The validity of the Christian Bible

[Mister Sandman]

Let me pose this. How far is the east from the west?

@Everyone:- The evidence provided to answer others questions about the so called contradictions in the bible are objective.

@The History Arguement:- I think i've showen that the Bible is 100% historically true.

Let me give an example for Thriller:

The Hittite nation's existence. Denyed by historians until 1906! Shown in the bible in: Genesis 10:15; 23:10; 25:9

Another example: Evolution/mutation: Genesis 3:14



The Bible is not a science book. However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.


In terms of fact: Fact is truth. Truth cannot be changed, however, it is subject to human interpretation, and thus, subjectively altered.

The bible is true, still yet to be proven wrong, and thus, fact.

[agapooka]

Let me pose this. How far is the east from the west?

Let me ask the following: how near you are you?

@Everyone:- The evidence provided to answer others questions about the so called contradictions in the bible are objective.

No. There isn't much that's objective, even in the rare circumstances that someone tries to be. I've already more than explained my point of view in regards to that. It's a matter of you reading my posts. This is especially true in terms of Christianity, as one of the assumptions of Christianity is that there is an absolute reality, and my arguments specifically pertain to a world where there is an absolute reality.

@The History Arguement:- I think i've showen that the Bible is 100% historically true.

How? You only provided possible resolutions to a few questions. Even if I assume that your answers resolve the specific issues brought up, anectodal evidence can only be used as proof in a scenario like the following:

1: All rocks are blue.
2: This rock isn't blue; therefore, not all rocks are blue.

Compare this to the following fallacies:

1: I have only seen 10 rocks in my life. All of them were blue. Therefore, all rocks are blue.

and

1: All rocks are blue.
2: This rock isn't blue; therefore, there are no blue rocks.

Let me give an example for Thriller:

The Hittite nation's existence. Denyed by historians until 1906! Shown in the bible in: Genesis 10:15; 23:10; 25:9

Another example: Evolution/mutation: Genesis 3:14

Nice attempt at anecdotal evidence, there.

The Bible is not a science book. However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

But science is only a method of arriving at the truth. It does not always arrive at the truth and so, it must always be refined. As for your statement that the bible is always right in terms of what you define as being scientific "facts", I agree. In your subjective reality, this is the case. But that doesn't really further your point, does it? Subjective reality is only what you believe and is irrelevant of what actually is.

In terms of fact: Fact is truth. Truth cannot be changed, however, it is subject to human interpretation, and thus, subjectively altered.

The bible is true, still yet to be proven wrong, and thus, fact.

Two things. First of all, you make an unsupported claim and then try to support it with yet another logical fallacy. The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.

Finally, you can believe what you want, but if you're going to defend your point of view, share it with others and/or especially if you wish to convince others of it, I would recommend that you not make a logical fallacy in every sentence.

[Mister Sandman]

Let me pose this. How far is the east from the west?

Let me ask the following: how near you are you?

How near am I? In relevance to what?

Let me reverse this: How far are you?

@Everyone:- The evidence provided to answer others questions about the so called contradictions in the bible are objective.

No. There isn't much that's objective, even in the rare circumstances that someone tries to be. I've already more than explained my point of view in regards to that. It's a matter of you reading my posts. This is especially true in terms of Christianity, as one of the assumptions of Christianity is that there is an absolute reality, and my arguments specifically pertain to a world where there is an absolute reality.

There is one truth, and that is not objective! In addition, assumptions are the downfall to all your cases, and arguments.

@The History Arguement:- I think i've showen that the Bible is 100% historically true.

How? You only provided possible resolutions to a few questions. A few questions ^o), try all the questions that Thriller and others have asked. Ask more get more answers.Even if I assume that your answers resolve the specific issues brought up, anectodal evidence can only be used as proof in a scenario like the following:

1: All rocks are blue.
2: This rock isn't blue; therefore, not all rocks are blue.

Compare this to the following fallacies:

1: I have only seen 10 rocks in my life. All of them were blue. Therefore, all rocks are blue.

and

1: All rocks are blue.
2: This rock isn't blue; therefore, there are no blue rocks.

Your fallacy example fails to disprove the examples. It doesnt fit at all. Overall, irrelevant.

Let me give an example for Thriller:

The Hittite nation's existence. Denyed by historians until 1906! Shown in the bible in: Genesis 10:15; 23:10; 25:9

Another example: Evolution/mutation: Genesis 3:14

Nice attempt at anecdotal evidence, there.

Not at all anecdotal evidence. Its evidence. Overal, if your going to try to defame the scripture read it.

The Bible is not a science book. However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

But science is only a method of arriving at the truth. Is it?It does not always arrive at the truth and so, it must always be refined.Explain! As for your statement that the bible is always right in terms of what you define as being scientific "facts", I agree. In your subjective reality, this is the case.In objective reality. But that doesn't really further your point, does it? Subjective reality is only what you believe and is irrelevant of what actually is.

If you have science and faith contradicting itself you either have, Bad Faith, or bad faith. I have a suggestion:Instead of spouting out so called "logic" give real evidence.

In terms of fact: Fact is truth. Truth cannot be changed, however, it is subject to human interpretation, and thus, subjectively altered.

The bible is true, still yet to be proven wrong, and thus, fact.

Two things. First of all, you make an unsupported claim what is not the support?and then try to support it with yet another logical fallacy. The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.Nothing at all near the negative proof fallacy in logic. If it cannot be proven false, it has to be true. In addition dont forget the concept of faith.

