If the bible is proven to be made up....
Options
Comments
-
There is no large amount of evidence that the supports the Bible. The most basic things that support the Bible is the existence of certain geographical locations and in some cases the dates appear to be plausible. But, simply saying that Egypt exists, or that there was a nation of Israel in no way proves that the content or the substance is true. And even when giving credit that some of these locations are close and that some timelines fit, many others simply do not. So even when giving the Bible credit for some possibility of truths, much of even the basic stuff can be confirmed to be at best inaccurate.
What we know about humans and psychology is that absent some reasonable explanation that people understand 'at the time of the event', people generally ascribe to some supernatural power that is responsible for the event. Forget about the Bible and Christianity for a moment, this is true in every other religion. The more 'primitive' the culture, the more spectacular the events. Thus, it is no wonder that miracles happen every day, today, in isolated villages where there are no cameras, no science, and no investigation. And it is no surprise that the Biblical miricales that were frequent and dominated the Bible have ceased to exist.
And even on a most basic level, there are all kinds of things that there has been direct evidence for that have been disproved with further investigation. People report UFOs in the sky and it turns out to be an airplane, weather balloon, meteroite, whatever. Weateher patterns can be predicted and planned for. Certain catacalysimic disasters (like the earthquake in Haiti) while not predicatable are explainable.
So given all that, and considering the burden of proof to be on the Bible, why would anyone believe the Bible (from an objective perspective) given all the evidence and what we know now? To suggest that there is merit to be both sides of the argument is not misleading at best. -
Let me go even further. There is wide acknowledgement that most of the Biblical texts were not written by the people credited with writing them. In fact, most of the Biblical text were composed several hundred years (in some case a few thousand) after the events occurred. But lets say, for the sake of argument, that the text were authentic. Would this prove that the text were true? Of course not. Simply because a text can be traced back to its origin, doesn't mean that the origin was correct in describing what they witnessed. We still would have try to conduct objective tests or look for independent confirmation to show that the source was indeed correct, that the source wasn't confused, and a whole host of other measures. And given the time of the sources, where there were many 'false' gods and people believing just about anything, proof is all the more needed.
And if you believe the Bible, ? provided that proof on a regular basis. From Moses to Daniel to John in Revelations, how one is convinced that the Bible is true, is based on evidence that appeals to our reason and logic. The problem is, it only appeals to our reason and logic if the only source you look at is the Bible. It all begins to collapse as soon as you take an objective approach to it.
So, considering all this, I know that people take comfort in the Bible, and in a normal setting, I don't attack it. It provides comfort and a sense of well being to people who truly believe. But this is the IC and I assume that all reasonable intellectual conversation is a go. So in here, I have no problem taking the Bible apart, page by page. -
Do you think that people who believe in the Bible are necessarily looking for miraculous; that one day that mysterious unicorn will appear or that ? just appears out of thin air and surprises everybody? What if there is more to it than just the "fireworks"?
Geographical locations and artifacts are just as good of evidence supporting the Bible. It doesn't mean that it's a "slam-dunk" case in favor of believing the Bible but it at least has something to say when it comes to these places and findings. However, the question is whether or not theses findings can be trusted? Can you trust that whenever there is a finding supporting the Bible, that it is done apart from any biases. Can you trust those who has has evidence against the Bible that they are not using their biases? -
alissowack wrote: »Do you think that people who believe in the Bible are necessarily looking for miraculous; that one day that mysterious unicorn will appear or that ? just appears out of thin air and surprises everybody? What if there is more to it than just the "fireworks"?
Geographical locations and artifacts are just as good of evidence supporting the Bible. It doesn't mean that it's a "slam-dunk" case in favor of believing the Bible but it at least has something to say when it comes to these places and findings. However, the question is whether or not theses findings can be trusted? Can you trust that whenever there is a finding supporting the Bible, that it is done apart from any biases. Can you trust those who has has evidence against the Bible that they are not using their biases?
