RE: King James is the real Bible.
July 23, 2016 at 5:12 am
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2016 at 5:18 am by robvalue.)
If you're looking for proof that something isn't the word of God, you're approaching things entirely backwards. This is called the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. I think I already posted a video explaining this, but I'll put it up again for you to show why this method is flawed:
The sensible thing it to begin with the claim, and then examine the available evidence to determine whether the claim is most likely true.
In this case, a book being "the word of God" is something I don't believe could possibly be tested. What is the criteria?
The book is, however, entirely consistent with what we would expect from a load of people around that point in history trying to make sense of the world around them. They filled in the gaps in their knowledge with a magical father figure. Exactly as they do today. It's just that the gaps that God is squeezed into are shrinking by the day as science advances further and further. If we don't have an explanation yet, "I don't know" is fine. There's no need to make up explanations.
If God tried to communicate with us and chose this method, he made about the worst choice possible. He is a total idiot, and he should have known it would be indistinguishable from books of fairy tales. It's not even internally consistent, it's plagued with continuity errors and contradictions. And it contains nothing useful at all.
The sensible thing it to begin with the claim, and then examine the available evidence to determine whether the claim is most likely true.
In this case, a book being "the word of God" is something I don't believe could possibly be tested. What is the criteria?
The book is, however, entirely consistent with what we would expect from a load of people around that point in history trying to make sense of the world around them. They filled in the gaps in their knowledge with a magical father figure. Exactly as they do today. It's just that the gaps that God is squeezed into are shrinking by the day as science advances further and further. If we don't have an explanation yet, "I don't know" is fine. There's no need to make up explanations.
If God tried to communicate with us and chose this method, he made about the worst choice possible. He is a total idiot, and he should have known it would be indistinguishable from books of fairy tales. It's not even internally consistent, it's plagued with continuity errors and contradictions. And it contains nothing useful at all.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum