OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[Darkstar]

Stop thinking,then you will find god and religion,believe me this is how many people do it.


When thinking is stopped,religion is introduced to the masses,people believe in religion because it gives them an simple answer to everything.

Surely that's brainwashing !?!
I can think for myself

Yeah, that's kind of the point... If you don't want to think for yourself, you let religion 'think' for you.

[treshbond]

Ok, I am curious. I am not sure if this is the best spot for this.

If Jesus has been established by the majority of scholars as a true character of history and that history also records that he was crucified for claiming to be the son of God.
Also as I understand it, as unreliable as any ancient text is, the Bible has been better preserved than all others.

Wouldn't that provide at least a starting point to examine further as 'a scrap of evidence' ?

The Bible is certainly subject to examination when it comes to evidence. Many Christians cite it as divinely inspired. Problem is, no one can demonstrate that the Bible is evidence of any god or miracle (unless their definition of "evidence" and "miracle" have been distorted).

And the historicity of the Bible is much more dubious than you seem to think. It has been translated and reset so many times through the ages that the residual loss or alteration of names and facts were inevitable.

I am not disagreeing with you so much as trying to think this through. Isn't there a big difference between translations and copies.

Yes I think it is plain that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, however is this not the same for all ancient texts? I am merely making a comparison. It is generally not considered irrational to consider other ancient texts as containing accurate and factual records of history and yet in comparison (at least as far as I know) they have not been preserved as well as the Bible.

On the basis of what I know it seems that the Bible is more credible than many give it credit for (except for fundamentalist christians)

If I am in error there I am more than willing to be shown, I am simply trying to be fair and objective.

[System of Solace]

I am merely making a comparison. It is generally not considered irrational to consider other ancient texts as containing accurate and factual records of history and yet in comparison (at least as far as I know) they have not been preserved as well as the Bible.

I think the Aeneid might have been more well preserved. It's been edited less throughout history. What does this mean? It means everything that happened in the Aeneid (being warned and guided by the gods, visited by gods, descending to the underworld to see the future) must have happened.

You may think it a bad idea to use a work of fiction such as the Aeneid in this situation, but that is what I consider the Bible to be.

[Darkstar]

I am not disagreeing with you so much as trying to think this through. Isn't there a big difference between translations and copies.

Yes I think it is plain that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, however is this not the same for all ancient texts? I am merely making a comparison. It is generally not considered irrational to consider other ancient texts as containing accurate and factual records of history and yet in comparison (at least as far as I know) they have not been preserved as well as the Bible.

On the basis of what I know it seems that the Bible is more credible than many give it credit for (except for fundamentalist christians)

If I am in error there I am more than willing to be shown, I am simply trying to be fair and objective.

I was simply saying that the whole 'brainwashing' bit was common knowledge (to atheists, anyway). I can't vouch for the bible's accuracy compared to other ancient texts. Maybe it is more credible, but how much more, and is it still very credible at all? I don't think that everything in the bible is a lie...just the supernatural bits (most of it). Some theists are now interpreting the more ridiculous bible passages as metaphor. I have read on this forum that god 'is a metaphor but also real'. But if god is a metaphor, he doesn't need to be real. I think most take the ressurection literally, though. I'm not an expert on the bible, but I've seen various arguments against its validity on this forum (not to mention the numerous contradictions.)

[treshbond]

I am merely making a comparison. It is generally not considered irrational to consider other ancient texts as containing accurate and factual records of history and yet in comparison (at least as far as I know) they have not been preserved as well as the Bible.

I think the Aeneid might have been more well preserved. It's been edited less throughout history. What does this mean? It means everything that happened in the Aeneid (being warned and guided by the gods, visited by gods, descending to the underworld to see the future) must have happened.

You may think it a bad idea to use a work of fiction such as the Aeneid in this situation, but that is what I consider the Bible to be.

Yes but as far as I understand, neither the Aeneid or Iliad explicitly claim to be historical fact. Where as books like the gospel of Luke does.

Also again, I am not aware of a great deal of editing having been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible, but changes made to translations. But even with translations can't they be examined in light of the probable agenda behind the alterations to determine what can be trusted and what can't?

[System of Solace]

Yes but as far as I understand, neither the Aeneid or Iliad explicitly claim to be historical fact. Where as books like the gospel of Luke does.

I don't think either do. But does it matter? Just because a book claims that it says what happened doesn't mean it really happened.

Also again, I am not aware of a great deal of editing having been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible, but changes made to translations. But even with translations can't they be examined in light of the probable agenda behind the alterations to determine what can be trusted and what can't?

That's called cherrypicking.

