Here's a question for Nomad, and others, who like to use different methods of science in their defense of the Bible being accurate and true.

Why do you only wish to use certain types of scientific methodology in your work, and choose to exclude others? Why is the criterion of embarrassment and varius methods of dating MSs used, but you ignore the hallmarks of science by: assuming facts not in evidence (god exists), believing in extraordinary claims without the proper evidence to back them up (resurrection), making silly appeals to authority (more sholars believe something than don't, so...), making unfalsifiable claims (again, god exists) and choosing to ignore contradicting evidence (the Earl Doherties and Isreal Finklestiens of the world)?

If one method of science is good for you, why not all of them? Too often we get bogged down in arguing the minutia of the Bible, without keeping things in context. The burdon of proving Jesus existed and had supernatural powers, or that Moses led an Exodus out of Egypt, or that Noah put 2 of every animal on an arc during a world-wide flood is upon you, and has yet to be successfuly argued for.

If you successfully prove a mundane Jesus to have existed doesn't do a thing to proving your theism.

Perhaps if you could be specific, instead of assuming that all of these facts are in evidence, we could have a good discussion. As it is, your entire post does nothing but broadly assert (assume) facts that you have failed to demonstrate (not in evidence).

What? Did you read the post, or just quote the whole thing (right underneath the original post...)

Meta =>You are greatly confussed. Fist of all it is absurd to claim that 'assuming God exist' is departing form a scientific method. Science is not about disproving God.Science has nothign to say about God's existence. That is a matter of faith. WE assume that because it is our faith but that has nothing to do with how we interpret what the text says. That's the proper use of textual methods, to understand who wrote it, why, to whom,and what they said. That is aside from our personal faith in God. Moreover, belief in God is not an assumption not in evidence, there is tons of evidence for God's existence, see my 35 arguments for God's existence. First, come to my board to discuss it

http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue

It's off topic here.
And here is the link to the arguments.


http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/...darguments.htm

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If one method of science is good for you, why not all of them? Too often we get bogged down in arguing the minutia of the Bible, without keeping things in context. The burdon of proving Jesus existed and had supernatural powers, or that Moses led an Exodus out of Egypt, or that Noah put 2 of every animal on an arc during a world-wide flood is upon you, and has yet to be successfuly argued for.</font>

Meta =>Not all scientific methods fit all questions. Cosmology and astronomy for example don't employ man replicable methods or controled expirimental considitions. So not all methods are sutied to textual criticism.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If you successfully prove a mundane Jesus to have existed doesn't do a thing to proving your theism.

Meta =>True but than one wonders why some will go to such gynastic lengths to avoid the obvious. It creates the condition that it is possible for Jesus to be the son of God, anything more requires a leap of faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sentinel00:
Here's a question for Nomad, and others, who like to use different methods of science in their defense of the Bible being accurate and true.
Why do you only wish to use certain types of scientific methodology in your work, and choose to exclude others? Why is the criterion of embarrassment and varius methods of dating MSs used, but you ignore the hallmarks of science by: assuming facts not in evidence (god exists), believing in extraordinary claims without the proper evidence to back them up (resurrection), making silly appeals to authority (more sholars believe something than don't, so...), making unfalsifiable claims (again, god exists) and choosing to ignore contradicting evidence (the Earl Doherties and Isreal Finklestiens of the world)?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =>You are greatly confussed. Fist of all it is absurd to claim that 'assuming God exist' is departing form a scientific method. Science is not about disproving God.Science has nothign to say about God's existence.

Science cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, but the available scientific evidence DOES NOT suggest the existence of any supernatural entity. Since that is the case, why believe in existence of the biblical character known as Yahweh?

Metacrock: That is a matter of faith.

Yes! And faith has nothing to do with evidence!

Metacrock: WE assume that because it is our faith but that has nothing to do with how we interpret what the text says.

This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, your "faith" has everything to do with how you view the JC Bible. You have a vested interest in how the text is "interpreted."

Metacrock: That's the proper use of textual methods, to understand who wrote it, why, to whom,and what they said.

