Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.

[dust1n]

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.

So, none of this has happened at all, yet, right?

 

[Laika]

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.

Yes and No. Science is subordinate to ideology. This will sound insane, but bear with me. Science is dependent on a set of philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. we can only look for proof if we begin with the assumption that there is something we can prove based on observations. Our use of evidence almost always entails a confirmation bias to accept certain evidence that fits within that ideology's assumptions about reality, and what we can and cannot prove. My best guess is, creationists reject evolution because the implicit assumptions about how the world work (i.e. god), clash with the naturalistic assumptions in modern scientific thinking. creationists assume god exists before they look at the evidence, because that is there interpretation of the phenemona.

if you ask the question, why do two people look at the same piece of evidence and reach totally opposed conclusions, it becomes less a question of the presence/absence of evidence, and more of the interpretation of evidence. Why one person interprets the complexity of the brain as evidence for evolution and the other for intelligent design, I don't know. But I know this what happens. I'd come down on the side of evolution, but I'm unable to articulate why beyond a subjective bias.

 

[dust1n]

Yes and No. Science is subordinate to ideology. This will sound insane, but bear with me. Science is dependent on a set of philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. we can only look for proof if we begin with the assumption that there is something we can prove based on observations. Our use of evidence almost always entails a confirmation bias to accept certain evidence that fits within that ideology's assumptions about reality, and what we can and cannot prove. My best guess is, creationists reject evolution because the implicit assumptions about how the world work (i.e. god), clash with the naturalistic assumptions in modern scientific thinking. creationists assume god exists before they look at the evidence, because that is there interpretation of the phenemona.

I don't think your critiques on science are unfounded. What I would really appreciate from a creationist though, is evidence that is better and or better than the evidence that has been presented for evolution. Creationists reject evolution, mostly on grounds that macro-evolution can not and has not been observed. Ignoring whether or not that is true. I am hoping that creationists on this thread can provide me with evidence for creationism that is capable of withstanding the same critiques that creationists give evolutionists. I'm less interested in hearing what creationism has to say about evolution. I'll assume they are 100% right for the purposes of this thread. Now I'd love for one to explain to me how Creationism would hold on to the same level and means of critique.

 

[Laika]

I don't think your critiques on science are unfounded. What I would really appreciate from a creationist though, is evidence that is better and or better than the evidence that has been presented for evolution. Creationists reject evolution, mostly on grounds that macro-evolution can not and has not been observed. Ignoring whether or not that is true. I am hoping that creationists on this thread can provide me with evidence for creationism that is capable of withstanding the same critiques that creationists give evolutionists. I'm less interested in hearing what creationism has to say about evolution. I'll assume they are 100% for the purposes of this thread. Now I'd love for one to explain to me how Creationism would hold on to the same level and means of critique

That depends how you define better. I think "scientifically" speaking, a better theory is one that can be used to make accurate predictions. they don't have to be 100% accurate, but certainly given correct predictions means that you can demonstrate there is a law-governed process at work.

At a guess, a creationist would have to demonstrate that these natural laws are either directly the product of god's creation or from god's direct intervention. Deism may be of interest, as it at least demonstrates that it is possible to justify a belief in creation on rational grounds without appealing to "revealed" texts. it was part of the intellectual climate during the enlightenment and the first steps away from organised religion. Because it reject revelation and therefore blind faith, it is still possible to use evidence as a basis for arguing for god's existence and for creation. This is not unique to Deism, but is probably the best example for being compatable with scientific thinking. Religious thinkers have also tried to use the Big bang to support arguments for creation as it implies "something out of nothing" and leaves open the question of the origin and cause of the universe. Thomas Aquinas Five proofs are another attempt to reason out religious belief. Historically, the use of reason to argue for creation shows that this is something that is open to interpretion, even if you reject revelation as a source for discussion.

 

[dust1n]

That depends how you define better. I think "scientifically" speaking, a better theory is one that can be used to make accurate predictions. they don't have to be 100% accurate, but certainly given correct predictions means that you can demonstrate there is a law-governed process at work

It is a good point. If you made a building to the exact specifications of a perfect engineering, and the building fell down, I'd have great doubts about the veracity of engineering.

