RE: Atheist vs Atheist
October 14, 2013 at 6:08 am
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2013 at 6:08 am by pineapplebunnybounce.)
Quote:Quote:If I'm not mistaken lots of things need to come to pass before the bible is fulfilled. For example jesus was supposed to return before the disciples died. If by your standard of evidence, one fail prophecy doesn't disprove the bible, then one correct prophecy doesn't prove it either. You can't have it both ways.
Pineapple - You are correct in what you say however my response to this would be the fact that Science even now cannot disprove God and generally within science when we cannot prove or disprove something we leave it with a big question. Therefore based upon this God's existance cannot be proven either way so how can we say it is wrong.
How do we know that a prophecy has failed? Do we look behind in history and say it failed. Thats the same as science saying the speed of light is 200,000,000 + m/s then revising it later it is not a concrete definitave method to say that just because the timing is incorrect does not render the foregone conclusion incorrect.
Actually it does if the prophecy specifies a time limit. If a prophecy doesn't specify a time limit then it's a cop out. What makes prophecies such fascinations are the extreme improbabilities that they would come true, which has inspired many to invoke the supernatural. However if I were to say that a war will break out, but give no time limit, the probability of something like that happening grows as time passes and eventually when it does happen it's no longer improbable, I've simply weathered out the low probabilities by being extremely vague in my prophecy, and now some gullible would have fallen for it.
Science cannot disprove many things. I'm doing research on some common chemical's toxicity recently for a class. It is rumoured to be bad for you and my job is to determine if it is. And I've come to realize how stupid the entire process is when you are moved from the position of proving something to the position of disproving something. It requires much larger sample sizes to show that no toxicity occurs, and even if I were to succeed, anyone else can just come along and say if I used a larger sample size I would have seen something. At some point you have to call it a day. I can easily claim many things right now and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong. It's a technicality that the religious exploit shamelessly to perpetuate their dogma. Anyone even slightly trained in science would not be impressed by the fact that science cannot disprove god, science cannot disprove unicorns but you don't see companies selling imaginary unicorns to kids.