Sure. What does this have to do with your specialty--Christian apologetics?

Metacrock: That is aside from our personal faith in God. Moreover, belief in God is not an assumption not in evidence, there is tons of evidence for God's existence, see my 35 arguments for God's existence.

Belief [blind faith] in a supernatural entity is NOTHING but an assumption. There is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of any god. Apologetic "arguments" are not based on solid evidence. They are based on wishful thinking.

rodahi

Well if science cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of the supernatural (which I'd hesistantly agree with) then why do you need to tell us that "the available scientific evidence DOES NOT suggest the existence of any supernatural entity"? This seems completely superfluous given that Metacrock and you already agree that science cannot prove or disprove god.

Um, last I looked there were other ways of proving things apart from science. This especially applies to things that science can neither prove nor disprove.

Rodahi, you're wrong and you know it. Or at least you should.
Sure some people have faith and then try and get evidence to support their faith, but at least as many people get their faith because of evidence they see.
If you don't think what they take as evidence is up to scratch then THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM. It still is 'evidence' if they see it as such, and whether you choose to do so or not is completely irrelevant.
Faith and evidence will always be close together whether you like the evidence or not.

Well of course, that's how you've just defined it.

Again you really mean: "There is no empirical evidence that I know of and agree with to suggest the existence of any god". Plenty of other people in the world think there is evidence to suggest the existence of a God.

Care to demonstrate these other methods? Or even have the decency to list them? No? Is it because they don't exist?

Oh wait, I can think of some... guessing, wishful thinking, blind acceptance... am I getting warm?

Are you really that stupid or a you just doing this to make me laugh?
Oh well, I'll answer your question:
The whole idea of the scientific method is repeatability and measurability. Anything not repeatable or measurable cannot be analysed scientifically. Of course this includes all historical events which by their very nature are not repeatable. They cannot be examined by scientific methods (true, scientific analysis of ancient relics may help but the actual event itself cannot be scientifically examined). So instead of using scientific methods we use historical ones. There, you've learned something new.
If you think really hard you might even be able to think of another example yourself!

No, I'm really that stupid.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] Tercel: Well if science cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of the supernatural (which I'd hesistantly agree with) then why do you need to tell us that "the available scientific evidence DOES NOT suggest the existence of any supernatural entity"? This seems completely superfluous given that Metacrock and you already agree that science cannot prove or disprove god.

Scientific evidence can SUGGEST something without absolutely demonstrating its existence.

rodahi: Since that is the case, why believe in the existence of the biblical character known as Yahweh?

Tercel: Um, last I looked there were other ways of proving things apart from science.

Maybe you have been looking in the wrong places. Please provide a listing of the "ways."

Tercel: This especially applies to things that science can neither prove nor disprove.

If it cannot be demonstrated to exist, then why believe in it?

Tercel: Rodahi, you're wrong and you know it. Or at least you should.

No, I am not wrong. Faith is not evidence. Neither is personal conviction

Tercel: Sure some people have faith and then try and get evidence to support their faith, but at least as many people get their faith because of evidence they see.

You are incorrect. Faith is only required in the absence of evidence.

Tercel: If you don't think what they take as evidence is up to scratch then THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

No, Tercel, it is YOUR PROBLEM. Faith is not evidence.

Tercel: It still is 'evidence' if they see it as such, and whether you choose to do so or not is completely irrelevant.

Again, Tercel, faith is not evidence, regardless of what you believe.

Tercel: Faith and evidence will always be close together whether you like the evidence or not.

You aren't making much sense here, whether you like it or not.

rodahi: Belief [blind faith] in a supernatural entity is NOTHING but an assumption.

Tercel: Well of course, that's how you've just defined it.

Prove otherwise.

rodahi: There is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of any god.

Tercel: Again you really mean: "There is no empirical evidence that I know of and agree with to suggest the existence of any god". Plenty of other people in the world think there is evidence to suggest the existence of a God.

No, Tercel, what I really mean is, there is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of any god.

rodahi