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?

[POI]

Thus, there could still be a need for Jesus if the Pentateuch isn’t from God.

You cannot reasonably have the NT w/o the OT.

As stated prior, in your exchange with Transponder, you present as a 'minimal facts' Christian. It is now clear that even if just about everything was demonstrated, to your liking, about how the OT is riddled with flaws/doubt/fabrications/other, you would still have "Jesus".

Merry Xmas!

[TRANSPONDER]

I am pretty sure that good ol' a priori Religious Faith (God, Jesus and Bible) is the basis here. And if only that was realised instead of trying to wangle the evidence to try to fit it.

However, let's allow good cheer and festivity prevail, until the New year when battle resumes

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #330]

First, why does the Jugurthine war look pretty credible, but not the miracles? What historical differences account for that?

Second, we are applying historical study to the resurrection, not to the gospels.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #330]

First, why does the Jugurthine war look pretty credible, but not the miracles? What historical differences account for that?

Second, we are applying historical study to the resurrection, not to the gospels.

Yes and no. The question is that Historically we do credit the Jugurthine war as a fair and credible record, but we don't credit miracles - unless they fit into the particular religion. Save the reasons to argue for the Supernatural, you know this is so and you don't buy the supernatural or miracle -claims of any religion other than The Biblical, do you?

And, no, the Study is directed to the claimed resurrection of Jesus as a real event, both in the gospels and the letters of Paul, plus any relevant outside references.

Fiddle the meaning of 'historical study' as you like, or whether it is science or just detective work as you like, it doesn't alter the evidence - which you have still to address, along with the other contradictions I put, #313. Delay with dickering about definitions as you like, it just looks like you'd prefer to put off showing how to reconcile the contradictions.

Hint - just to have a jolly laugh and aside any temptation to use this one "The Bible says so, so it must be true" works even less well than the tatty and threadbare through over-laundering 'witnesses don't always agree" excuse. We already saw this with the observers hearing the Thieves railing against Jesus but nobody but Luke hearing that one remonstrated with other Turned, repented ad was saved. Even without other examples of Luke having (read inventing) stuff the others don't have, we have an example of falsification to fit his information. The angelic message. That to me is a killer. It is clunk click handcuffs Gocha that Luke adapted the gospels to suit his agenda. It undermines the credibility of everything he wrote.

And i ask again - why am I the only one who appears to he saying this, even if these Experts have noticed it?

[The Tanager]

First, I don’t credit a miracle because it fits or doesn’t fit in Christianity; I credit miracles based on their own merit.

Second, you have added nothing to why one should follow your particular approach to history. You simply continue to move on to the next step about details as though you’ve already established your approach, so it seems like that part of our discussion is over.

[TRANSPONDER]

First, I don’t credit a miracle because it fits or doesn’t fit in Christianity; I credit miracles based on their own merit.

Second, you have added nothing to why one should follow your particular approach to history. You simply continue to move on to the next step about details as though you’ve already established your approach, so it seems like that part of our discussion is over.

First, what miracles do you credit on their own merit? Muhammad flying to heaven on a magical horse?Buddha making himself into a score of Buddhas? If you credit those, then the resurrection means nothing for Christianity as miracles can and do happen.

If however, you credit miracles on religious biasyou debunk your entire arguing position. But I suspect you mean is that miracles don't deserve credit unless undeniably attested by withnesses. As per (supposedly) the Bible. Isn't that it?

Next I don't need to 'add anything ' to historical method than pointing out what is actually done. If as much credit can be given to credible history unless there is logical or evidential reason doubt it and because miracles are not credited, then do show some definition of historical method that does credit miracles - even non - Biblical ones - along with the rest of the history.

No the discussion is not my any means over, despite your attempt to close it down while awarding yourself the last word. An example, Two examples perhaps. Josephus records the death of Herod Agrippa being signalled by an owl appearing to show that he'd blasphemed by being hailed as a god. Acts also uses this story but changes the owl to an angel. The other is the Gordian knot. Alexander's history is for sure credited, but I wonder whether anyone believes the Gordian Knot? What do you think? What do historians think?

