-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
Made up of what? Everything has to be "made up" of something, and nothing emerges without an antecedent. Did I write my Book of Shadows? Yes. is it "made up?" Yes, it's "made up" of paper, ink, lots of time and hard work, plus a volume of life experiences and referencing of other source materials.
dust1n
Zindīq
And I presume you mean Abrahamic, Bible-based literalist creationists, not pantheist/animist/polytheist ones who also accept everything about evolutionary theory.
Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.
(sorry, can't figure out how to fix editing).
you forgot to take into account that science can also get it wrong too. deliberate fabrication of scientific evidence is rare but does happen, (e.g piltdown man). Even when scientists sincerely believe they are right, they can still get it wrong and learn that their ideas are an illusion in the course of time. There was for example recent data from the Hardon Collider that suggested molucules could travel faster than the speed of light and that physics would have to re-written. After intensive investigation, the result was blamed on something like faulty wireing. I don't think you can rationally expect any religious person to subscribe to this level of burden of proof.
If I were to try to do it with Marxism, you'd find out that whilst it can substanciate many cliams with evidence, it is both selective and dependent on a system of intellectual reasoning to decide what is significant to be selected as "proof". It has its own areas of relative strength and weaknesses as an intellectual system, and has gone through two centuries of evolution to try to deal with inconsistencies. If you want a "weak spot" of Marxism, you can look up the "Asiatic mode of production" first proposed by Marx and Engels, but rejected by later Marxist thinkers because it was inconsistent with Marxist premises that modes of production were universal. this idea was often used by western thinkers in the Cold War to say that Communism was a product of "asiastic" societies that were already prone to authoritarianism, whereas the west was 'exceptional'.
This is an ideology which cliams to be "scientific" and was widely considered as such until the middle of the twenieth century. I seriously doubt that any religious believer here could do much better as they would face similar problems. There are also controversies in certain religions (e.g. was Jesus Black?) because religions are the product of generations of belivers passing down traditions (often by word of mouth), so there is a "chinese whispers" effect going on there too.
You cannot seriously expect anyone to do this and Scientists could not do it either. Given that people reject the literature on climate change or the report of the Warren Commission on the JFK assasination or 9/11 commission for anonimiles and then using that to attack the whole. you're setting your self up as a judge for the validity of someones beliefs based on the assumption they are false. In a legal setting, that's like setting up a court based on the presumption of guilty. this is a wholly unrealistic and unfair demand to make on anyone.
[Edit: Assuming you were even going to make this remotely fair, you'd have to clearly define what qualifies as "definitive" proof in advance, so believers can actually meet it, what would want proof of, and also would have to take into consideration that much of the historical record has been lost as these texts are often thousands you years old.]
(sorry, can't figure out how to fix editing).
you forgot to take into account that science can also get it wrong too. deliberate fabrication of scientific evidence is rare but does happen, (e.g piltdown man). Even when scientists sincerely believe they are right, they can still get it wrong and learn that their ideas are an illusion in the course of time. There was for example recent data from the Hardon Collider that suggested molucules could travel faster than the speed of light and that physics would have to re-written. After intensive investigation, the result was blamed on something like faulty wireing. I don't think you can rationally expect any religious person to subscribe to this level of burden of proof.
If I were to try to do it with Marxism, you'd find out that whilst it can substanciate many cliams with evidence, it is both selective and dependent on a system of intellectual reasoning to decide what is significant to be selected as "proof". It has its own areas of relative strength and weaknesses as an intellectual system, and has gone through two centuries of evolution to try to deal with inconsistencies. If you want a "weak spot" of Marxism, you can look up the "Asiatic mode of production" first proposed by Marx and Engels, but rejected by later Marxist thinkers because it was inconsistent with Marxist premises that modes of production were universal. this idea was often used by western thinkers in the Cold War to say that Communism was a product of "asiastic" societies that were already prone to authoritarianism, whereas the west was 'exceptional'.
This is an ideology which cliams to be "scientific" and was widely considered as such until the middle of the twenieth century. I seriously doubt that any religious believer here could do much better as they would face similar problems. There are also controversies in certain religions (e.g. was Jesus Black?) because religions are the product of generations of belivers passing down traditions (often by word of mouth), so there is a "chinese whispers" effect going on there too.
You cannot seriously expect anyone to do this and Scientists could not do it either. Given that people reject the literature on climate change or the report of the Warren Commission on the JFK assasination or 9/11 commission for anonimiles and then using that to attack the whole. you're setting your self up as a judge for the validity of someones beliefs based on the assumption they are false. In a legal setting, that's like setting up a court based on the presumption of guilty. this is a wholly unrealistic and unfair demand to make on anyone.
[Edit: Assuming you were even going to make this remotely fair, you'd have to clearly define what qualifies as "definitive" proof in advance, so believers can actually meet it, what would want proof of, and also would have to take into consideration that much of the historical record has been lost as these texts are often thousands you years old.]
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
For me personally its all made up, I have nothing else to add.
They have evidence provided by science to believe in science.
Muslims have evidence from the Qur'an to believe in the Qur'an.
I don't see a massive distinction in that regard.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I have evidence for my beliefs.
I think the OP should turn the question around perhaps? Prove my beliefs incorrect? Can you?
/hint, it's highly unlikely./
I think the OP should turn the question around perhaps? Prove my beliefs incorrect? Can you?
/hint, it's highly unlikely./
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Human history written beforehand....
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Just a small part of what has recently happened, what is happening now and will soon happen -specifically about Jerusalem, but the rest can be found elsewhere -and there is probably more detail about these times in the bible than any other.
Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
Zec 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
Zec 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Just a small part of what has recently happened, what is happening now and will soon happen -specifically about Jerusalem, but the rest can be found elsewhere -and there is probably more detail about these times in the bible than any other.
Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
Zec 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
Zec 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
I am going to stop you right there because everything after this is based on this flawed idea. Science uses empirical evidence to create a theory. This theory can be tested, isolated, studied, and altered. Many religions do not have this liberty because their very foundation rests on an idea that cannot be proven (outside of personal belief), but is presented as fact anyway.
Jared Jammer
Member
On the Origin of Species.
Is that the King James or Common English version?
Oh, wait.....The Darwinian Bible is the only true one because it is uncorrupted, being in the original untranslated English of the Prophet's own words.
And there's also the ability to travel where he did, & observe the very same miracles....or as believers call them, "observations".
Try that with anyone else's bible!
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Not necessarily. If there is some other religious text that supports some evolution-based creationism, any definitive proof of that would be great too.
it is only a flawed idea, if you assume all religions are build on blind faith or a literal reading of religious texts. For many this is not the case, particuarly for pagan belief systems that interpret natural phenemoena as having supernatural causes (as in animism). Nor are reason and faith mutually exclusive. That presents a more serious problem because it stops being about whether a particular belief has evidence to support its cliams or not, but instead becomes a question of whether we interpret such evidence in a particular way.
dust1n
Zindīq
Never read it.
dust1n
Zindīq
I didn't forget this.
Hey awesome! You've hit the crux here. Creationism does claim to be scientific and was widely considered as such since... well basically since the word "scientific" existed. So if Creationism can not do any better than evolution in presenting evidence for their scientific claims, and creationism rejects evolution because their lacks evidence, then creationism must reject creationism too if it cannot meet their own standards for proof.
dust1n
Zindīq
So there is no distinction between the evidence for evolution and the evidence for the Quran? So they are both equally right despite the contradictions?
dust1n
Zindīq
Ok, present the evidence. I couldn't prove them wrong yet, because you haven't stated what the belief is, exactly.