(May 5, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Polaris Wrote: Since I am not going to take the time to respond to all these posts, testing the supposed evidence of the supernatural is nothing similar to testing or denying/affirming the existence of the supernatural itself. You can test the evidence that is claimed through science, but the very nature of the supernatural means that it cannot actually be tested by the laws of science.
If you can't test it using demonstrable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable evidence, how can you tell the difference between the supernatural things that you believe exist, and nonexistent supernatural things?
Every supernatural claim is equally untestable. Yet you disbelieve the majority of them. Why do you make an exception for yours?
Quote:And I can say that the depiction of God 3,500 years ago is inaccurate in parts of the Bible because I learned the evolution of the OT from one of the foremost Biblical scholars. Took ten minutes for one of my Christian friends to leave/drop the class when she realized the History of Ancient Israel wouldn't be taught from a Biblical perspective (though the Bible did end up getting validated quite often for its historical accuracy.....you know when you remove the supernatural references attributed to specific events).
Yes, the Bible does contain some historically accurate stories. So does Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.
So what?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
