can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Mycroft]

Its funny that he continues to say this bit about "life is terminal", "life is chemistry", "life has no purpose", and so on, as if that was supposed to be a refutation, or negative evidence. Unfortunately, there is nothing at all absurd about this possibility- in fact, that's sort of what the evidence suggests life is; chemistry, without inherent purpose, and terminal. Its a cold, hard world we live in- if you're scared, go to church.

But there is no inherent or innate purpose to life, because there is no purpose behind nature. There's nothing within nature that has a specific purpose.

People saying things have a specific purpose, particularly within nature, is just projection. People say 'the purpose of horns is to skewer predators or fight them off.' But some horns are blunt, some are pointing backwards or sideways, etc. So in reality some animals have horns and they do use them to fight off predators, but it's not the inherent purpose of the horns.

Allow me to expand further:

Let us say you propose that the purpose of the horns of a Rhino is to fend off predators. This is projection. It has horns and it does use them to fend of predators. But if it lived in a place where there are no predators whatsoever, then it would never use its horns for that activity. Then, let us say, the rhino discovers some tasty sap within a tree and uses its horn to dislodge bark or puncture the trunk to get at the sap. If you saw this, and had never seen a rhino using the horn for anything else, you would probably say 'the purpose of a rhino horn is to obtain sap from a tree'.

Another example. They say 'camels have wider hoofs so they don't sink into the sand.' Not true. They have wider hoofs and they don't sink into the sand. But if you had never seen a camel outside of an urban area, you might say something like 'The hoofs of a camel are wider so it can bear greater loads of weight.' Or something.


So as you see there's no inherent purpose behind nature, that's simply human projection of characteristic onto things.

 

[1robin]

You really need to go and check up on the information again.

Why?

They aren't generalized claims.

I disagree.

You may consider yourself an expert on the Tyre Prophecy, but only after playing around with the words do you become such. Ezekiel makes it quite evident that the destruction of Tyre will be by Nebeduchenazzer...except it wasn't...it was by Alexander the Great. Main City Tyre prospered for many years. And to a degree it still exists.

How does being familiar with a thing necessitate distortion? I do not have that luxury. I am bound by a 2500 year old text. As for who does what. If you pay careful attention to the pronoun shifts concerning who does what it is 100% accurate. Every singular was accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar and every use of plural entities was accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar and others. The probability of that being a coincidence is a logical absurdity.

Of course they used the Bible, that's why Archeaologist were rather put off when they realized that they could not find evidence of the events that occurred in the Bible.

Then why do they still use it. Your going to have to pick a specific claim. I can't debate generalized assertions.

No evidence of a war in Egypt.

What war are you talking about?

No major campaign in Canaan.

What? You side claims the evidence of what the Hebrews did to the Canaanites is genocide. Which is it? It is hard to get a genocide for a non-campaign.

Only recently has there come to light evidence of a House of David.

Why does evidence have to be discovered an arbitrary number of years ago?

Heck most are now looking at it as the Israelite's were Canaanites themselves....

They did intermarry and merge in some respects. That is exactly what the Bible claims.

Scribal error? So Judas didn't immediately go and hang himself as it says in the Gospels? Did he wait buy land fall and have his stomach burst open as it says in Acts instead?

If two reporters went to a game. One said X one and one said Y lost, is the best conclusion there was no game, or they recorded two aspects of the same game? The story of Judas is telescoped in one account and expanded in another.

So Pauls description of the events following Jesus's resurrection follow with the Gospels? So according to Paul Jesus was first seen by James, then the 12, then the 500, then Paul. In the Gospels following the resurrection the first to see Jesus was Mary Magdalene.

There must be a hundred web sites that have harmonized the Gospel accounts with little trouble. Would you like a link?

And of course you go into the talk of liberal I am ignoring nothing, for over 2000 years it was assumed that these books were to be taken literal, it was only until the 19th century when people started looking into the information, had the resources (much of it powered by the church), do you find that the stories don't match up with the evidence.

I find the Gospels are extremely reliable. I can give you papers from the greatest experts in testimony and evidence, textual critics, master historians, and even forensic coroners that affirm the hyperbolic accuracy of the Gospels.

