Disproving the Bible

[Minimalist]

The Hebrew Torah has been around (in Hebrew) since the 5th century BC.

No. We are not misunderstanding each other. You are being deliberately obtuse. You are making this claim and I am demanding that you provide tangible evidence of it. We have fragments of the septuagint which pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the oldest versions of "hebrew" scriptures.

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls

The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls in a remote Judean Desert cave in 1947 is widely considered the greatest archaeological event of the twentieth century. Bedouin treasure hunters and archaeologists ultimately found the remains of hundreds of ancient scrolls. These fragile pieces of parchment and papyrus, including the oldest existing copies of the Hebrew Bible,

Now, you are asserting that this shit existed in "hebrew" in the 5th century and I'm saying it is time to put up or shut up. Let's see the evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

B-mine, try again?

[Natachan]

Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

Prove it. This is an assertion. Provide evidence. Because there are some quantum physicists would tend to disagree with you.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Why is this the only explanation? This is an assertion. Maybe a scientist in another universe created this one. Maybe this universe was created by matter sucked into the center of a black hole in another universe. Maybe there was no cause. Maybe there is no explanation. Why is God the only explanation?

3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

Existence of the universe only proves the universe exists. No more. You have yet to establish any of your premises, so your conclusion does not follow.

Moreover, even if I grant you that the universe must have a creative intelligence behind it (and I don't) why should this intelligence be the Christian god who sent a man to be born of a virgin, walk on water, and rise after he died? How do these things follow from the existence of a creative intelligence?

[Esquilax]

Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

Okay, I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, this is an honest question: are you serious, right now? Do you honestly think that an argument that slips its conclusion into its premises- let alone as bluntly as your formulation has- twice, is a legitimate argument?

I mean, you accused Sam Harris of circular reasoning in another thread, so I know you understand what that is... so surely you're aware of it within your own "argument" above? You're just joking with us by presenting that, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe he didn't know what cogent meant?

[MJ the Skeptical]

No offense but it sounds like you need Remedial Science classes.

For example, two siblings repopulating the Earth isn't disproved by Genetics? wtf dude.

Noah had three sons. They all had wives, so the Mitochondrial Eve would have been further back. It would seem that Noah would be the Y-chromosomal Adam if these genetic theories are correct.

Where did the wives come from? Gawd magically made wives for them? or did Noah's kids just have to fuck their mother?

Either way, 3 sons and 3 wives couldn't repopulate the Earth either, more inbreeding problems, you fail.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is untrue (people reading this please refer to the beginning of the thread).

There is no 'legitimate' reason found with the bible aside from the mental gymnastics employed in apologetics to presume that the genesis myth is referring to anything other than a literal 6 days.

As to the other things. Our understanding of reality suggests that all of the things listed by godslayer are impossible. As there is no evidence to corroborate the claims found in the bible regarding these, then they can be dismissed.

The Presbyterian Church conducted a survey of the different interpretations. Four major and six minor. You can see them here: http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

Regarding the list, if God exists, these can easily happen. If God does not exist, they did not. You want me to show proof of the positive yet you don't have proof of the negative. Leaving the Bible out of it, it is still more plausible there is a God then not. There are 5-6 cogent arguments for the existence of God that do not rely on Genesis.

1. Yes, I want you to show definitive, verifiable and testable evidence that your version of whatever god it is you worship exists.
2. See: burden of proof. Your inability to satisfy 1. Means I am under no obligation to either disprove your thesis, believe it, or take it seriously. It does not factor into my life in any way until you satisfy 1.
3. Show your working whereby you have come to the conclusion that "it is still more plausible there is a God then not." As you have thus far failed to satisfy point 1, I am perplexed as to how you've concluded this?

From the link:

Out of all of this literature it is possible to distinguish two general schools of thought on the nature of the six days. One class of interpreters tends to interpret the days figuratively or allegorically (e.g., Origen and Augustine), while another class interprets the days as normal calendar days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose, Bede and Calvin). From the early church, however, the views of Origen, Basil, Augustine and Bede seem to have had the greatest influence on later thinking. While they vary in their interpretation of the days, all recognize the difficulty presented by the creation of the sun on the fourth day.

Apologetics ahoy. Interpretation means that no other interpretation can be viewed is inherently correct or incorrect, and as the genesis story mentions only a literal week of creation, with no qualifier, it would still be illogical to interpret those days as anything other.

Of course, people are free to interpret it however they want. But we need to recognise that it is entirely guesswork, as evidenced by the entire section of the article dealing with the illogical timeline of genesis on light and the sun.

Rather than employ mental gymnastics to absolve oneself of the cognitive dissonance inherent in believing that there can be light without a source, it's much easier to conclude that the author of genesis either made an error when writing the mythology or was ignorant of how light emissions from a standard main sequence g-type star works.

[Tonus]

Disproving the Bible?

Step 1: read the Bible
Step 2: there is no step 2

[LostLocke]

Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

...
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is the Valar.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is the Valar.

See, simply stating something doesn't make it so. There needs to be something (evidence, data, tests, etc) to back it up.
If you can assert what you said and then insist we accept it as truth without any evidence, I can do the same for my 'hypothesis'.

[JesusHChrist]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd settle for just one. Take your time.

Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

#1 is a fallacy of composition. The rest doesn't matter. To assume universes behave like other things is completely unsupported and unwarranted.