied he said any such thing. Well I I point to Mark tacitly saying there were no resurrection appearances (and we are in excuses mode) that is valid, as is serious contradictions calling into question whether the accounts are just misremembered or were made up.

Now how about you address the matter instead of trying to escape by saying that isn't what you cal 'good historical philosophy'.

I have already made it clear that I 'squeeze' hirory out as with the crucifixion and indeed the Galilean origin and even the messianic declaration at Bethsaida. Also the donkey ride and some kind of flap in the temple.

For various historical and logical reasons other aspects must be questioned. Notably the penitent thief. Despite excuses, it cannot be accepted that whoever heard the robbers reviling Jesus (Mark) did not hear one scold the other, repent and get saved. Quite apart from Luke's other massive additions, that would have to be queried, and if you don't consider that valid historical philosophy I can only suppose that you are merely using that as an excuse to escape what otherwise you cannot - the contradictions blow the resurrection accounts out of the water. Also the nativities, the healing at a distance, the messianic declaration at Nazareth of course, The different callings of disciples, David and the Shewbread, and other sabbath -breaking lessons, the individual parables of Luke (he's a great offender) the Sermon material, Luke ch 10 -13,inclusive....

and most of the resat of the Book.

What's a miracle? Define it.

It's something like "an event which the natural causes at any time and place would not have the capacity to produce."

That's not bad. One might also say 'by a method unknown and in contradiction of any method known to science'. But yours may be better. Of course, we can't overlook many, many, many claimed miracles (or supernatural events) which were misunderstood, mispercieved or just made up or faked.

In this respect I might also say 'supernatural event with a religious twist'.The UFO phenomena has many of the same features as Christianity (including apologetics methods - appeal to unknowns, anecdotal evidence and dismissing science while longing for scientific credibility) and even has advanced technology that manifests as magic, and even divine messages and prophecies (none of which happen). But I'd cite the Soccorro case and the Hills. The Soccorro one was the make or break'resurrection' case. The explanation pretty much blew the case for flying saucers wide open, especially when it looked thike ther account contradicted itself (1). The Hills were honest but were prompted to imagine things b- rather as I suspect the Christians in 1 Cor. !5 wereprompted to have visions (collectively, too) of a resurrected Jesus.

The method of critique I'd say is valid and sound and the only reason for anyone rejecting such critiques is Faithbased desire to prop the belief up.Remeber is isn't (as believers seem to argue) 'Believe or not' but how probably is the hypothethesis, model or claim, using evidence and logic?'

(1) the hoax balloon was upright 'like an egg' in the first account but was on its' side in the later story - to look more UFO like.

[TRANSPONDER]

As you have said, the one making the claim must bear the burden of proof. You must proof Miracles happen. That they exist.

Until then - just like the claim 'Hairy Goldfish on Mars" - we can safely say they don't exist.

Therefore, it is correct to say "Miracles don't happen."

'Miracles happen' and 'miracles don't happen' are both claims and both bear the burden of proof. 'I don't know if miracles happen or not' is the agnostic default that bears no burden. But that isn't the context of what you just responded to. I haven't claimed miracles happen. Transponder didn't claim that miracles don't happen either. Transponder claimed that 'miracles don't happen' is an historical approach. It isn't; it's philosophical.

miracle
/ˈmɪrɪkl/
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"

Off the Internet. Prob. from Oxford dictionary.

Your assessment of the default is at fault and in fact is not philosophy but apologetics sophistry. You had the basics - burden of proof. Like all Theist apologists you ignore (it seems - with the 'both claims' equivocation scam) the materialist default or that science has shown that things happen without a need for a god In other words 'miracles don't happen'is the science -based default claim and the burden of proof falls on the one claiming a miracle did happen and you can work out the rest yourself. I'll just tell you that it ends with miracle claims going down the chute. And I won't labour the efforts to escape that burden of proof by trying to fiddle the epistemology by playing the sophistry excuse, called by Bible apologists 'philosophy'.

Cue... apologetics of the third kind...but not yet and hopefully, not at all.

[boatsnguitars]

Just a thought.

Think of how expensive it is to get good data. At the extreme, we can look at CERN or NASA, and the Billions they've spent to verify just a few things, but it gives us such great data.

Meanwhile, bad information is free. That's why there is so much of it. Anyone can claim anything.

Now think of how little is spent on researching Hod, the supernatural, etc. Its just nit a worthwhile endeavour. Sure, there might be few cheap studies, but what do they ever discover about theism? Nothing new.
Yet, it's so easy for Theists to claim anything, and it doesn't cost them anything. In fact, if anything it has cost society so much to try to counteract the negative influence of religion.

[Data]

Just a thought.

Think of how expensive it is to get good data. At the extreme, we can look at CERN or NASA, and the Billions they've spent to verify just a few things, but it gives us such great data.

Meanwhile, bad information is free. That's why there is so much of it. Anyone can claim anything.

