FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-10-2003, 05:03 PM   #51
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xeren
Thank you, everyone, these have all been very good suggestions, and I'm currently reading the material that was recommended to me.

How about this rebuttal?

"No matter how much one wants it to be, the Bible simply isn't evidence for any NT resurrection miracles. When there is, at the least, 40 years in between the supposed miraculous event and any documentation of the event, there is no way to say that what is recored is accurate."

Can anyone see any glaring holes in this (admittedly simple) argument?

It seems to me that if one is to believe the Bible is accurate, they must have faith in God, but the only way to have faith in God is if you believe the Bible is accurate!

-xeren
People don't have to believe that the Bible is accurate in order to have faith in God. They can just believe without any basis in scientific or historical fact at all. In fact, that is really the only unassailable position to take with regard to faith. It is true because I believe it is true.

What you can't do is use the scientific method to verify religious beliefs. There is no valid proof for the existance of god or the divinity of Christ or the rightness of Christianity over any other religion. You either believe based upon faith or you don't.

I suppose it is possible to have a scientific world view and still have religious faith. But it is a difficult position to justify. Also, you cannot say much of anything about the nature of god, since you cannot use science to provide justifiable statements about god or the nature of the supernatural.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
Greg2003 is offline  
Old 03-10-2003, 06:08 PM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,877
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xeren
Thank you, everyone, these have all been very good suggestions, and I'm currently reading the material that was recommended to me.

How about this rebuttal?

"No matter how much one wants it to be, the Bible simply isn't evidence for any NT resurrection miracles. When there is, at the least, 40 years in between the supposed miraculous event and any documentation of the event, there is no way to say that what is recored is accurate."

Can anyone see any glaring holes in this (admittedly simple) argument?
Won't work. Your friend will just say the scholars are wrong and that the Gospels were actually written shortly after the event. If you point out the contradictions in the various accounts, he'll pull out the "no eyewitness to an auto accident ever tells the same story!" argument, or that one about Hannibal.

Gregg
Gregg is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:04 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.