And finally, I of course argue that the resurrections are not to be credited through the total contradiction, on which I still await your comments. Unlike the crucifixion which I do credit for good reason.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #336]

The miracle I am crediting historically is the resurrection because it is the best theory that fits the sound historical facts. I don’t see that in the case for your Muhammad and Buddha examples. It’s not because of worldview bias, 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), I establish historical facts (we’ll call that B), and then I apply philosophical reasoning (C), and choose what theory best explains that (D).

You are doing the same thing and I’ve commented on it. I am saying your A is bad. Instead of supporting your A, you keep arguing about what should be included in B given that A is sound. Your supposed contradictions are decided in B. I’m critiquing your A. Those are my comments. We can’t talk about B (which you keep trying to get us to do), without establishing the soundness of A. I know it’s not the critique you want me to make, but it is still the critique I’m making. Defend your A.

Again, your A seems to be: look at the various texts that speak to the resurrection and then if they agree enough, they can be deemed historical. Clarify or defend your A.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #336]

The miracle I am crediting historically is the resurrection because it is the best theory that fits the sound historical facts. I don’t see that in the case for your Muhammad and Buddha examples. It’s not because of worldview bias, 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), I establish historical facts (we’ll call that B), and then I apply philosophical reasoning (C), and choose what theory best explains that (D).

You are doing the same thing and I’ve commented on it. I am saying your A is bad. Instead of supporting your A, you keep arguing about what should be included in B given that A is sound. Your supposed contradictions are decided in B. I’m critiquing your A. Those are my comments. We can’t talk about B (which you keep trying to get us to do), without establishing the soundness of A. I know it’s not the critique you want me to make, but it is still the critique I’m making. Defend your A.

Again, your A seems to be: look at the various texts that speak to the resurrection and then if they agree enough, they can be deemed historical. Clarify or defend your A.

Garbage and Flam and a happy new year to you. Your attempts to dress the matter up as historical philosophy 'Let's call it X) is just smokescreening. I know the resurrection appears to be in a natural setting while Muhammad flying to heaven and Buddha multiplying himself into 60 is not, but really are they any more absurd than the descending angel, tombs opening and a dead body walking?

Your flam is why you couldn't just say 'I have an historical approach' but you have to dress t up as A of a philosophical proposition because you cannot make a case that doubting the veracity of of an historical account is valid because of a miraculous element (I cited the Jugurthine war and some dodgy elements of the records of Alexander) and asking whether you swallow them (as much as Muhammad flying to heaven) as Historians prefer to focus on what can be salvaged from these histories and ignore the fairy tales.

This you know, which is why you had to dress up the flam as a philosophical proposition. In fact "let's get off the evidence and talk epistemology." Avoid what you'll lose (you still have to address the contradictions) and talk philosophical fiddling.

I didn't even get onto the contradictory accounts which you still seem disinclined to tackle but which should absolutely consign the Resurrection to the garbage bin, along with your effort to play the Philosophy card in trying to fiddle the evidence, or the epistemology of the evidence - a very old apologetics trick.'Discredit how we know anything and I can claim anything (but not other supernatural claims of course'. I have seen it before and you can't fool me.

Incidentally you now seem to confuse A (a historical way of approach - e g miracles don't happen) with B. Is the account reliable? Contradictions raise doubts. Isn't that 'B'? Also you ignore my contradictions (unless that means tacit acceptance) and want to try to find points of agreement. Given the characters involved and the claim of an empty tomb proving Jesus had risen, there is no real agreement. Suppose you tell me what you think how the points of agreement (your B, so far as I can tell) tally up and then I'll point up the points of disagreement.

Bear in mind some 'B' points (never mind A) convinces me the crucifixion was real. Sure, there are contradictions to be discarded, but the core is there. Not with the resurrection - only the claim, and the claim is not evidence for the claim. The empty tomb is core, as is Mary Magdalene - I concede that - but the resurrection conclusion is a faithbased claim and the tales invented to validate that claim fail because they have no core, but only contradictions.

Cue 'weaving together', e g pretending the disciples could go to Galilee in between Jesus appearing to them in Jerusalem and giving them a scriptural lecture course in Jerusalem over a month. Some few have tried it - I hope you will not.

[The Tanager]

[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.

[boatsnguitars]

“Miracles don’t happen” is not an A.

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."