Let's consider the predictive power of evolution:

Darwin published the phylogeny tree, hypothesizing that all living things shared a common ancestor. When Darwin wrote "On The Origin of Species" there were only 200,000 known species. Since then, we've discovered, something a long the lines of 1.5-2 million species. Of all those 1.3-1.8 million species observed, no observation about them and their genetic composition contradicts the position that all genetic information arrived from a common ancestor. Darwin was able to predict that millions of species that he was not aware would not contradict a universal common ancestor. All the empirical observations after Darwin confirmed this.

Let's consider the predictive power of creationism:

....

At a guess, a creationist would have to demonstrate that these natural laws are either directly the product of god's creation or from god's direct intervention. Deism may be of interest, as it at least demonstrates that it is possible to justify a belief in creation on rational grounds without appealing to "revealed" texts. it was part of the intellectual climate during the enlightenment and the first steps away from organised religion. Because it reject revelation and therefore blind faith, it is still possible to use evidence as a basis for arguing for god's existence and for creation. This is not unique to Deism, but is probably the best example for being compatable with scientific thinking. Religious thinkers have also tried to use the Big bang to support arguments for creation as it implies "something out of nothing" and leaves open the question of the origin and cause of the universe. Thomas Aquinas Five proofs are another attempt to reason out religious belief. Historically, the use of reason to argue for creation shows that this is something that is open to interpretion, even if you reject revelation as a source for discussion.

All well and dandy. If a Deist is able to demonstrate that these natural laws are directly of product of creation, or the result of intervention, I'd have to concede to such a demonstration.

 

[Etritonakin]

So, none of this has happened at all, yet, right?

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.

That is the return of Judah to the holy land after WWII (other scriptures give time reference) -and describes Israel's military successes (if anything militaristic can truly be called a success).

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.

Pretty much the entire world is involved in the peace process in the region -the issues/areas surrounding it -or the buildup to war, and should realize the situation is central to world tensions.

Israel knows many are seeking to be rid of them, and know that the lack of a solution will lead to war.

Troubles in that part of the world are affecting every part of the world -and WWIII will essentially be the world's powers being drawn into the conflict -seeking various solutions, their own interests and a position of strength in the aftermath.

 

[dust1n]

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.

What exactly does this mean by the way? The governors of Judah? Who is that, specifically? The ones that became governors?

Weren't the Kingdom of Judah, and Kingdom of Israel two different places, Jerusalem being in the kingdom of Judah? Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a state of Israel there now, not a state of Judah.

"According to the Hebrew Bible, the kingdom of Judah resulted from the break-up of the United kingdom of Israel (1020 to about 930 BCE) after the northern tribes refused to accept Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, as their king. At first, only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David, but soon after the tribe of Benjamin joined Judah. The two kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split, until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in c.722/721 left Judah as the sole remaining kingdom.

The major theme of the Hebrew Bible's narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to Yahweh, which it states is the God of Israel. Accordingly, all the kings of Israel and almost all the kings of Judah were "bad", which in terms of Biblical narrative means that they failed to enforce worship of Yahweh alone. Of the "good" kings, Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) is noted for his efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this case, the worship of Baal and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities),[20] but his successors, Manasseh of Judah (698–642 BCE) and Amon (642–640 BCE), revived idolatry, drawing down on the kingdom the anger of Yahweh. King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to the worship of Yahweh alone, but his efforts were too late and Israel's unfaithfulness caused God to permit the kingdom's destruction by the Babylonians in c.587/586 BCE. However it is now 'fairly well established' among academic scholars that the Biblical narrative is not an accurate reflection of religious views in either Judah or particularly Israel during this period.[21]"

Are there Judah governors in the state of Israel?

That is the return of Judah to the holy land after WWII (other scriptures give time reference) -and describes Israel's military successes (if anything militaristic can truly be called a success).

Which other scriptures give the time reference and describes Israel's military successes.

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.

