From Belief to Doubt, and Beyond

[POI]

In a prior posting, I attempted to challenge 'minimal facts' Christians here --> (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40714&start=20). As with many topics, it went virtually nowhere, in regard to Christian interaction. I guess my hypothesis, in that thread, remains unchallenged. These types of Christians only wish to argue unfalsifiable stuff to protect their beloved belief(s). Thus. let's instead try another approach....

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

[TRANSPONDER]

Were you there at creation?

The creation account is one of the most beautiful and poetic parts of the Bible. In terms of the whole book everything that happens later can be found or traced to creation. In terms of psychology creation understands humans perfectly.

Like creation itself the creation account is a masterpiece.

In terms of science it all basically came from a biblical trust in God.

Good grief.

Were you there? No, we have to go on the evidence, and the evidence does not support the absurd tale in the Bible.

You can claim various qualities for it if you like to work hard to detect them (1), (I find it ridiculous and rather nasty myself) but that's irrelevant to whether it is, on evidence, true.

(1) I may say that in my Asia travel days, I found nothing so common or highly prised, in Hindu, Buddhist and even Islamic cultures than the Ramayana.

[POI]

In a prior posting, I attempted to challenge 'minimal facts' Christians here --> (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40714&start=20). As with many topics, it went virtually nowhere, in regard to Christian interaction. I guess my hypothesis, in that thread, remains unchallenged. These types of Christians only wish to argue unfalsifiable stuff to protect their beloved belief(s). Thus. let's instead try another approach....

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

Which story did you falsify?

Your response does not address the debate question. Can you, at least, answer it? Only one Christian has kind of answered it so far. I'll repeat...

In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy? Would it be one, two, five, ten, other?

Once you answer the above, then maybe your question will be relevant (on some level).

[POI]

Were you there at creation?

You look to be presenting a loaded question. Even IF 'creation' is a thing, why trust the account from the Bible? Is it faith based alone, or do we adhere to evidence? And if so, what?

The creation account is one of the most beautiful and poetic parts of the Bible.

This does not count as any evidence to suggest the claim is true. You know this, right?

In terms of the whole book everything that happens later can be found or traced to creation. In terms of psychology creation understands humans perfectly.

Prove these claims please.

Like creation itself the creation account is a masterpiece.

This is a completely subjective statement, backed by nothing factual.

In terms of science it all basically came from a biblical trust in God.

Please prove this claim as well.

[1213]

...
Because you rely on science every day. You accept the findings of science, like the earth is round, it was made later than the sun, the earth goes round the sun...

Why should I accept everything "science" says, if it has something correct? Do you believe everything Bible says, if it is correct about murder being wrong?

I have no good reason to believe earth was made later than sun. And I have not seen any good evidence for that earth is round, or that earth goes round the sun.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Because you rely on science every day. You accept the findings of science, like the earth is round, it was made later than the sun, the earth goes round the sun...

Why should I accept everything "science" says, if it has something correct? Do you believe everything Bible says, if it is correct about murder being wrong?

I have no good reason to believe earth was made later than sun. And I have not seen any good evidence for that earth is round, or that earth goes round the sun.

I believe something if the evidence supports it. How do you prove murder is wrong, just because the Bible says so. What is the difference between murder and justified killing, according to the Bible?

I'm assuming that you are being rhetorically denialist in questioning whether the earth is not flat, goes round the sun, or was made later. 'You have not seen' merely means you haven't looked at the evidence. Neither it seems have you looked at the Bible, that says daylight, morning and evening, was there before (it says) the sun was made. Neither have you apparently looked when I post it for you? Is there anything you are willing to believe other than your own preferences?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Even if the bible were deemed to be not trustworthy, I would believe in the resurrection of Jesus because God graced me to know it happened.

I doubt anyone's faith is based on the bible alone. I can say for sure, none of my faith is based on the bible. I only have any trust in it because God guided me.

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Even if the bible were deemed to be not trustworthy, I would believe in the resurrection of Jesus because God graced me to know it happened.

I doubt anyone's faith is based on the bible alone. I can say for sure, none of my faith is based on the bible. I only have any trust in it because God guided me.

Can I ask what happened?

For me my faith has not been by sight in a direct sense of knowing God.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Even if the bible were deemed to be not trustworthy, I would believe in the resurrection of Jesus because God graced me to know it happened.

I doubt anyone's faith is based on the bible alone. I can say for sure, none of my faith is based on the bible. I only have any trust in it because God guided me.

Correction. You guided you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Even if the bible were deemed to be not trustworthy, I would believe in the resurrection of Jesus because God graced me to know it happened.

I doubt anyone's faith is based on the bible alone. I can say for sure, none of my faith is based on the bible. I only have any trust in it because God guided me.

We know how it works. What you believe is true because it is in tour head . But thanks for pretty much evidencing my conviction that Believers think that 'grace' allows God to download fact into their heads. But, as I posted recently, why would a god download different truths into the heads of different denominations, never mind different religions.

Isn't it the better explanation that humans make this stuff up? Especially since it's often wrong, on all evidence. You are welcome to tell us what we already knew - you will believe what is pretty much debunked on this Faith. But I can tell you that posting faithclaims is a waste of your time, because it only serves to show why, when Believers persist in arguing even when the case is made, it is just faithbased denial, not a proper argument. We knew that, too.

[POI]

Christian responses (summarized), thus far, for this topic:

1213: It only takes one.
Wootah: Responded with a nonresponse...
AquinasforGod: Even if all of the Bible claims were false, I would still believe.

Anyone else care to share? How many Bible stories would need to be debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, before you would no longer deem the Bible trustworthy?