One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Plus talking to SW is like talking to a mindless drone, so I'm going to talk at him this time.

Do you always struggle so mightily at the hands of the “mindless”?

*Gets up on Soap Box*

Watch your head.

Waldorf,

Yes?

how is your Bible true simply because it says that it is? The Book of Mormon says the same thing, so is it true? Was L. Ron Hubbard right, when he said the info in his SCI-Fi books was actually true?

You’re not following me apparently; perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly. I do not accept the Bible for what it is simply because it claims to be true, that’s simply the first step. I was merely pointing out that comparing the Bible to works of fiction that never claim to be true is a fallacious analogy. A person must start somewhere in there conceptual scheme, and starting with the Bible leads to the most logically consistent and coherent view of reality; that is how I know it must be what it claims to be. Does that make more sense?

On top of all that, since the Bible has claimed to be true, it has the burden of proof placed on it. Since then, only a handful of events have been shown to be true. A few pieces of corn does not make a piece of shit Shepherd Pie.

No, the Bible would only bear the burden of proof if a person could reason from a neutral position in order to determine its veracity. However, such neutrality does not exist, people either have to assume the Bible is true a priori or that it is false a priori. The only difference being that when you assume it Is true you end up with a far more logically consistent and defensible view of reality than when you assume it is false. Therefore, I can know it is true.

Since science has demonstrated evolution to be real, it kicks a young earth in the ass.

What do you mean by evolution? Scientifically speaking, that term has numerous meanings.

Not only that, but once abiogenesis was shown to be real, we know that it probably happened, even if we don't know how.

They’ve synthesized life in the laboratory? Where?
Even if they had shown it could happen (which they have not yet done so), that does not establish that it in fact did happen (I thought you did not believe anything upon faith?).

The Bible's creation story falls flat on its ass, and this isn't because of some agenda that scientists have against God; it's simply how reality looks.

No, it’s an agenda, try questioning Darwinism sometime.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you have some fiction tossed into that Bible of yours.

How do you know this?

I'll tell you what though. Coming to this conclusion was completely unnecessary. If the Bible is still claimed as a work of history, the wouldn't autobiographies as well? With that in mind, should we take what these autobiographers say at face value? I mean, hell, they fucking lie about the events in their life sometimes.

I am not merely arguing for the historical value of scripture (which is something already established), I am arguing for inerrancy.

SW, this is what gives us the right to treat the Bible like a work of fiction...you can't prove it's 100%,

Sure I can, and already have. Without the premise that the Bible is what it claims to be all knowledge, science, and proof is rendered impossible. By appealing to knowledge, science, and proof all you are doing is proving that the Bible is what it claims to be.

The fact that you do, SW, speaks volumes of your true character, and this is not a compliment.

My character? What does my character have to do with my conceptual scheme? That seems to be quite the non-sequitur.

Now, to wrap this all up, do you have any demonstrable evidence for your God, SW? Oh, the evidence is all your own? I have to experience God to know him? I need faith, and that's all the evidence I need?

Sure, the very notion of evidence proves that the God of scripture exists. Speaking of faith, why did you ignore my point about what you believe upon faith?

No, fuck that. Religion is simply Santa Claus for adults. We need to put our imaginations to better use than dreaming up Gods and telling people that they exist simply...because...they exist.

Speaking of character, it looks like your wife needs to keep your lack of civility in check again.

So are supernatural claims.

You just proved my point! That’s why your simplistic understanding of the burden of proof fails; all claims are positive.

Evidence of both material and natural things are ubiquitous.

Yes, but both naturalists and super-naturalists believe that the material and natural exist; so this evidence supports both positions. As a naturalist and materialist you need to prove that ONLY the natural and material exist. Get to it.

Evidence of supernatural things exist, as far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate, only in the minds of those who assert they do.

No, this is a presupposition made in accordance with naturalism; it is not a demonstrable fact.

Why should anybody accept a claim which is, by its nature, impossible to demonstrate and utterly indistinguishable from fiction?

I do not know, but that sort of claim has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Naturalism and materialism are both positive claims, and according to you and BWS positive claims bear the burden of proof- so prove that the natural is all that exists and prove that the material is all that exists. Until you do so, I simply reject both claims upon the grounds of lack of evidence.