[treshbond]

I was simply saying that the whole 'brainwashing' bit was common knowledge (to atheists, anyway). I can't vouch for the bible's accuracy compared to other ancient texts. Maybe it is more credible, but how much more, and is it still very credible at all? I don't think that everything in the bible is a lie...just the supernatural bits (most of it). Some theists are now interpreting the more ridiculous bible passages as metaphor. I have read on this forum that god 'is a metaphor but also real'. But if god is a metaphor, he doesn't need to be real. I think most take the ressurection literally, though. I'm not an expert on the bible, but I've seen various arguments against its validity on this forum (not to mention the numerous contradictions.)

Personally I don't have any problem with accepting the supernatural as 'possible', the issue is how 'probable' it is. Years ago the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was a supernatural concept, it ceased to become so when a means came about to test and measure it.

It is just as possible that what is considered supernatural now may become natural once the necessary technology (means to test and measure) is developed. Of course until that happens it is still super natural but just as with the orbit of earth, many began to believe it revolved around the sun before it was firmly established as fact.

That means they acted in faith based upon evidence. Much like one has faith that when they drive down a road they have never personally traveled, that it will hold the weight of the car and not collapse beneath them. Why? because they know there are systems in place to ensure consistent construction standards etc. Does that mean it is not an act of faith? I say it is faith, but it has a reasonable basis. My goal is to determine how reasonable it is to consider the Bible a reliable source of information about what could possibly be true. In other words, how probable it is.

[System of Solace]

Personally I don't have any problem with accepting the supernatural as 'possible', the issue is how 'probable' it is. Years ago the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was a supernatural concept, it ceased to become so when a means came about to test and measure it.

It is just as possible that what is considered supernatural now may become natural once the necessary technology (means to test and measure) is developed. Of course until that happens it is still super natural but just as with the orbit of earth, many began to believe it revolved around the sun before it was firmly established as fact.

Nonononono. No. We got the idea that the sun revolved around the earth because we thought God made us the center of the universe. And we found the opposite was true through science. It can't be compared. Resurrection, miracles, and rising to Heaven are not things that can be tested. They remain supernatural.

[treshbond]

Yes but as far as I understand, neither the Aeneid or Iliad explicitly claim to be historical fact. Where as books like the gospel of Luke does.

I don't think either do. But does it matter? Just because a book claims that it says what happened doesn't mean it really happened.

True, but if what it claims to be true has corroboration from outside sources, doesn't that mean it may have really happened?

Also again, I am not aware of a great deal of editing having been made to the original manuscripts of the Bible, but changes made to translations. But even with translations can't they be examined in light of the probable agenda behind the alterations to determine what can be trusted and what can't?

That's called cherrypicking.

Please elaborate, I am not familiar.

---

Personally I don't have any problem with accepting the supernatural as 'possible', the issue is how 'probable' it is. Years ago the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was a supernatural concept, it ceased to become so when a means came about to test and measure it.

It is just as possible that what is considered supernatural now may become natural once the necessary technology (means to test and measure) is developed. Of course until that happens it is still super natural but just as with the orbit of earth, many began to believe it revolved around the sun before it was firmly established as fact.

Nonononono. No. We got the idea that the sun revolved around the earth because we thought God made us the center of the universe. And we found the opposite was true through science. It can't be compared. Resurrection, miracles, and rising to Heaven are not things that can be tested. They remain supernatural.

that may be true, but it wasn't purely superstitious, it is actually fairly reasonable when making a hypothesis to consider a number of different possible explanations for what is being observed. I think that before tools and systems of measurement were devised, thinking that the sun which perceptibly moves (and the earth which in many ways does not) means that the sun revolves around the earth is a logical thought.

The Resurrection, miracles and ascension are supernatural names which if observed and tested could possibly be accepted as natural once understood. The problem is that they have to be observed and falsifiable. That doesn't make them impossible, simply improbable. The question is how improbable

[Darkstar]

Cherrypicking is ignoring evidence that is contrary to your claim, and only using evidence that supports it.

that may be true, but it wasn't purely superstitious, it is actually fairly reasonable when making a hypothesis to consider a number of different possible explanations for what is being observed. I think that before tools and systems of measurement were devised, thinking that the sun which perceptibly moves (and the earth which in many ways does not) means that the sun revolves around the earth is a logical thought.

The Resurrection, miracles and ascension are supernatural names which if observed and tested could possibly be accepted as natural once understood. The problem is that they have to be observed and falsifiable. That doesn't make them impossible, simply improbable. The question is how improbable

Yes, and those events didn't happen now, so we can't test them (assuming that they ever happened).
Basically, it all comes down to this: either the singularity exploded on its own, or an omnipotent uber powerful being with infinite knowledge of the universe materialized spontanously and instantaneously from nothing and created the universe.