Just to be clear, geographical locations and artifacts don't support the Bible. These locations and artifacts support places mentioned in the Bible. We can agree that a place existed or even that a person existed and still question whether what they said, or what was recorded that they said, is accurate. Take for instance the Vedas, we can verify the authenticity of the text but do we believe it? Does it match other evidence? We can apply this standard to all religious text, including The Book of Mormon (which not many Christians hold to be credible, even though all the locations can be verified, the timeline is correct, and there is no question of the aunthenticity of the author). -
alissowack wrote: »Do you think that people who believe in the Bible are necessarily looking for miraculous; that one day that mysterious unicorn will appear or that ? just appears out of thin air and surprises everybody? What if there is more to it than just the "fireworks"?
Geographical locations and artifacts are just as good of evidence supporting the Bible. It doesn't mean that it's a "slam-dunk" case in favor of believing the Bible but it at least has something to say when it comes to these places and findings. However, the question is whether or not theses findings can be trusted? Can you trust that whenever there is a finding supporting the Bible, that it is done apart from any biases. Can you trust those who has has evidence against the Bible that they are not using their biases?
To me, this is the most credible thing that I've read on the IC in a while. I could be misinterpreting you, but to me, it seems that you are suggesting that maybe it's more than logic and reason or some willingness to believe a fantasy that compels people to believe.
William James (a founder of modern psychology and the founder of modern pragmatics) wrote in his book 'The Varities of Religious Experiences' that there is this intuition,an internal mechanism - or a feeling, if you will, that is the principle religious experience that people who firmly believe have. He says that an intense spiritual experience requires no evidence, no logic, no reasoning. It is what it is and there is no denying it. What we may question is the explanation of that experience. When people have this experience, they more often than not attribute it to their faith and they look to their faith to recreate the experience. The faith may not make any sense to the outsider at all...but to the person who experienced this 'spiritual awakening', it makes perfect sense.
Based on William James analysis, he said that what the faith was in was of no consequence, so long as the faith existed. In fact, according to his research, the inability to have a spiritual experience or faith can lead to immense depression or worse. We actually see this in some of the most prominent philosophers who found all things spiritual to be absurd (Nietzche, father of nihilism, is a prime example). This is one of the reasons why I hesitate attacking the Bible outside of limited circles. In my opinion, unless a person is trying to advance their own personal knowledge, it is no benefit for me to poke holes in another's faith...especially considering the raw value that faith has. -
I mean more to say...what if it is proven that ? created the world or Moses parted the Red sea or that Jesus did rise from the dead? So what? What did all of that accomplish? Was there a goal or agenda in those things happening? I've heard of miraculous things happening to people and it might make me give ? praise, but at the end of the day they mean nothing. Knowing (or believing it happened) would not make me any richer or stop me from making mistakes; doing things wrong; prevent me from suffering a loss or keep me from being lied to.
-
To me, this is the most credible thing that I've read on the IC in a while. I could be misinterpreting you, but to me, it seems that you are suggesting that maybe it's more than logic and reason or some willingness to believe a fantasy that compels people to believe.
William James (a founder of modern psychology and the founder of modern pragmatics) wrote in his book 'The Varities of Religious Experiences' that there is this intuition,an internal mechanism - or a feeling, if you will, that is the principle religious experience that people who firmly believe have. He says that an intense spiritual experience requires no evidence, no logic, no reasoning. It is what it is and there is no denying it. What we may question is the explanation of that experience. When people have this experience, they more often than not attribute it to their faith and they look to their faith to recreate the experience. The faith may not make any sense to the outsider at all...but to the person who experienced this 'spiritual awakening', it makes perfect sense.
Based on William James analysis, he said that what the faith was in was of no consequence, so long as the faith existed. In fact, according to his research, the inability to have a spiritual experience or faith can lead to immense depression or worse. We actually see this in some of the most prominent philosophers who found all things spiritual to be absurd (Nietzche, father of nihilism, is a prime example). This is one of the reasons why I hesitate attacking the Bible outside of limited circles. In my opinion, unless a person is trying to advance their own personal knowledge, it is no benefit for me to poke holes in another's faith...especially considering the raw value that faith has.
I like this guys way of thinking, he has a pretty credible and logical argument to present.
thing is, i agree with what was said earlier. It is all about YOU basically. The bible is nothing more than a belief. No different from a gang member worshipping that ? or even a cult. No matter how hard you try, the bible can be neither proven nor disproven. It just like trying to prove who is the best rapper alive....its all based on opinions