So here's a target

Where is evidence of the Israelite's as slaves in Egypt as recorded in the book of Exodus?

Hebrew grave stones, Hebrew place names, inscriptions. Is this the topic you wish to concentrate on?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why?

I disagree.

How does being familiar with a thing necessitate distortion? I do not have that luxury. I am bound by a 2500 year old text. As for who does what. If you pay careful attention to the pronoun shifts concerning who does what it is 100% accurate. Every singular was accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar and every use of plural entities was accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar and others. The probability of that being a coincidence is a logical absurdity.


Then why do they still use it. Your going to have to pick a specific claim. I can't debate generalized assertions.

What war are you talking about?

What? You side claims the evidence of what the Hebrews did to the Canaanites is genocide. Which is it? It is hard to get a genocide for a non-campaign.

Why does evidence have to be discovered an arbitrary number of years ago?

They did intermarry and merge in some respects. That is exactly what the Bible claims.

If two reporters went to a game. One said X one and one said Y lost, is the best conclusion there was no game, or they recorded two aspects of the same game? The story of Judas is telescoped in one account and expanded in another.

There must be a hundred web sites that have harmonized the Gospel accounts with little trouble. Would you like a link?

I find the Gospels are extremely reliable. I can give you papers from the greatest experts in testimony and evidence, textual critics, master historians, and even forensic coroners that affirm the hyperbolic accuracy of the Gospels.

Hebrew grave stones, Hebrew place names, inscriptions. Is this the topic you wish to concentrate on?

Uh huh. I meant the slavery.

Again you throw the word side, I'm not saying they were cruel I'm saying what was recorded in the book of Joshua did not happen.

Also your last remarks on Egypt are incorrect there are no markers indicating such around the time of pi-rhamsees

 

[ResistETIntervention]

You know God exists because you have experienced something you ascribe to God?

Since God is not a physical being, a limited being, how could you prove God's existence? It is like asking a primitive human being to prove that air exists. The air is all around them and they breathe it all the time. That is, they experience it. Yet, until they have developed enough, they wouldn't even know what they would accept as the proof of the existence of air. Until human beings have spiritually evolved and attained a greater perspective and experience of God, they would continue to demand a "proof" of God's existence without really knowing what they would accept as the proof themselves.

Actually our mind is to a large extent physical since our brain waves can be measured by an e.e.g. "Love" is an abstraction that actually tends to activate certain portions of our brain. Either way, brain activity is very much physical.

The brain activity is not thought or love itself. When people are in a heightened state, their brain activities and physical sensations can be recorded also as a demonstration of their experiences. However, those are not spirituality or spiritual experience itself.

Why do I take this position? Because I have learned over the years that I have far more respect for those who are looking for God than with those who have claimed to know with certainty God exists.

If people are "looking" for God, what are they exactly looking for and where? They should look deep within themselves for the part of themselves that have never separated from God. God can only be experienced and thus, known.

I have no use for childish god concepts.

Then, perhaps you need a new notion of God. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/156264-new-god.html

 

[Mycroft]

Since God is not a physical being, a limited being, how could you prove God's existence? It is like asking a primitive human being to prove that air exists. The air is all around them and they breathe it all the time. That is, they experience it. Yet, until they have developed enough, they wouldn't even know what they would accept as the proof of the existence of air. Until human beings have spiritually evolved and attained a greater perspective and experience of God, they would continue to demand a "proof" of God's existence without really knowing what they would accept as the proof themselves.

Actually with the right tools you could prove air exists. Because it does exists and has substance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Since God is not a physical being, a limited being, how could you prove God's existence? It is like asking a primitive human being to prove that air exists. The air is all around them and they breathe it all the time. That is, they experience it. Yet, until they have developed enough, they wouldn't even know what they would accept as the proof of the existence of air. Until human beings have spiritually evolved and attained a greater perspective and experience of God, they would continue to demand a "proof" of God's existence without really knowing what they would accept as the proof themselves.

So your hypothetical primitive men should worship something they are incapable of proving, since it might be there?

 

[1robin]

Uh huh. I meant the slavery.

Again you throw the word side, I'm not saying they were cruel I'm saying what was recorded in the book of Joshua did not happen.

