The Bible is a collection of documents from different times in history and from different authors. Evidence for Biblical claims therefore can come from inside the Bible.
No, they can’t. Just because a collection of stories compiled over a number of years all exist in one location, doesn’t make them true just because other parts of the story book say there are true. Books that were written with an agenda in mind, no less. What you need to confirm such things are contemporary extraneous sources to verify the claims made in the Bible. Let’s not pretend the Bible is just making regular, everyday claims here.
I'm not saying that everyone should use the Bible for their worldview and I'm not saying that science should consider the Bible in scientific hypotheses.
I am saying that the evidence that science uses does not show that a designer does not exist and does not show that a life giver does not exist.
What I’m saying is that if such things were in evidence, they’d be considered. The fact that they are not in evidence means that they can’t be considered.
And by evidence I don’t mean, “this thing looks designed to me so it must have been created by the specific God I believe in.” Just stating that something looks designed doesn’t get you anywhere need demonstrating the existence of the specific designer you believe in. As Hitchens would say, you still have all your work ahead of you.
And I 'm saying that science does not use all available evidence and the reason is no doubt because the available evidence is too diverse and no doubt some of it is just the opinion of some ancient humans.
What available evidence? “Things look designed to me” isn’t evidence of a designer.
By that I meant that sceptics, like science, have also seen holy books as having no evidence for God.
Holy books contain claims, not evidence.
Do you accept everything written in the Quran without verification from outside sources? How about the Bhagavad Gita? Why or why not?
You are missing the point of what science is and requires and can handle as opposed to humans and the evidence they can deal with when it comes to their searching for a God.
If you really do think that a potential God made of spirit can be discovered by science that deals with the physical only then that is fine by me. Silly but fine.
I think you’re missing the point of what science is.
Believers make all sorts of claims about God(s) that could potentially be verified via observation and testing. Like prayers being answered, for example. Or faith healing. And if the God you believe in interacts with humans and the physical world in some fashion as many believers claim (miracles, for example), then such interactions are potentially observable and testable.
I have in the past tried to show that some OBEs in NDEs do show the existence of life and consciousness outside the body. It seems that this is not the case unless I first show that spirit exists.
I don’t know how that gets you to God(s).
I don’t even think they get you to the conclusion that “life and consciousness” exist outside the body. There are no detailed explanations given for how such things are proposed to have happened provided anywhere. “God did it” isn’t an explanation for anything, and I don’t even know how you get from an OBE to “God did it” anyway.
Prophecies in the Bible are plainly from God and many have come true.
They are? How and why?
But that claim is something that a sceptic quickly falls on and makes up reasons why that is not necessarily so, as you have done.
Yes, because we see people from other religions making similar vague claims. And we see people who have read Nostradamus’ quatrains making similar claims. If Nostradamus’ prophecies have come true, does that also mean some God exists? Which one? Why and how?
I have a question I’ve been asking that nobody has attempted to answer yet. What kind of a great, fantastic prophecy takes 700 years to come true?
That's fine and you can do that, but the prophecies and fulfilments are there and they are still evidence even if many people reject them and so science cannot say that God did not do it when it rejects evidence that it cannot deal with.
What evidence have scientists rejected and refused to deal with? Prophecies?
Science doesn’t say “God did not do it.” Rather it says, “There is no reason to insert god into explanations that work just fine without them.” As previously pointed out to you.
Science "says" it deals with falsifiable claims but as far as I can see there are unfalsifiable claims that science has accepted, or if science has not fully accepted them, sceptics certainly have and so only accept science to a point and then jump onto the religious faith bandwagon, except it is anti religious faith bandwagon.
What unfalsifiable claims has science (i.e. scientists) accepted?
Francis Collins is a scientist who identifies as a born-again Christian. He does the same science as any other scientist, and he doesn’t feel the need to insert God into scientific explanations where Gods are not required. So in your mind, is he doing science wrong too?
It is people in the sciences imo who would rather endorse the evidence for the Bible not being history than the evidence for it being history.
That would be historians you’re talking about now.
That bit about comic fiction is silly Sceptic rhetoric.
Is that why you won’t respond to it?
You assume the Bible is a fair and accurate account of history, because you already believe it. But the point you made is the exact same point someone could make about say, The Iliad. Is the fact that archaeologists have found and dug up the city of Troy evidence that the God Apollo exists? I think that’s a valid point. The fact that you brush it off instead of trying to respond to it is quite telling.
It is not as if there aren't other experts in their field who disagree. It is just that, as I said, truth seems to be a majority opinion in some sciences. I believe some experts and you believe the majority. A clear case of some illogical fallacy imo. You can tell me which one if you like. It's too late here and I need to go to bed.
The majority of scientists believe a thing based on the best available evidence. It’s not just a consensus of opinion, in other words. “If you can’t show it, you don’t know it.” What “illogical fallacy” do you think is being committed?
When you go to spiritual books with the naturalistic methodology, the presumption that the spiritual is not true then in the case of the Bible (and no doubt other books) the writing of prophecy is put after the events which fulfilled the prophecies.
What methodology do you propose is more accurate than the scientific method in determining fact from fiction?
If the people who wrote the fulfillment of the prophecies had access to the prophecies, does that really count as a fulfilled prophecy? I don’t know.
That means the majority of modern historians want to have dates of writing and so authors whom they can say did not even know what they were talking about with the history in the writings.
Circular reasoning.
Now we’re back to talking about historians again?
Maybe you should ask yourself why historians don’t agree with you either.
Presume not Godly input and end up "proving" no Godly input because of that presumption.
Think up a way to demonstrate the at designer exists, and a way to show that the Bible had “Godly input” and historians and scientists might start listening to you. Complaining about how they don’t insert Gods where no Gods are required doesn’t demonstrate much of anything.
There is evidence of localised but heavy flooding in the ANE and in other parts of the world at around the same time.
Of course there is evidence of localized floods occurring waterways where humans have set up civilizations. That’s what rivers do.
We have a river right around where I live that floods its surrounding area almost every single spring.
(and I'm not talking about one flood that covered the whole earth over the tops of the tallest mountains) The evidence is not lacking. The willingness to see similarities in stories as pointing to the truth of the flooding is what is lacking.
Wait, so you think that “similarities” in localized flood stories occurring throughout human history from around the world is evidence of a massive worldwide flood a la the Noah’s Ark story? Why? That sounds to me like you’re starting with the conclusion you with to prove, aka confirmation bias.
It seems to be another case of naturalistic methodology being applied to spiritual writings to show they are false. (maybe that is not the purpose but it is the result and sceptics like yourself do not seem to see the circular reasoning involved.
I don’t see the circular reasoning because you just keep claiming it is without explaining WHY it is circular reasoning.
Science is science and in a sense it cannot help what it does but really can it be said to be true when it contains such presumptions.
That is something for each person to consider but the problem is that not each person thinks about it, they just accept the science without knowing the presumptions.
Maybe that is a logical fallacy of believing authority.
The scientific method has given us all the knowledge we currently hold about the world around us. It’s the single most reliable tool we have for doing that. Your method is apparently just to believe things contained in the Bible, and then go out and seek out information that seems to support it. What you are doing is starting with your conclusion and then looking for evidence that fits it, while ignoring the evidence that does not. THAT is a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE]
