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?

[1213]

...
You are the one who has misunderstood, and Theists habitually misunderstand. They think that scientifically validated evidence counts for nothing. The science based technology they rely on daily is mere 'opinion' ...

I have no problem with real scientific matters, that can be demonstrated true. The problem is with the "scientific" claims that can't be demonstrated true.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
You are the one who has misunderstood, and Theists habitually misunderstand. They think that scientifically validated evidence counts for nothing. The science based technology they rely on daily is mere 'opinion' ...

I have no problem with real scientific matters, that can be demonstrated true. The problem is with the "scientific" claims that can't be demonstrated true.

We have already seen your problem with demonstrated evidence, both that OT claims are wrong - if you don't deny the science, and the NT claims are unsound, mainly because of contradiction.

Again, Geology disproves a 6 day creation. The cetan sequence proves speciation (of whales at least) and not creation of 'Kinds' (1) the daylight, night and morning and evening were there before the sun was made - so the Bible says, the sun could not have stood still for the convenience of Joshua. Tyre was not destroyed for long, if at all, and not forever. The Nativities are totally contradictory and so are the resurrections.

You argue like mad and I enjoy that, but you do end up in denial rather than make any kind of case. It does not work how you think it does - it is not 'Bible true unless you admit it isn't', which is what you are doing. It is 'which theory or claim best fits the evidence, of science or the Bible, or both?' Things wrong and contradictions means it ain't the Bible, no matter science does rethink things, but Cosmic origins was always debatable from the start.

(1) mind crafty old Ken Ham had a Pakicetus on his Hamm's Ark as a baryma("Kind") from which all whales etc supposedly evolved in less than three thousand years.

[brunumb]

...
You are the one who has misunderstood, and Theists habitually misunderstand. They think that scientifically validated evidence counts for nothing. The science based technology they rely on daily is mere 'opinion' ...

I have no problem with real scientific matters, that can be demonstrated true. The problem is with the "scientific" claims that can't be demonstrated true.

Let's try that another way.
I have no problem with real biblical matters, that can be demonstrated true. The problem is with the "biblical" claims that can't be demonstrated true.

As soon as you can't demonstrate something biblical as being true, you simply resort to belief in it being true and that is supposed to be enough. Sorry, but epic fail.

[POI]

Only one Christian has a response to this topic?

[1213]

...Geology disproves a 6 day creation. The cetan sequence proves speciation (of whales at least) and not creation of 'Kinds' (1) the daylight, night and morning and evening were there before the sun was made - so the Bible says, the sun could not have stood still for the convenience of Joshua. Tyre was not destroyed for long, if at all, and not forever. The Nativities are totally contradictory and so are the resurrections.
...

The problem is, you don't have any good evidence or proof for your claims. Why you expect people to believe them just because some high priest of science says so?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Geology disproves a 6 day creation. The cetan sequence proves speciation (of whales at least) and not creation of 'Kinds' (1) the daylight, night and morning and evening were there before the sun was made - so the Bible says, the sun could not have stood still for the convenience of Joshua. Tyre was not destroyed for long, if at all, and not forever. The Nativities are totally contradictory and so are the resurrections.
...

The problem is, you don't have any good evidence or proof for your claims. Why you expect people to believe them just because some high priest of science says so?

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. Clearly you don't deny that because the Bible looks like the earth was flat, the sun was made later and trundles around the inside of the sky -dome.

Because that is what human observation told us until the 'High Priests of science' said otherwise. Now you are in denial about what the Bible says. Just as you are trying to deny that there really in a contradiction about the passover. Your denial is not based on science, - or even rejecting it all, only what you don't like.

Even if science was a religion, I would trust it more than your 'This science is fine, This I don't like so I deny it' version of "Science".

Someone recently (probably you as you are a feisty fellow in your persistent pastoral polemics ) picked up my expression of interest in the recent discussion about the Big Bang and tried to use it as a club to beat science with. In fact the BB is alive and well, and the idea 'it happened everywhere and everywhen' (and not in one place, like a detonation) seems to be because where and when was in the BB event. Mind, this is all debatable and the eternal cosmos, other BB events and indeed virtual particles from nothing (because of quantum making all particles potential) are all debatable. Opportunistic leaping on science debate in hopes to discredit it in favor of one preferred God is not going to do anything but make Christian apologetics look poor and invalid.

[brunumb]

The problem is, you don't have any good evidence or proof for your claims. Why you expect people to believe them just because some high priest of science says so?

Wow. Just WOW. The complete lack of self-awareness is stunning. Lets' try that another way.

The problem is, you don't have any good evidence or proof for your claims. Why you expect people to believe them just because some high priest of religion says so?

But, when you actually compare the two, science is supported by mountains of evidence and religion by.........(?)

[Wootah]

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

There are many. At least those that must be rejected because science says otherwise, unless one rejects inconvenient science when it contradicts the Bible, or at least there are enough doubts that it is quite reasonable to doubt the Bible, especially with (as one poster tried to argue) 'cumulative circumstantial evidence' though their idea was to take a lot of unsubstantiated faithclaims and pretend that a truckload of them added up to a Fact.

Creation is contradicted by Cosmology, 6 days of it contradicted by geology, Eden contradicted by biology. The Flood contradicted by all reason. Tower of Babel contradicted by archaeology, The sun standing still contradicted by any kind of reason. The Exodus at least coming under serious question, Prophecy of Tyre contradicted by archaeology (Old Tyre is under present day Tyre, not 'In the sea'), Daniel accurately matched to history up to about 160 BC when it gets the death of the king wrong, and the Babylonian history is not accurate. Thus the reasonable conclusion is this is history in prophetic form, not Prophecy.

NT gets off to a poor start with two contradictory and dubious nativities. The genealogies aren't much better. The baptism and calling of disciples contradict, too, the healing at Cana and palsied man at Siloam by now reasonably come under doubt as stories set in different contexts (the synoptics place them in Capernaum and Galilee), and we haven't got onto the biased and fudged rows with the Pharisees like healing on the Sabbath and David and the Shewbread (the Jews get to say nothing, but are shown as stumped and murderously resentful) the two sermons are not hinted at in Mark and Luke uses half the material during the Journey to Peraea. This is material transported into the original gospel. Luke rewrites and adds to the rejection at Nazareth. And John shifts his Temple cleansing to before the Baptism, leaving a great hole in Holy Week. Oh, and a discovery I think is my own - Jesus could not have said 'Babes and Sucklings'.

We haven't even got to the arrival at Bethany, fig tree, Sanhedrin trial nonsense, Penitent thief that nobody but Luke has ever heard of, Spear thrust that the synoptics don't know about contradictory deaths of Judas.

And there, because of the furious efforts to wangle those accounts together, we get to it. Believers may invent, fiddle and deny as much as they like. We know they work on Faith. But it doesn't alter the fact that they aren't making a sound case for doubters, and once all the nonsense, things wrong and contradictions are pointed out (as Bible apologetics trades on Saying Nothing and hoping nobody else does , others having doubts wu;; see that the Bible apologetics case is unsound.

Even before we get to the worst contradiction in the Bible - the resurrections.

[Wootah]

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.