Also your last remarks on Egypt are incorrect there are no markers indicating such around the time of pi-rhamsees

I am not throwing terms aside. However if you wish to use that claim as what you wish to challenge the Bible a few things must be mentioned.

1. If you wish accurate an appraisal of the Bible you must start by researching what the original language use was.
2. You can't use an English word to evaluate what the Hebrews meant 3000 years ago.
3. Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek were what the Bible was written in.
4. I think all three are more descriptive than English. I know Koine Greek is. It is the most descriptive language in history.
5. That means we must use the same English word for maybe 5 or more Biblical words that have different meanings.
6. The English word slavery has a unique meaning since the 18th century and is usually a bad fit for ANE languages.
7. A more accurate phrase for the OT in English would be indentured servitude and even that is not accurate at times.
All that must be done to even start a discussion of Hebrew "slavery" in Egypt or at other times.

That is why I keep insisting only one topic. If you actually care what history and the Bible can reveal it takes much work. Then we must start with the original word used by Moses. Is that what you wish to debate?

On what basis do you insist what was recorded about Jericho did not happen. I have even seen secular history shows that grated something very unique happened to Jericho walls.

The grave stones I mentioned were researched by another poster. They recorded deaths to over work. As I said the English word for slavery is not a good fit for ANE languages. They were more than likely simply worked very hard, but probably not chattel slaves (which is what the English means in our day). How much evidence do you think there would be for a group of workers among the thousands in Egypt. Pretty much the only things left are the tomb carvings, statues, and the very rare papyrus. Entire dynasties are all but evidence less. Only the elite class could afford carvings and papyrus and it became a form of propaganda. Several dynasties erased previous dynasties carvings and tombs. We know from place names, statues, and texts a large Hebrew population lived in Egypt and was tasked with heavy labor. I am not sure anyone could expect anything beyond that but in the past I have found more.

You made three claims here. All require in depth discussion. Pick one and we can really tear into it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am not throwing terms aside. However if you wish to use that claim as what you wish to challenge the Bible a few things must be mentioned.

1. If you wish accurate an appraisal of the Bible you must start by researching what the original language use was.
2. You can't use an English word to evaluate what the Hebrews meant 3000 years ago.
3. Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek were what the Bible was written in.
4. I think all three are more descriptive than English. I know Koine Greek is. It is the most descriptive language in history.
5. That means we must use the same English word for maybe 5 or more Biblical words that have different meanings.
6. The English word slavery has a unique meaning since the 18th century and is usually a bad fit for ANE languages.
7. A more accurate phrase for the OT in English would be indentured servitude and even that is not accurate at times.
All that must be done to even start a discussion of Hebrew "slavery" in Egypt or at other times.

That is why I keep insisting only one topic. If you actually care what history and the Bible can reveal it takes much work. Then we must start with the original word used by Moses. Is that what you wish to debate?

On what basis do you insist what was recorded about Jericho did not happen. I have even seen secular history shows that grated something very unique happened to Jericho walls.

The grave stones I mentioned were researched by another poster. They recorded deaths to over work. As I said the English word for slavery is not a good fit for ANE languages. They were more than likely simply worked very hard, but probably not chattel slaves (which is what the English means in our day). How much evidence do you think there would be for a group of workers among the thousands in Egypt. Pretty much the only things left are the tomb carvings, statues, and the very rare papyrus. Entire dynasties are all but evidence less. Only the elite class could afford carvings and papyrus and it became a form of propaganda. Several dynasties erased previous dynasties carvings and tombs. We know from place names, statues, and texts a large Hebrew population lived in Egypt and was tasked with heavy labor. I am not sure anyone could expect anything beyond that but in the past I have found more.

You made three claims here. All require in depth discussion. Pick one and we can really tear into it.

Yeah I've looked into what you've mentioned, and it doesn't hold weight. I was talking about Israelite's as slaves in Egypt (The only mention of Israelite's and Egypt that I can remember is from a writing that mentions that the seeds of Israel are no more). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

What a slave was, or what a slave did, really doesn't matter, even if you call it servitude, it is made clear that it was an ownership of an individual and in extension their families. I'm sure of course there are plenty of justifications that can be made for it though, so no point arguing that.