Pretty much the entire world is involved in the peace process in the region -the issues/areas surrounding it -or the buildup to war, and should realize the situation is central to world tensions.

The entire world? Are Mongolians involved in the peace process? Are Chileans? Georgians? South Koreans? I'm pretty sure most in Papa New Guinea aren't even vaguely aware. Are Australians even involved at all? Am I involved in the peace process in the region? I was under the impression that I couldn't care about geographical boundaries and names in places far away that affect me none.

Israel knows many are seeking to be rid of them, and know that the lack of a solution will lead to war.

Is that a state in existence where this isn't the case?

Troubles in that part of the world are affecting every part of the world -and WWIII will essentially be the world's powers being drawn into the conflict -seeking various solutions, their own interests and a position of strength in the aftermath.

But none of this has happened yet. So I'm not counting prophesies that have yet to filled in anyway as definite proof for the claims of a religious text.

By the way, were you personally around to see all of this stuff? I mean, I've never seen a whale with legs or macro-evolution happen, so I can dismiss those as untrue. I've also never seen any of those prophesies first hand, or any references to sources as definitely true.

Come on, creationists have taught me how to look at the evidence thoroughly, and disregard macro-evolution. I'm just using the same means to validate any given religious text.

 

[Etritonakin]

What exactly does this mean by the way? The governors of Judah? Who is that, specifically? The ones that became governors?

Weren't the Kingdom of Judah, and Kingdom of Israel two different places, Jerusalem being in the kingdom of Judah? Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a state of Israel there now, not a state of Judah.

"According to the Hebrew Bible, the kingdom of Judah resulted from the break-up of the United kingdom of Israel (1020 to about 930 BCE) after the northern tribes refused to accept Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, as their king. At first, only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David, but soon after the tribe of Benjamin joined Judah. The two kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split, until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in c.722/721 left Judah as the sole remaining kingdom.

The major theme of the Hebrew Bible's narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to Yahweh, which it states is the God of Israel. Accordingly, all the kings of Israel and almost all the kings of Judah were "bad", which in terms of Biblical narrative means that they failed to enforce worship of Yahweh alone. Of the "good" kings, Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) is noted for his efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this case, the worship of Baal and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities),[20] but his successors, Manasseh of Judah (698–642 BCE) and Amon (642–640 BCE), revived idolatry, drawing down on the kingdom the anger of Yahweh. King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to the worship of Yahweh alone, but his efforts were too late and Israel's unfaithfulness caused God to permit the kingdom's destruction by the Babylonians in c.587/586 BCE. However it is now 'fairly well established' among academic scholars that the Biblical narrative is not an accurate reflection of religious views in either Judah or particularly Israel during this period.[21]"

Are there Judah governors in the state of Israel?



Which other scriptures give the time reference and describes Israel's military successes.



The entire world? Are Mongolians involved in the peace process? Are Chileans? Georgians? South Koreans? I'm pretty sure most in Papa New Guinea aren't even vaguely aware. Are Australians even involved at all? Am I involved in the peace process in the region? I was under the impression that I couldn't care about geographical boundaries and names in places far away that affect me none.



Is that a state in existence where this isn't the case?



But none of this has happened yet. So I'm not counting prophesies that have yet to filled in anyway as definite proof for the claims of a religious text.

By the way, were you personally around to see all of this stuff? I mean, I've never seen a whale with legs or macro-evolution happen, so I can dismiss those as untrue. I've also never seen any of those prophesies first hand, or any references to sources as definitely true.

Come on, creationists have taught me how to look at the evidence thoroughly, and disregard macro-evolution. I'm just using the same means to validate any given religious text.

"Pretty much" the whole world leaves some wiggle room for ...say ....isolated tribes in the rain forest, some dudes in Saskatchewan, etc., to not be involved.

Israel is governed by governers of the house of Judah (primarily Judah, Benjamin and some Levites) -yes -the house of Israel is elsewhere, but will join Judah in Jerusalem later.

You are free to look into it further or disregard it.

It's all right there if you are interested.

