The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

---

I wasn't making an argument.... I was applying the points being made.


Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence.  Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?


Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature).   Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science.  And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature  If we can't test them for ourselves then what?...  However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener).   Then I agree.  But, what is your point?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written?  How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed?  Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

---

If results from a scientific study cannot be reproduced, then there was  a problem with the original study design, problem with data interpretation/extrapolation, or a problem with the hypothesis.  This is not a hit against science itself as you are implying.  That is the beauty of the scientific method: it is a self-correcting process.  Christians have no such process.  If they did, their book would implode.  

I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth. Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process. Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.