If you are talking about it as whether or not the type of labor they were involved in within Egypt was not the same, you only need to look at the treatment of the Pharaoh, and later Gods explanations to how they should treat those who are strangers among them. It is made clear in Exodus that it was a type of bondage, it is made clear that the Pharaoh ordered males to be killed, it is made clear that it was out of some type of servitude way beyond the traditional and common cultural norm.

However my point is if there was a utilization of a massive slave labor force in Egypt, then whoever they were, we don't know. However what we do know is that that the story in Exodus followed by the conquests of Canaan, did not happen as it is written, if they even happened at all.

Evidence points to the contrary.

 

[Thana]

As a friend of mine so eloquently puts it,

"There could be a flying spagetti monster, Does that mean I should believe in the possiblity one exists?"

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah I've looked into what you've mentioned, and it doesn't hold weight. I was talking about Israelite's as slaves in Egypt (The only mention of Israelite's and Egypt that I can remember is from a writing that mentions that the seeds of Israel are no more). Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a slave was, or what a slave did, really doesn't matter, even if you call it servitude, it is made clear that it was an ownership of an individual and in extension their families. I'm sure of course there are plenty of justifications that can be made for it though, so no point arguing that.

If you are talking about it as whether or not the type of labor they were involved in within Egypt was not the same, you only need to look at the treatment of the Pharaoh, and later Gods explanations to how they should treat those who are strangers among them. It is made clear in Exodus that it was a type of bondage, it is made clear that the Pharaoh ordered males to be killed, it is made clear that it was out of some type of servitude way beyond the traditional and common cultural norm.

However my point is if there was a utilization of a massive slave labor force in Egypt, then whoever they were, we don't know. However what we do know is that that the story in Exodus followed by the conquests of Canaan, did not happen as it is written, if they even happened at all.

Evidence points to the contrary.

There is no evidence of the great numbers of Hebrew slaves the Bible claims were in Egypt, - nor of any exodus of these slaves.


However, the Hebrew themselves held slaves and indentured servants.



Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.


Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.


Hebrew Concubines and other sex slaves are another PERMANENT slave category that is usually not even considered when slavery is discussed.


*

 

[s2a]

That was one long sentence.

TY Sarah Palin for that non sequitur dodge...

[qoute]1. The Bible is a primary archeological resource even among secular archeologists.{/quote}

You must have at least 3 dozen available resources to quote from secular archeologists to validate that claim. I'll settle for three at the moment. Hmmm?

2. There is not one historically reliable piece of evidence inconsistent with the Bible outside of scribal error (at most 5% and all known).

To be fair, I have many dozens available at hand that would cite such "evidences" as unfailingly inconsistent, but if you could present at least three sources supportive of you claim, I'm listening...

3. I can exactly refute ambiguous claims that some event in history has evidence that disagrees with the Bible but every single time a specific example is given it evaporates with the slightest research. If you present an actual example we can see if it fares any better.

Hmmm. Your assertion employs an odd caveat as being an "ambiguous claim" presented (kinda ironic really) as a burdened proof. It might aid your case to actually demand historical certainties that almost no one doubts or discredits first. then attempt an experiment of evaporation upon what remains...

4. Of course the books of the Bible were written at different times. Even parts of single books were. This is exactly what is expected. I do not get the contention.

The differential of time is not disputed. It's the claim that hundreds of years of displaced "eyewitness testimony" is subject to MAJOR error and utter discredit. You know...like kinda any case ever in any criminal case?

5. As for authorship, the traditional authors are in most cases by far the best candidate. I think Hebrews and Deuteronomy are the only cases where serious doubt exists.

Whups. My bad, and my apologies. I now acknowledge you are unqualified to speak to this topic with any respectable authority or understanding...

6. What your doing here is typical. You are maximizing liberal, redactionist, and revisionist scholarship and excluding 2000 years of consistent and conservative scholarship which goes back to with a few years of the Crucifixion.

Not to be rude, but you owe yourself a few more years of study and question before casting doubts and aspersions upon others... just as friendly advice. You ain't ready for Prime Time yet... and that's OK.