I have an overview of events written down somewhere -will post it if I can find it -but it is doubtful that you will see any of it as proof unless you look into it yourself.

1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Dan 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Dan 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
Dan 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

 

[McBell]

I wonder if anyone is going to make a serious attempt at validifying their religious text?

 

[Aquitaine]

Please.

EDIT: Creationists, please.

The scriptures say they're true, ergo they must be true.

 

[dust1n]

"Pretty much" the whole world leaves some wiggle room for ...say ....isolated tribes in the rain forest, some dudes in Saskatchewan, etc., to not be involved.

Does it leave room for entire nations of people?

Israel is governed by governers of the house of Judah (primarily Judah, Benjamin and some Levites) -yes -the house of Israel is elsewhere, but will join Judah in Jerusalem later.

Okay, where is the definitive evidence that Israel is governed by governors of house of Judah? Who are these governors, what qualifies as the House of Judah, and where the evidence connecting these governors to the House of Judah.

You are free to look into it further or disregard it.

It's all right there if you are interested.

I have an overview of events written down somewhere -will post it if I can find it -but it is doubtful that you will see any of it as proof unless you look into it yourself.

1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Dan 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Dan 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
Dan 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

You've have to explain these further, since I'm not sure what they mean in isolation, nor how they remain proven yet.

 

[Kirran]

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?

No, I think there's a distinction there. But that's more specific. We're now into science, and from a scientific viewpoint there is evidence for evolution and not for the infallibility of the Qur'an.

 

[dust1n]

No, I think there's a distinction there. But that's more specific. We're now into science, and from a scientific viewpoint there is evidence for evolution and not for the infallibility of the Qur'an.

I'm wondering what non-scientific evidence exists for the infallibility of the Qur'an of the Bible. Evidence doesn't need to be scientific for me to dismiss it.

 

[Kirran]

I'm wondering what non-scientific evidence exists for the infallibility of the Qur'an of the Bible. Evidence doesn't need to be scientific for me to dismiss it.

Well, under certain assumptions evidence for the Qur'an being infallible exists in the Qur'an, where it says so. Also in the number of people believing it to be the case, in the Hadith etc.

 

[dust1n]

Well, under certain assumptions evidence for the Qur'an being infallible exists in the Qur'an, where it says so. Also in the number of people believing it to be the case, in the Hadith etc.

Right, well I'd have to give credence to certain assumptions set out in Qur'an in order to prove that those assumptions are infallible. If the premises are faulty, why would I even consider the reasoning based on these premises. Now, if the premises were established, that would be another matter.

By other than that, I can't really accept that, because under certain assumptions, evidence for macro-evolution is totally true as well.

 

[Kirran]

Right, well I'd have to give credence to certain assumptions set out in Qur'an in order to prove that those assumptions are infallible. If the premises are faulty, why would I even consider the reasoning based on these premises. Now, if the premises were established, that would be another matter.

By other than that, I can't really accept that, because under certain assumptions, evidence for macro-evolution is totally true as well.

Hmm, I think if you assume the validity of the Hadith you can probably get to Quranic infallibility from there. Not that I do, of course.

 

[dust1n]

Hmm, I think if you assume the validity of the Hadith you can probably get to Quranic infallibility from there. Not that I do, of course.

I assumed so.

But then we'd have to assume the validity of the Hadith! What validates a Hadith other than Qur'an?

I if didn't assume that there was a magic line in genetics that stopped one kind from changing too much, and assumed there were no limits at all, then anything conceivable arrangement of animal would be and I would no longer be able to not believe in macro-evolution either.

 

[David M]

Just to be pedantic, if the religious text references even one historic event or place then it can't be entirely made up.

 

[dust1n]

Just to be pedantic, if the religious text references even one historic event or place then it can't be entirely made up.

Is there an example of a reference to one historic event or place that can be definitely proven?

 

[David M]

Is there an example of a reference to one historic event or place that can be definitely proven?

No one disputes the Jericho was not an actual place, so the OT is not entirely made up. What is purported to have happened there can be entirely fictional but the place itself isn't.