Alf

This couldn't possibly be more wrong.

The problem with the bible is not that we have too little information but we have too much.

The bible says both that Jesus was born while Herod was king and therefore was born some time prior to 4 BC AND it also says he was born while there was a census in Judea decreed by Augustus which took place in 6 AD while Judea was obviously under roman rule and not ruled by Herod.

The problem is not too little information. The places where the info is lacking we can use the blind men analogy and accept in all humility that we do not know enough and leave the rest to interpretation or perhaps look in other holy scriptures from other religions around the world for answers.

The problem is tthose places where the bible give too much information that contradict itself.

Was Jesus' father's father Eli or Jacob? Which is it?

The problem is not lacking information so that it appear contradictory. The problem is blatant contradictions.

Alf

Alf

The bible IS evidence but evidence of what?

It is evidence - clear and undisputable - that for around 1900 years ago or so there were a bunch of people who were fanatically religious and who were so happy about their religion that they wanted to share it with other people and therefore wrote down what they believed to be true. It is also clear and undisputable evidence that some other people gathered these gospels into one collection called the new testament even though those gospels contains contradictions and inconsistencies. The believers are generally either unaware of those or they believe they have "answers" to "explain" all of them as mere "appearant consistencies" and not "real consistencies". Of course, the fact that no believer has so far been able to present a clear and consistent recollection of those explanations makes this a big hurdle for non-believers but appearantly the believers do not worry about that fact.

However, it is NOT - and cannot possibly be - evidence that any of things written in the bible is true.

Here is what we would expect to find and acknowledge as evidence:

1. Evidence of miraculous healing: Some medical scientist can properly diagnose a patient as blind or having leprosy or whatever and then also verify that after Jesus' healing touch the person in question no longer have that illness.

Problem 1: No such doctor today can properly diagnose anyone based on a story.
Problem 2: There are tons of stories of similar miracle workers around that time. The christians have no problems proclaiming each and every one of those others as fake. Why, then should we have any reason to think that this particular instances of healing was also not fake when all the others were? In fact, this is evidence that very likely explanation was that Jesus' healings was also fake to the extent that they were genuinely reported as miraculous healings.
Problem 3: We even have problems to verify that they were at all genuinely reported. There are no eye-witnesses anywhere. No extra biblical evidence.

2. A letter found in some archeological dig from one person to another where the person reported he saw some guy named Jesus and this Jesus guy just healed someone right before his eyes.

Problem 1: Even if we did find such a letter it is far from conclusive. There were a zillion "miracle workers" walking around the area at the time. The letter would prove that the person was one of the thousands who believed miracle working actually worked, it did not prove that the miracle working was not fake.

3. Jesus appearantly lives even today - at least that is what some christians claim. So perhaps he could knock on our door and show us a miracle or 2 in front of some scientists who could verify that it was indeed miracles?

Problem 1: Although believers claim he lives even today he appear to be rather elusive and not easy to find. No reports of him knocking on anyone's door and he has appearantly allergy towards science labs.

The point is that if you want to claim the bible as evidence for the bible then the LOTR will also be evidence that Gandalf is real. This is why we cannot accept the bible as evidence and if you were honest to yourself neither would you.

Alf

Alf

Actually the bookstore argument is not valid. The bible ought to appear in the "myths and legends" section but it is usually not found there either.

The section where it is found is dictated by "historical reasons" and "customs and habits" and not on a rational classification of the book based on its contents.

Also, christian bookstores might store it under "history" section. That just proves that the store owner is a fundie christian who cannot tell the difference between historical facts and wishful thinking. It doesn't prove anything about the bible.

Alf

Dlx2

Time is not a measurement. Additionally, eternal is an issue because the afterlife certainly is bounded on one end by mortal life.

My point is that Pascal's Wager is incomplete.

Life is infinite but bounded. The afterlife is infinite but bounded. It's an infinite set, where each moment can be described as dT=T/n, when n-> ∞ and T is the time available to you.

My point is that there are an infinite number of moments from birth to death which can and should be experienced and cherished. There is an infinite range of emotion that should be experienced and cherished. There is are infinite possibilities to choose, which one should appreciate and seek out. By accepting Pascal's Wager, you discard all of these infinites for a chance at getting an infinite after it's all over.

Pascal's Wager doesn't make mathematical sense as a risk analysis, or as anything else. I'm not saying you can't believe in God, but find a better reason to believe.

rhutchin

Life is bounded at both ends. Eternity is bounded only at one end and entends infinitely out from there. If eternity holds the prospect for eternal torment and it begins at the point of death and extends into eternity (an infinite time) then the cost is infinite.

While there may be an infinite number of moments from birth to death, time requires that one choose discrete points to live from among the infinite available. One is able to choose a finite set of discrete points to experience from the point of birth to the point of death. No matter how one slices it, a person can only so so much with each second in his life no matter how fast he may be. The only way to take advantage of the infinite possibilities is to stop time and the aging process. Pascal had it right.

rhutchin

From http://dictionary.law.com/

evidence
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.
++++

This is my definition of evidence. What is yours?

Mageth

So then, you're selling (and Pascal is selling) a God that imposes an infinte "cost" on necessarily finite actions (or non-actions). A life sentence of hard labor imposed on a child for stealing a pack of gum is infinitely less unjust and unreasonable than that.

I don't know about you, but that sort of God sounds quite absurd and unreasonalbe to me. If I were to believe in God, that's not the sort of God I'd want to believe in (or "worship").

And if a God does exist, and that God would not impose such an unreasonable, unjust infinite cost on finite action (or inaction), believing (and preaching) that he would do such an absurd and unreasonable thing might cost you dearly.

Again, you are confronted with Mageth's Hellish Wager.

Mageth

I'd say the Bible clearly qualifies as hearsay. As do reports of a threat of eternal torment from the likes of Pascal and you.

wyzaard

What if NOT believing in X is necessary to escape eternal torment?

And given that there are infininite possibilities and zero verification of any of them... statistically, you're going to be wrong anyway, so why not default to nonbelief which is a possible prerequisite anyway? Again, the wager falls flat on it's face.

Dlx2

They are both infinite sets.

Sure. And the cost of life is the same.

There are no discrete points within that set. It is a continuous set from 0 (birth) to 1 (death).

You're still thinking in terms of increments of time. We're not talking about increments. We're talking about moments.

Additionally, if you're limited in life as to how much you can do with each increment, how are you any less limited in the afterlife. If heaven, you can only experience total non-suffering. In hell, you can only experience total suffering. Hmm....it would appear that life in an infinite set of infinite experience, while the afterlife is an infinite set of finite experiences.

Shit, Pascal fails again.

No, you're still thinking in terms of increment. Pascal is still wrong.