Disproving the Bible

[justindagar]

My theories on how to disprove Christianity

1. According to modern estimates there are 4200 religions in the world. Lets say, for a moment, that one of these is correct and true. This therefore means that the other 4199 are a load of baloney.

Religions such as Christianity and Hinduism therefore have a 0.001% of being correct even if creationism is how the universe started.

2. If someone today wrote the Bible or other holy scriptures they would be regarded as a madman as almost everything written in them has been disproved by science.

The Earth is not 6000 years old and even the pope has to admit that, billions of years went by after the formation of the planet to when the first recognisable Humans evolved. The Bible states however that it was not billions of years but actually 6 days.

As the Bible was clearly written by someone with zero scientific knowledge of the universe he states 'In the beginning god created the Heavens and the Earth'. We know today that the Earth is an absolutely tiny part of the universe yet the is no detail into how God created all the other billions of planets and stars.

I would continue my arguments but it's getting late and my head is hurting as to how 21st century people believe in such drivel.

Goodnight

[Jenny A]

If someone today wrote the Bible or other holy scriptures they would be regarded as a madman as almost everything written in them has been disproved by science.

The Book of Mormon is doing pretty well, and it's of recent vintage.

[Dystopia]

The bible claims god exists. There is no evidence god exists. Therefore the bible doesn't prove anything

[vorlon13]

God said He would forever blot out all remembrance of Amelek.

How do we know God said this and how do we know of Amelek?


IT'S IN THE BIBLE !!!

[Mystical]

Sounds like you haven't heard the 'a day is to a thousand years' nonsense yet.


Stick around and you will

[Baqal]

This has been repeated to young Earth creationists and Biblical literalists many times. They just refuse to listen. Even if they somehow manage to disprove the theories that oppose them, they will still have no evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired and that their God exists.

[SteveII]

Your statement in #1 about Christianity having a 0.001% of being correct based on the number of other religions is logical nonsense. With your logic, that would mean the if Christianity was the only religion, that it would be 100% probable?

Regarding #2, I would like to hear your list of how everything in the Bible has been disproved by science. The Bible was not written as a science text--to assume so is mere ignorance of its content.

If you are going to say that creation/6000 years have been disproved, then you are passing judgement on a literal 6-day creation view. There is no evidence that that is the only possible interpretation of that passage. Many believe that they represent ages and interpreting it so does not change the meaning of Genesis or Christianity as a whole. In fact, many believe that God some version of evolution to get to what we have today.

If you are going to add in the the issue of miracles, why is that a proof that the Bible has been disproved by science? A miracle is an event that cannot occur naturally. But that does not leave out the possibility of an outside force causing such an event to happen. No laws of nature are broken since natural laws assume only natural causation. You would have to disprove #2 (or show it is less probably than its opposite) below to use the miracle argument to disprove the Bible.

1. If God exists, miracles exist
2. God Exists
3. Therefore miracles exist.

[Dystopia]

1. If God exists, miracles exist
2. God Exists
3. Therefore miracles exist.

1 - I agree with the first premise
2 - Why does god exist? Evidence.
3 - Even if miracles exist, they could be cause by the power of human mind and complete randomness, you are committing the post hoc fallacy by immediately assuming an unexplained even has to be caused by god instead of considering other possible facts that caused it

[Jenny A]

I find the way people focus in on the six day time period amusing given what's described in those six days. For example, did you realize that the sky separates the earth from a ton of water?

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Genesis 1:6-8

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no evidence that that is the only possible interpretation of that passage.

no evidence of the contrary either. Indeed, when something is down entirely to 'interpretation', then it is illogical to dismiss other interpretations to that end.

Many believe that they represent ages and interpreting it so does not change the meaning of Genesis or Christianity as a whole. In fact, many believe that God some version of evolution to get to what we have today.

Beliefs are irrelevant if we desire facts or evidence.

If you are going to add in the the issue of miracles, why is that a proof that the Bible has been disproved by science?

Science is not concerned with disproving the bible. It is merely concerned with the observable and testable reality which we inhabit. If the conclusions of those observations disprove a supposed 'miracle', then so be it.

A miracle is an event that cannot occur naturally. But that does not leave out the possibility of an outside force causing such an event to happen. No laws of nature are broken since natural laws assume only natural causation. You would have to disprove #2 (or show it is less probably than its opposite) below to use the miracle argument to disprove the Bible.

1. If God exists, miracles exist
2. God Exists
3. Therefore miracles exist.

Laconic reply of if.

Also, welcome.