Science confirms the Bible?

[Faith No More]

It's very simple. You examine the information and test it's validity.

If it's so simple, how come so many people come to so many different conclusions? And why is it that you never actually specify the process behind testing its validity? You just say "test its validity," which I have done, and have come to a different conclusion than you.

Like I and my fellow Christians do on these forums daily.

What?!? I surely hope you're not citing the believers on this site as an example of Christian reasoning...If you are, that only supports my conclusion that your claims of reasoning and rationality are just that, claims.

I/we find no objections to the points of logic. You get to a point where the evidence to support belief is overwhelming.

And what I'm asking is how do you get to that point? Describe to me that journey instead of merely alluding to it.

[Brian37]

As they do today, but where does it state that there was no rain at all before the global flood? I think you're just parroting some Hovind nonsense.

Don't be lazy go look it up I'm not your personal slave.

That myth exists because of human ignorance. Flood motifs in human mythology exist because humans saw what was local as being the entirety of the world, basically that which was in their view. So if a flood wiped out their land as far as the eye could see, they had no clue how big the world really was or that it was a globe. But there was no global flood as claimed in that comic book.

But if we are to pretend such an absurd claim really did happen, that would make this God claimed in that book a genocidal fucktard. You may think of yourself as a human as mere property, but I value myself as an individual and I do not value the concept that a human should be treated like trash and murdered, by the millions, simply for the mere act of belonging to a different club. Especially when this being didn't have to set it up so he'd murder them and blame them for what he didn't have to allow in the first place.

Scientifically that story is absurd by itself, but it is vile morally and has no value to human decency. Religion is nothing but a political excuse to fuck other human beings over. It is infantile tribalism at it's worst.

[fr0d0]

I wonder what it takes for a person to have such deep trust that what one's own mind produces is a literal connection to the creator of the universe and not any one of a hundred infinitely more plausible alternative explanations. I also wonder why making this connection is impossible without first being told that there is a creator to connect to.

1. I have to trust that what I understand from information presented is as correct as possible, yes. What do you do, lie to yourself?
2. There is no more plausible alternative. You seem to refuse to even begin to think about the subject. I don't wish to be deliberately ignorant.
3. Funnily enough the idea of the creator came last to me too. Why do you assume it had to come first?

---

Do you believe in evolution frodo?

Evolution isn't something anyone needs to believe in. I consider it to be fact.

---

@ThomM

You find no objections to the "points of logic: because there are NONE you ever post that can be objected to.

Like I said I post them all the time, and people agree with them.


If the evidence to support the belief is overwhelming - why is it that the overwhelming majority of people in the world do not believe?

Argumentum ad populum.


And if the evidence is so overwhelming - why is it YOU never post that evidence to begin with as well?

Let me say it again: I post it all of the time. So do others. I said that in my investigations, that were extremely thorough,I found the evidence overwhelming. Presented with the same information, you would too.




Sorry - but the evidence is overwhelmingly against that story being true -and every year - that becomes more and more obvious.

I see you positing no evidence on topic. ignorance of a subject does not stand as evidence against it.

---

You get to a point where the evidence to support belief is overwhelming.

If that was true, everyone would believe without question. There is no proof. Faith is not proof, and faith is all any religious believer has. Faith, after all, is the veritable lack of evidence.

1. Does everyone have the exact same evidence that I do? Nein
2. There is proof. Just none you'd consider. There cannot be idependantly verifiable proof for the subject to remain coherent. So your challenge would have to break logic.
3. Christian faith is acting upon information that you trust to be true. I don't recognise your definition/you're not addressing Christianity with it.

---

It's very simple. You examine the information and test it's validity.

If it's so simple, how come so many people come to so many different conclusions? And why is it that you never actually specify the process behind testing its validity? You just say "test its validity," which I have done, and have come to a different conclusion than you.

The conclusions are all incredibly close. The starting point: human senses, are the same. What I see are varying degrees of perfection in the information considered and the conclusions reached.
I continually, it seems, spell out the process: Scrutinise the information as thoroughly as possible.
You will naturally have your own history of information, and you must follow that to draw honest conclusions, as we all must. Are your conclusions more valid than mine? if I claim a logical benefit to you over your current conclusion, or you me, how do we justify not embracing each others information?

≤ pause... back later >

[Faith No More]

The conclusions are all incredibly close.

Other than a shared belief in a supernatural creator, religions vary quite a bit, so no, I wouldn't say they are all that close.

The starting point: human senses, are the same. What I see are varying degrees of perfection in the information considered and the conclusions reached.

Examples?

You will naturally have your own history of information, and you must follow that to draw honest conclusions, as we all must. Are your conclusions more valid than mine? if I claim a logical benefit to you over your current conclusion, or you me, how do we justify not embracing each others information?