7. Historical claims are never certainties. They are argued to best fits, most consistent explanations, and probabilities. Of course the most contentious book in history has some scholars on the negative side but if you use a specific example you must conclude the evidence for the Bible is far better than what contends with it.

Claims may not present certainties... but some events can be demonstrably factual. This is why "faith claims" do not rely upon evidences or factual data, but of "testimonials" and "eyewitness" accounting. If those isolated instances are presented as "evidences", then in principle your observation is superficially true.

The purposed ambiguities of Biblical claims is the very substance of their lacking evidences of any substantive proofs.

If a Buddhist reads the Bible and seeks outside (extra-Biblical) sources as validated and research-able "evidences" in support of ANY Biblical claims as written in their time, what specific sources ("books, etc.) do you offer in "specific" counterpoint?

8. The Bible has an unbroken track record of embarrassing scholars. Entire museums are filled with cultural artifacts for societies scholars denied that the Bible affirmed.

I suppose we could begin with the Vatican on that count... or just the silly folks at the Creationist Museum in KY as modern absurd examples...

I need example not generalized claims for a debate.

Oh, c'mon.

It's your position that any claim of faith you may offer derived in Biblical origins rests beyond and disproof.

Let's not move the goalposts or redefine burden's of proof here, eh?

I invite you to specify ANY Biblical claim that could be subject to historical evaluation and tested in it's most "specific" claims as to be "fact", not just some philosophical "truth".

Your turn.

Everyone knows about the long, middle, and short endings to Mark. The reason everyone knows about it is because the textual tradition for the Bible exceeds every other work in ancient history by orders of magnitude. All errors are known and indicated, that eliminates all complaints. Even Ehrman admits this and that no errors are contained in core doctrine and exaggerates everything. Isaiah is not broken into pieces it was written with three dissertations of the concept of a messiah. I will grant it is a book that requires study to understand. Prophecies are made for the nation of Israel, Christ's first advent, and what occurs at the second. Your are confusing them but it is understandable. Tyre is a specialty of mine and so I would love to let that settle the issue. I know it and the mistakes (all of them) atheists make about it. Do you wish to let it settle the issue. Jericho is not but if you wish to concentrate on it that is fine with me. I prefer few points to allow depth and sufficiency to be discussed. I can't do drive by machine gun contentions justice. Take your pick.

I know you will appreciate that skeptics will readily identify your briefs as little more than a dismissive stab at an ordinarily "apologists" list of otherwise conflicting accounting of "evidence" that defy any and all evaluations, unless the examiner is already "saved" or blessed with that super secret "understanding" and/or "revealed knowledge" requisite that only "true believers" will ever see of begin to comprehend.

OK.

They are not records of cruelty in any sense. They are records of justice against total depravity. This is another area I have spent much time in. If you wish to concentrate here then fine, but pick one or two and let's get serious

As time permits, sure...

That is not a god theory. You do not invent a Hell that you your self is bound for unless you change by preference or speculation. Speculation being speculative (especially primitive man's) usually turns out to be wrong. However in the Bibles case many times only recently has science, cosmology, and philosophy, not to mention history caught up to what men 5000 years ago claimed. Anyway I need you to narrow your claims if you wish to resolve them.

I'll just start with this one, and expound away....

"Why do bad things happen to good people...and most especially...why is that answer always a secret?"

see you soon

 

[Sha'irullah]

It seems that if one was to try and prove there is not a particular deity that the believer of that deity can always fall back on the Russel's Teapot fallacy.

Greeks and their assertion of the Dodekatheon living on mount Olympus could be refuted but the minute the factor of assigning invisibility to the deity is added then it cannot be proven or disproved.

 

[1robin]

Yeah I've looked into what you've mentioned, and it doesn't hold weight. I was talking about Israelite's as slaves in Egypt (The only mention of Israelite's and Egypt that I can remember is from a writing that mentions that the seeds of Israel are no more). Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a slave was, or what a slave did, really doesn't matter, even if you call it servitude, it is made clear that it was an ownership of an individual and in extension their families. I'm sure of course there are plenty of justifications that can be made for it though, so no point arguing that.

It is vital what the original term translated into slavery originally meant. For example if it meant forced labor then the gravestones that indicate young deaths and a labor filled life are evidence.