Now think of how little is spent on researching Hod, the supernatural, etc. Its just nit a worthwhile endeavour. Sure, there might be few cheap studies, but what do they ever discover about theism? Nothing new.
Yet, it's so easy for Theists to claim anything, and it doesn't cost them anything. In fact, if anything it has cost society so much to try to counteract the negative influence of religion.

Does that bother you? And why?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #344]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #345]

I never said evaluating the historical record is more like a philosophy than a science. The historical science is done in (A), producing (B), which then is used in a philosophical argument (C) to give us the best theory (D) accounting for those B-facts. I think Jesus’ resurrection having actually occurred (D) is the most rational belief informed by an argument that is good philosophy (C) built on sound historical facts (B) which are produced by a sound historical approach (A). I said arguments for your Muhammad and the Buddha examples aren’t doing this process well.

I also never said contradictions don’t weigh into historians’ considerations. My point is that we need to be clear what considerations are being talked about. Contradictions concerning a burial process will cause the good historian to question considerations about what burial processes actually took place, but not to doubt a burial happened at all. Contradictions about actual military movements in a war could cause the historian to question considerations about what tactics were actually used, but it won’t be a good reason to conclude the war never happened and no tactics were used. Your approach to the resurrection makes the mistake of denying the entire event because of supposed contradictions that call into question surrounding events and details.

As to the burden, if someone says “miracles happen,” then they need to prove that. If someone says “miracles don’t happen,” then they need to prove that. Burdens follow positive claims either way. Science doesn’t show us that things happen without a need for God, it simply tells us what physically happens. To say that physical description is all there is to that reality goes beyond science into philosophy.

[boatsnguitars]

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Just a thought.

Think of how expensive it is to get good data. At the extreme, we can look at CERN or NASA, and the Billions they've spent to verify just a few things, but it gives us such great data.

Meanwhile, bad information is free. That's why there is so much of it. Anyone can claim anything.

Now think of how little is spent on researching Hod, the supernatural, etc. Its just nit a worthwhile endeavour. Sure, there might be few cheap studies, but what do they ever discover about theism? Nothing new.
Yet, it's so easy for Theists to claim anything, and it doesn't cost them anything. In fact, if anything it has cost society so much to try to counteract the negative influence of religion.

Yes.In fact it was a technique I firs became aware of in the UFO world - sling endless sighting or encounter claims at the skeptics and demand they disprove every one down to the last detail. It is very effective in shifting the burden or proof to the other side. But in fact when serious queries are raised (and that does take research) the believer side will get pretty offensive and decry science and its'methods. In Bible apologetics as well as alternative theories including UFO.

It's why anecdotal claims have had to be dismissed as evidence . This was very effective in the early days where claims of an angel appearing in their washroom at Walmart and swearing that Jesus lives and the creation and the Flood was real, and the skeptics were supposed to disprove it. But we eventually had to say 'anyone can claim that'.

Not to mention that spate of fake evangelist videos - several dodgy ones but one purporting to show an atheist getting aggressive to some Christians but he clocked the camera quick before he went into his act.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #344]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #345]

I never said evaluating the historical record is more like a philosophy than a science. The historical science is done in (A), producing (B), which then is used in a philosophical argument (C) to give us the best theory (D) accounting for those B-facts. I think Jesus’ resurrection having actually occurred (D) is the most rational belief informed by an argument that is good philosophy (C) built on sound historical facts (B) which are produced by a sound historical approach (A). I said arguments for your Muhammad and the Buddha examples aren’t doing this process well.

I also never said contradictions don’t weigh into historians’ considerations. My point is that we need to be clear what considerations are being talked about. Contradictions concerning a burial process will cause the good historian to question considerations about what burial processes actually took place, but not to doubt a burial happened at all. Contradictions about actual military movements in a war could cause the historian to question considerations about what tactics were actually used, but it won’t be a good reason to conclude the war never happened and no tactics were used. Your approach to the resurrection makes the mistake of denying the entire event because of supposed contradictions that call into question surrounding events and details.

As to the burden, if someone says “miracles happen,” then they need to prove that. If someone says “miracles don’t happen,” then they need to prove that. Burdens follow positive claims either way. Science doesn’t show us that things happen without a need for God, it simply tells us what physically happens. To say that physical description is all there is to that reality goes beyond science into philosophy.

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

I do not want to dicker about what is or is not valid historical method, but to look into what must surely be valid in historical consideration (in fact I know it is) contradictions raise serious questions about historical records - as well as of course known history debunking it rather as known history of Egypt debunks Herodotus on Sesostris.

Now how about making good your claim that the resurrection accounts are not contradictory so as to make them look like they were made up to put clay on the bare wire of the resurrection -claim.

Enough attempts to trail red herrings of burial practices across the path. 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.
To stop any fooling about 'I didn't answer'. I have no doubt that the accounts suggest that Jesus could got a proper burial. Arimathea used his own tomb and Jesus was removed (sooner or later) to Galilee for a home -town burial. That is hardly worth debating. The question is - do the contradictions make the resurrection story non -credible as supposed witness accounts? If they do, dickering about burials, or correct historical methods are beside the points, if not deliberate attempts at evasion.

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