Well, the problem is I don't know the process you went through to reach your conclusions, so I can't determine whose would be more valid.

≤ pause... back later >

Make haste, hobbit.

[Brian37]

It's very simple. You examine the information and test it's validity.

If it's so simple, how come so many people come to so many different conclusions? And why is it that you never actually specify the process behind testing its validity? You just say "test its validity," which I have done, and have come to a different conclusion than you.

Like I and my fellow Christians do on these forums daily.

What?!? I surely hope you're not citing the believers on this site as an example of Christian reasoning...If you are, that only supports my conclusion that your claims of reasoning and rationality are just that, claims.

I/we find no objections to the points of logic. You get to a point where the evidence to support belief is overwhelming.

And what I'm asking is how do you get to that point? Describe to me that journey instead of merely alluding to it.

I am not interested in a group of people patting themselves on the back over an ancient myth. The Egyptians patted themselves on the back surrounded by the false belief, and popular belief that the sun was a thinking being.

So it isn't even the "journey" I am interested in because the starting point is built on a naked assertion, so the "journey" is a house of cards built on sand in any case.

When a Christian quotes other Christians or the bible, they are doing the same thing Muslims do in quoting other Muslims or the Koran, hardly impressive and extraordinary mundane circular reasoning.

"I prove the bible with the bible"
"I prove the Koran with the Koran"
"This other Christian is smart so I am right"
"This other Muslim is smart so I am right".

What the theist is indulging in is conformation bias, not actual empirical evidence outside their own pet wishes.

[fr0d0]

Like I and my fellow Christians do on these forums daily.

What?!? I surely hope you're not citing the believers on this site as an example of Christian reasoning...If you are, that only supports my conclusion that your claims of reasoning and rationality are just that, claims.

lol

Well everyone to their own. I see all of their points. Some I think won't be understood, and I'd say things differently.
Some sharp individuals are lambasted and I put that down to belligerence or perhaps to be more generous, fear/misunderstanding of something new.

Dogma for instance can be impossible to understand from my perspective. I think some people expect everyone to have a religious background where they understand all of that. in my experience the opposite is true. They don't seem to understand it themselves sometimes, so I don't disagree with your sentiment.

---

I/we find no objections to the points of logic. You get to a point where the evidence to support belief is overwhelming.

And what I'm asking is how do you get to that point? Describe to me that journey instead of merely alluding to it.

Here's me. Thrown together with someone serious about Christianity and I level all of the usual accusations at it. The Christian comes back with reasonable refutations to all if my points, so I'm challenged to consider the subject in depth.
I soak up as much information as I can on the subject. This leads me to meet and discuss the ever growing questions in my head with more practitioners. At some point here I'm more on the side of acceptance than not. Here there's the challenge to move to belief, which is considerable.

---

The conclusions are all incredibly close.

Other than a shared belief in a supernatural creator, religions vary quite a bit, so no, I wouldn't say they are all that close.

I would include all spiritual experience. From the very basic. Our ethical sense seems to be central to that. I see all of those endeavours on the same route to their evolutionary end point. ahem

---

The starting point: human senses, are the same. What I see are varying degrees of perfection in the information considered and the conclusions reached.

Examples?

I think some religious/spiritual endeavour goes off the rails. My personal journey was mostly very poor and low quality information. I wanted to know but the info just wasn't forthcoming for whatever reason. People were very important to me.
Lots of crap can get in the way. Religion attracts charlatans like nothing else. Personalities, charismatic people.. can be great. They can also convince people of nonsense. I wonder sometimes at what motivates some faith leaders when it's not so obvious, like with money and fame.

I hope that's what you meant!

[Godscreated]

A considerable amount came up.

I can't wait to see you prove the 'fountains of the deep' hypothesis.

If I'm not mistaken one of Jupiter's moons has an ocean which the solid surface of the moon covers said ocean, could be another planet's moon.

[The Grand Nudger]

A considerable amount of water "came up" - from another panets moon?

Howsabout we establish the accuracy of one hypothesis at a time...rather than saddling said hypothesis with even more ludicrous bullshit?

[Jackalope]

I can't wait to see you prove the 'fountains of the deep' hypothesis.

If I'm not mistaken one of Jupiter's moons has an ocean which the solid surface of the moon covers said ocean, could be another planet's moon.

The "solid surface" is.... Wait for it.....

Ice.

Nice try.

[Brian37]

I can't wait to see you prove the 'fountains of the deep' hypothesis.

If I'm not mistaken one of Jupiter's moons has an ocean which the solid surface of the moon covers said ocean, could be another planet's moon.

Hypocrite, you accept science when you want and reject it when it does not prop up your comic book super hero.

If a Muslim said Allah made Jupiter's moon the way it is, you would say "Oh ok, that must mean Allah is the one true god".

Science is not religion dependent, never has been never will be.