Finally, you can believe what you want, but if you're going to defend your point of view, share it with others and/or especially if you wish to convince others of it, I would recommend that you not make a logical fallacy in every sentence.

Since there is no evidence disproving the scriptures. And, there is alot of contradiction in atheism, and other religions.... Where can it be wrong, as i said:

The Bible is not a science book. However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

[agapooka]

I like how all you did was contradict me and nothing more. (Wrong, you contradicted yourself, too.)

Well, if that's how you'll play, I'll contradict your contradiction. There!

Well, ok, I'll give you the credit for answering the first question. How IS it relevant to ask how far the East is from the West?

[Demeisen]

@The History Arguement:- I think i've showen that the Bible is 100% historically true.

i think you will find you are wrong there pinocchio

you have proven only the blind obedience and ignorance required by religion (in the silly and extreme branches at least)


nice post Agapooka (the long one before the last)


shazzam

[Mister Sandman]

Not wrong = Right.

Simple.

Black and white logic.

[Thriller]

Not wrong = Right.

Simple.

Black and white logic.

that's not what he was saying.

[Thriller]

Child: "Why would God let my friend die, Thriller? Why? he was my friend. Why can't God take someone else's friend?"

Thriller: "Little guy, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, buddy. He's all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?"

Child : "But then, why does God give us anything to start with?"

Thriller: "Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothing to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Buddy, that give God his great power."

[Mister Sandman]

Not wrong = Right.

Simple.

Black and white logic.

that's not what he was saying.

It doesnt matter what he is saying : I am saying it.

The fallacy in the negative proof fallacy is that it doesnt account for faith and human interpretation.

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

Is wrong to extents.

To be more correct it is:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false and there is proof the X is right.

Black and white.

God must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist and there is proof that there is a God.


OR are you too warped to follow simple logic?

Lets use an evolution theory with this logic too.
You might say:
"Humans came from apes, because thereis no proof that they didnt."

However, there are thousands of thousands independent, unbiased evidence that humans did not come from apes.

Child: "Why would God let my friend die, Thriller? Why? he was my friend. Why can't God take someone else's friend?"

We all die, it comes with being human and sinful.

Thriller: "Little guy, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, buddy. He's all **Filtered** off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?"

We die because we have to die. Nothing imperfect lasts for ever. In addition death is not sad. Death should be a happy time, a time we know that the departed one has went to a better place. If they were saved.

Child : "But then, why does God give us anything to start with?"

Everyone was born with a reason, God has a plan for everyone, following that plan is different matter.

That question is generic its like saying: "Why do I love even though I know I'll end up getting hurt" or "Why do I spend all the money I get on booze and waste my life" or just simply saying "Why"

Without anything, there is nothing.

Thriller: "Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothing to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Buddy, that give God his great power."

That's just stupid. You obversely haven't read the bible.

[Thriller]

I can't hear you over the sound how awesome i am.

[agapooka]

The fallacy in the negative proof fallacy is that it doesnt account for faith and human interpretation.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? There's no problem with the definition of the fallacy. All it says is that, logically, the lack of proof of something does not prove or invalidate the point being made. It is simply an invalid way to make that point.

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

Is wrong to extents.

Wrong to extents? The method of coming to the conclusion is completely wrong, regardless of whether or not the conclusion is true.

To be more correct it is:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false and there is proof the X is right.

That'd be lovely if there were proof, but all there is is you claiming that there is proof. Even in my Bible apologetics class a few years ago, my teacher told us that there is no proof. Of course, that's just an example for you to consider, but I'll give you another one. In my 19 years of life studying the Bible, I haven't been able to find proof of the Bible being true, either. This doesn't mean that there is no theoretical possibility that proof can be found. I'm not here to argue what can be, at this point.

I don't care whether or not you are right. I haven't ever told you that you are not or that you are. All I've told you is that the method that you used to arrive at your conclusions is invalid and I've shown you how. Your response, however, has been a systematic denial of my claims, with no basis for those either. I'm not going to waste my time responding to an unsupported denial.

Black and white.

A.k.a. the infamous ether-or fallacy (the false dichotomy, false dilemma). Essentially, it is based on the assumption that there are only two possibilities when there may be more. This is not a fallacy when there are actually only two possibilities. For example, if I said "this is either completely true or it isn't completely true", it would be a logical statement. If I said, "this is either completely true or completely false", I would be making an "either-or" fallacy, as I would not be accounting for the possibility that "this" is partially true.

Variations of this fallacy involve any argument where the assumption is made that there are less possibilities than there actually may be. For example:

"All bricks are either red, grey or brown."

[Demeisen]

Not wrong = Right.

Simple.

Black and white logic.

can i have some of whatever it is you're taking pls? unless its bible. i smoked some bible once, reached higher state of reality, came round on a roof. good times

Lets use an evolution theory with this logic too.
You might say:
"Humans came from apes, because there is no proof that they didnt."

Humans came from apes, because there is no proof that they didnt

However, there are thousands of thousands independent, unbiased evidence that humans did not come from apes.

wow your church has thousands of members creating evidence from the business end of a donkey? is one of the members GOLD?

I can't hear you over the sound how awesome i am.

Agapooka dude i believe you are starting to see the methods religious fanatics use to reinforce their beliefs. evidence and proof to them is whatever they want it to be.

[semper]

I am just tired of this topic lol. Too many narrow minded individuals about and too many people either complaining, or taking things far far too seriously....

the rule of this section are immensely simple. If children cannot use and play with their toys nicely, they shall be taken away.

**LOCKED**
~Semper