If you are talking about it as whether or not the type of labor they were involved in within Egypt was not the same, you only need to look at the treatment of the Pharaoh, and later Gods explanations to how they should treat those who are strangers among them. It is made clear in Exodus that it was a type of bondage, it is made clear that the Pharaoh ordered males to be killed, it is made clear that it was out of some type of servitude way beyond the traditional and common cultural norm.

However my point is if there was a utilization of a massive slave labor force in Egypt, then whoever they were, we don't know. However what we do know is that that the story in Exodus followed by the conquests of Canaan, did not happen as it is written, if they even happened at all.

Just for minute here lets say there is no positive evidence for the claims made in the Pentateuch. By what evidence do you claim they were incorrect. I of course believe there is evidence for it's claims, but I think you are making and absence of evidence being evidence of absence fallacy here.

Evidence points to the contrary.

What is it?

 

[1robin]

As a friend of mine so eloquently puts it,

"There could be a flying spagetti monster, Does that mean I should believe in the possiblity one exists?"

I have never heard a Christian claim that anything possible must be believed in. I and they argue there is more than enough positive evidence for God to justify faith in him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just for minute here lets say there is no positive evidence for the claims made in the Pentateuch. By what evidence do you claim they were incorrect. I of course believe there is evidence for it's claims, but I think you are making and absence of evidence being evidence of absence fallacy here.

How about absence of common sense?

In Exodus 12:37, we're told that about 600,000 men and an unknown number of women and children made up the exodus from Egypt. Just counting the men, this is enough people to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in an unbroken line from the western limit of the Sinai peninsula to the eastern limit. And we're supposed to believe that they wandered the Sinai for 40 years?

 

[Thana]

I have never heard a Christian claim that anything possible must be believed in. I and they argue there is more than enough positive evidence for God to justify faith in him.

I was just answering the OP's question. My friend is Athiest so I thought I'd add their opinion but, It's not my personal opinion.

 

[1robin]

TY Sarah Palin for that non sequitur dodge...

I have no idea what your saying. I made that comment and then answered you claim. I dodged nothing.

1. The Bible is a primary archeological resource even among secular archeologists.

You must have at least 3 dozen available resources to quote from secular archeologists to validate that claim. I'll settle for three at the moment. Hmmm?

Before I supply them on what basis are you invention arbitrary numbers here?

To be fair, I have many dozens available at hand that would cite such "evidences" as unfailingly inconsistent, but if you could present at least three sources supportive of you claim, I'm listening...

Hmmm. Your assertion employs an odd caveat as being an "ambiguous claim" presented (kinda ironic really) as a burdened proof. It might aid your case to actually demand historical certainties that almost no one doubts or discredits first. then attempt an experiment of evaporation upon what remains...

Again you supplied no actual claim to contend so I will make one. The majority of NT scholars on every side agree Christ, the crucifixion, and the empty tomb are historical. Now which one of us can supply an explanation for these that fits best.

The differential of time is not disputed. It's the claim that hundreds of years of displaced "eyewitness testimony" is subject to MAJOR error and utter discredit. You know...like kinda any case ever in any criminal case?

That was funny. Possibly the two greatest scholars in history concerning evidence and testimony (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) drew the exact opposite conclusion from yours.

Whups. My bad, and my apologies. I now acknowledge you are unqualified to speak to this topic with any respectable authority or understanding...

It is really hard to understand the purpose of many of your statements. I have no idea what your talking about here? Do you?

Not to be rude, but you owe yourself a few more years of study and question before casting doubts and aspersions upon others... just as friendly advice. You ain't ready for Prime Time yet... and that's OK.

My Lord you have an assumed arrogance and derision that is devoid of any justification for it. So far it has been one objection after another without even the attempt to justify them.

Claims may not present certainties... but some events can be demonstrably factual. This is why "faith claims" do not rely upon evidences or factual data, but of "testimonials" and "eyewitness" accounting. If those isolated instances are presented as "evidences", then in principle your observation is superficially true.

That is completely wrong. The Bible has 25000 historical corroborations alone. There exists billions of claim of experience concerning te supernatural. In what way is that (it is only a fraction) even if that was it not enough evidence to justify faith.

