gibbo153 said:
sigh, you have misinterpreted me if you think i claim to be better than you. i don't suggest your mind is not open. you clearly have considered it to come to such conclusions. also i say that it is not some superior comprehension that allows me to have faith. god is the one that shows himself to us.
i say though, how does the bible have nothing to do with whether god exists?
• Why you cannot use a religious text to prove God’s existence
The claim here is that the religious text (Bible, Quran, etc) proves that God exists. This argument makes the fallacy of
begging the question (or circular reasoning). When the argument is set out clearly this becomes obvious:
How do we know God exists?
God exists because the Bible says so.
Why should we believe the Bible?
Because the Bible is the word of God.
How do we know God exists?
God exists because the Bible says so.
Why should we believe the Bible?
Because the Bible is the word of God.
How do we know God exists?
(etc, ad infinitum.)
You cannot use the conclusion you are trying to prove (that God exists) as one of your premises. The premise “the Bible is the word of God” already assumes the truth of the conclusion.
in reference to the quran suggestion, Christian theism is only one of a number of competing conceptual systems and when faced with a choice among competing touchstone propositions of different world-views, we should choose the one that, when applied to the whole of reality, gives us the most coherent picture of the world.
also the bible's most important evidence of divine origin is fulfilled prophecy. every one one of the scores of Old and New Testament predictive prophecies has been fulfilled to the letter, except for those relating to the second coming of christ, the final judgment, and eternity.
The fact of the fulfillment of those prior prophecies is conclusive proof that the remaining ones will come to pass. The Bible itself places great emphasis on predictive prophecy as proof of the integrity of the total system of things
• Rebuttal: My religious text is scientifically and historically accurate
Claim:
My religious text’s accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy.
Response:
1. The accuracy of the text is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures.
2. Accuracy on individual points does not indicate overall accuracy. Just about every thesis that is wrong overall still has some accurate points in it.
3. Claims about accuracy assume that the purpose of the religious text is to document scientific data. There is not the slightest indication that the text was ever intended as a scientific textbook. It is intended to teach people about God; even those who claim scientific accuracy for it use it with that intent.
4. Specifically, the Bible is not entirely accurate. If its value is made to depend on scientific accuracy, it becomes valueless when people find errors in it, as some people invariably will.
5. If occasional scientific accuracy shows overall accuracy of the text, then the same conclusion must be granted to the Bible, Qur'an, Zend Avesta, and several other works from other religions, all of which can make the same claims to scientific accuracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Rebuttal: Prophecies prove the accuracy of my religious text
Claim:
The religious text contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.
Response:
1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:
* Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
* Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
* Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
* Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
* Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.
There are no prophecies in religious texts that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.
2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.
3. Specifically, the Bible contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not (Skeptic's Annotated Bible n.d.). For example:
* Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
* Isaiah 17:1-3 says that Damascus will cease to be a city and be deserted forever, yet it is inhabited still.
* Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.
4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.
5. For Christians, divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8).
