Angrillori

Ok, I added the appropriate 'supposed.'

But, the bible does say it was 'god breathed' so...

That said, I would point out that there are qute a few other evidences that there is such a thing as 'air.'

First, place an empty balloon and a full balloon on opposite ends of a stick.
Hold the stick by the middle.
Watch the inflated balloon move downwards.

Evidence there is 'something' there.

Evidence 2:

Hold your breath.
Longer.
Longer.
Longer.
Longer.
Pass out.

Seems like this 'air' thing is important. i now have evidence in support that 'air' is a thing, and I need to breathe it to function effectively.

That alone is enough to make my breathing non-faith-based.

But there's more.

Go to your local university bookstore.
Buy a book on the history of chemistry.
Reproduce any of the experiments demonstrating the composition of air.
(Most are startlingly simple and fun!)

Now you have evidence that air is a 'thing' that you have to breathe, and even have evidences as for what constitutes it.

Once more, I've done my part. Given evidence for my position. Your turn. Evidence for god? Hmmm?

Edit to add:

I seem to have misinterpreted your statement: you're claiming my position based on induction, that where there's been air before, there will be air again is irrational.

This is even worse than the position I originally thought you were taking!

Induction is how we live our lives. Now, philosophy aside (wrong forum) the same thing that tells me that there will be air to breathe tells me that the burning bush didn't happen.

Concisely, where there's supposed to be air, there's always been air. Induction leads me to believe then, that there will be air when I open my mouth.

OTOH, everytime a bush shouldn't have been talking to me, it WASN'T talking to me, so induction leads me to believe that there wasn't one for moses either.

So, if you're comparing the faith needed for breathing air to the faith needed to believe OT miracle stories, well, you've pretty much shot yourself in the foot.

Godless Wonder

I can sense the air though I can't see it. I can feel the wind. I can charge up a compressor with air and feel it coming out when I release a valve. There's plenty of evidence for air. Your example is poorly chosen. You can do better than that, c'mon, you're not even trying.

Open up your Bible, and look in the front, in the very first few pages. You see that copyright notice? Does it say "(c) Copyright 0000, God of the Universe" ?

Didn't think so. Bet it has a copyright notice though, and the copyright isn't God's.

BTW, your attempt to show that atheists use faith too shows an intuitive distrust of faith and knowledge that it is an undesirable thing to be replaced with evidence and reason as much as is possible. . Why not replace faith with doubt? Doubt doesn't hurt you.

Kosh

Actually my response was:

"No, thats calling the people who wrote the Bible a liar."

animus

Xian: Provides the reader with the information that said co-worker is a theist, and which type.

Fundy: Further allows the reader to realize that said co-worker might also fit the description of "Village Idiot".

OP by inquisitive01:
There are accounts of a lot of things in the bible, and many of them quite extraordinary. It has nothing to do with whether or not we need to see it in order to believe it, but whether the entire idea is believable from the start. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

jbernier

This is a very interesting discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or archaeological evidence relating thereto.

Kosh brings up an interesting point in the OP (also entirely ignored in the subsequent responses). The best extrabiblical evidence (and quite a few hints within the Biblical text itself) suggests that Israel was much more 'Canaanite' than the standard line (in the Biblical text and traditional exegesis) would have us believe. There is strong reason to doubt that there was ever an exodus (actually, that is a weak way of saying that there is no f'ing extrabiblical evidence to support the account). There is even stronger reason to doubt that there was ever an Israelite conquest of Canaan, insofar as this is understood as the Israelites being completely foreign to Canaan. What do we do with this? What theological challenges does this evidence present? Etc.?

Kosh

It knocks down what I call one of the "pillars" of Biblical Belief. Since can apply similar analysis to the creation account, Noah's flood, the Exodus, The Conquest...... it pretty much exposes it all as fiction.

spin

If Moabite, Edomite, Ammonite and Palmyrian are examples of Canaanite languages, then obviously Hebrew is one as well, as it is closer to these languages than it is to the next closest language, Phoenician.

Archaeology indicates that there was no conquest by Hebrews. The culture of the 1st millenium BCE developed from that of the second millennium BCE in the same area.

But then most liberal xians know this.


spin

inquisitive01

Perhaps the burning bush wasn't meant for you personally to see or hear. Induction might then lead one to believe that it still could be true.

Actually, you have faith that there will be air (or even, a sufficient amount of air) when you open your mouth. However, it is still definitely possible for one to open his/her mouth without being able to breathe. As just one example, astronauts would not be able to breathe in space if it weren't for special suits... regardless of whether they open their mouth or not.

inquisitive01

I think it's pretty extraordinary that a ball of rock in space has somehow managed NOT ONLY to have life existing on it, but also have all of the right things present (and in the order needed) to sustain life. Life not only came into existance, which seems to be extremely extraordinary in itself, but it didn't just cease to exist after a few days or weeks. It has continued and still continues to be sustained within this extraordinary order, the odds of which are unimaginable.

Godless Wonder

That is the Hubble ultra deep field image. If you look through an eight foot long soda straw, and point it in any direction into the sky, and you could see as well as the Hubble, what you'd see is something like what's above. There are about 10000 galaxies in that picture, each galaxy will millions upon millions of stars. If you wanted to photograph the entire sky though your eight foot long soda straw, you'd have to make millions of photographs to cover the whole sky. The universe is a very big place, and has been around for a very long time. Your intuitive sense of "extraordinary odds" is not equipped to deal with this amount of space and this amount of time.