The purposed ambiguities of Biblical claims is the very substance of their lacking evidences of any substantive proofs.

THe Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized words in history and a huge portion of them make extremely specific and sophisticated claims possible. Again an objection with no attempt at evidence.

If a Buddhist reads the Bible and seeks outside (extra-Biblical) sources as validated and research-able "evidences" in support of ANY Biblical claims as written in their time, what specific sources ("books, etc.) do you offer in "specific" counterpoint?

There are 40 extra-biblical sources that indicate Christs historicity. Here is a few.
Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
The Historicity of Jesus Christ: Did Jesus really exist?

I suppose we could begin with the Vatican on that count... or just the silly folks at the Creationist Museum in KY as modern absurd examples...

I was not referring to either of those.

Oh, c'mon.

It's your position that any claim of faith you may offer derived in Biblical origins rests beyond and disproof.

Let's not move the goalposts or redefine burden's of proof here, eh?

I invite you to specify ANY Biblical claim that could be subject to historical evaluation and tested in it's most "specific" claims as to be "fact", not just some philosophical "truth".

What the heck? You must provide an example of what you claim is true before it can be examined. Yelling foul is of no use to your claims. I submit the prophecy of Tyre simply because apparently I am the only one who will provide examples and I have studied it quite a bit.

Your turn.

It is not my turn, you never took your but since I am having no luck in waiting for you to do so I provided examples anyway.

I know you will appreciate that skeptics will readily identify your briefs as little more than a dismissive stab at an ordinarily "apologists" list of otherwise conflicting accounting of "evidence" that defy any and all evaluations, unless the examiner is already "saved" or blessed with that super secret "understanding" and/or "revealed knowledge" requisite that only "true believers" will ever see of begin to comprehend.

Since apparently generalities are all you will provide I claim everything you said above as completely false. Did I win?

OK.


As time permits, sure...

I hope so this is going no where fast.

I'll just start with this one, and expound away....

"Why do bad things happen to good people...and most especially...why is that answer always a secret?"

see you soon

It is anything but a secret, it has been openly debated in Christian circles from the beginning. One of my favorites is:

bethinking.org - Suffering - The Problem of Evil

That issue is the number one impediment to faith. If it falls the rest are child's play. It can't be countered in totality quickly or simply. In the interest of brevity please start with the paper at that site and then we will go from there. It is a rigorous, effective, and comprehensive explanation of what you asked.

 

[1robin]

I was just answering the OP's question. My friend is Athiest so I thought I'd add their opinion but, It's not my personal opinion.

Very well. Your title conflicted with what you said. I am glad it was another persons opinion and not yours. I was quite perplexed.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is really hard to understand the purpose of many of your statements. I have no idea what your talking about here? Do you?

The point was your statement about the Gospels was so wildly inaccurate that it exposed your inability to speak with credibility on the subject; there's a clear consensus among Biblical scholars that its extremely unlikey the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. And its so silly- you act as if you care about evidence and what authorities on these various subjects have to say, but its a total charade- all of your views and positions boil down to dogmatic, faith-based beliefs that are utterly impervious to any facts or reasoning.

 

[1robin]

How about absence of common sense?

That is no good either.

In Exodus 12:37, we're told that about 600,000 men and an unknown number of women and children made up the exodus from Egypt. Just counting the men, this is enough people to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in an unbroken line from the western limit of the Sinai peninsula to the eastern limit. And we're supposed to believe that they wandered the Sinai for 40 years?

An interesting sideline in the same spirit is that everyone on Earth could stand shoulder to shoulder in a single county in Florida.

Since they were not standing shoulder to shoulder what evidence is that? This number can be fit in a camp smaller than 5 miles by 5 miles.

This is a claim with many factors that must be considered. The Bible contains about 5% scribal error. The most common mistakes were concerning sentences that ended in the same letter, Genealogy cultural preferences (this is irrelevant here), and orders of magnitude. There exists evidence that the 600,000 may have too many zeros.

Before I add additional aspects that should be considered I wish to ask on what basis are you arguing. Are you saying it was impossible that 600,000 people could be provided for by God? Why are you claiming that? That may help me narrow what I supply in the way of counter claims.