If There Was No Evidence For Scripture, Would It's Content Still Be True?

[KWED]

That's why it is called Faith in God
One does not need the "physical evidence" when the faith is strong and one practices out of love and compassion to believe God exists..

So you accept that belief in gods is irrational and unsupported by evidence?
In which case, why bother?
Love and compassion for others does not require religion. Not only that, doing away with religion as a basis for love and compassion means that you don't have the problem of trying to rationalise all the violent and intolerant stuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... there you go again! You're predictable.

Of course I am with you at least. Your errors are too predictable. And sadly you seem to take a very long time to learn here. Your personal prejudices appear to get in the way.. I went back to your original post where you made a bizarre argument. Perhaps you thought that you were making some sort of point. But that is very dubious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you accept that belief in gods is irrational and unsupported by evidence?
In which case, why bother?
Love and compassion for others does not require religion. Not only that, doing away with religion as a basis for love and compassion means that you don't have the problem of trying to rationalise all the violent and intolerant stuff.

I would not mind if the religious could simply admit that their beliefs were irrational but that it appealed to something inside of them or something else on that order. It is when they try to rationally justify their belief where they always fail and then get made at others when they point out their failure.

 

[Kenny]

There is plenty of evidence that birds and crocodiles share a common ancestor.

"Scripture" is merely a word for written documents - in this context relating to religious belief. So...
1. What "physical evidence" are you talking about?
2. "Religious scripture" already does not require any evidence to be considered as scripture.

a. It is a supposition until it is verifiable.

1. you would have to ask the poster, IMO. I assumed he meant all physical supportive material, ie. places, prophecies, time frames et al.
2. That may be true in many cases... but the poster postulated that there was "no evidence for scripture".

Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing? His position is very hypothetical and unrealistic IMO

 

[Kenny]

Of course I am with you at least. Your errors are too predictable. And sadly you seem to take a very long time to learn here. Your personal prejudices appear to get in the way.. I went back to your original post where you made a bizarre argument. Perhaps you thought that you were making some sort of point. But that is very dubious.

get back to me when you have an honest question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a. It is a supposition until it is verifiable.

What makes you think the endless evidence that supports evolution is not verifiable? You may be using terms that you do not understand.

1. you would have to ask the poster, IMO. I assumed he meant all physical supportive material, ie. places, prophecies, time frames et al.
2. That may be true in many cases... but the poster postulated that there was "no evidence for scripture".

Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing? His position is very hypothetical and unrealistic IMO

The statement should properly be "No reliable evidence for scripture". And even that is not entirely true since there is some correct history in the Bible that can be verified. Though correct history is no more evidence for God than the existence of New York City is evidence for Spiderman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

get back to me when you have an honest question.

Oh my. Sounds like projection to me. Can you find a dishonest question of mine?

 

[Kenny]

Oh my. Sounds like projection to me. Can you find a dishonest question of mine?

#45

 

[Subduction Zone]

#45

Do you want me to report that post? You have more than implied that I am not honest. That is a clear breaking of the rules here. You made what appears to be a false claim about me. You know that I do not ask dishonest questions. I ask questions that you cannot answer. At least not without refuting your beliefs.