[adam332]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

No it doesn't. You can't just define someone as credible. They are many factors and this essentially undermines your whole point. Credibility comes from the amount of information we know about the witneses and the situation. The further we go back the less information we have about all these factors


As long as you have the expertise it's really not that hard. Any second hand movie studio can do it. Stage magicians, con man and pretty much anybody who put's a little effort and can organise a few people


Your comments are indeed ridiculous


I might as well copy paste it
Your comments are indeed ridiculous


That lowers the credibility actually


Your comments are indeed ridiculous


Only in your mind

It's a hypothetical situation. I can define them as credible for the sake of the point being made, without explaining what makes them credible. Perhaps you may want to look up the concept of "hypothetical".

My hypothetical situation did not include a staged murder, just as it DID include credible witnesses. You seem to want to redefine my scenario to nit pick on factors that weren't included in the first place.

Does it lower the credibility when one esteemed scientist has a theory based on huge amounts of solid data, and another esteemed colleague has another theory which is based on the same data? What if these theories created a rift in the scientific community, and half of the greatest minds on the planet found one more plausible and the other half thought the other theory was? Are all these people less credible because they believe one theory over another very plausible theory? Does this rift make their original solid data, which was used by both, void?

The same concept can be applied to the Old Testament being the solid data that all 3 of these major religions use.

BTW I love your thorough comments to most of my post, I say the majority of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham. You simply dismiss it as ridiculous. Great comeback!

Call my comments ridiculous if you like but with out explaining why just shows that your ability to have well thought out conversation is found wanting. I respect your beliefs no matter how opposed or ridiculous I think they are. But, I would be mature enough to explain why I feel that way.

Failure to do so lowers your credibility, and makes you look like a guy without answers..... who resorts to quick little insults in lieu of a reason why.

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

It's a hypothetical situation. I can define them as credible for the sake of the point being made, without explaining what makes them credible. Perhaps you may want to look up the concept of "hypothetical".

Unless you want your hypothetical situation to go into the realms of fantasy they are always degrees of credibility for anybody

Quote:

My hypothetical situation did not include a staged murder, just as it DID include credible witnesses. You seem to want to redefine my scenario to nit pick on factors that weren't included in the first place.

I am defining it to apply to human beings. Because we are not gods. We can't be completely certain. And the more are involved the less certain we become because the less information we have. This goes a million time for historic events

Quote:

Does it lower the credibility when one esteemed scientist has a theory based on huge amounts of solid data, and another esteemed colleague has another theory which is based on the same data? What if these theories created a rift in the scientific community, and half of the greatest minds on the planet found one more plausible and the other half thought the other theory was? Are all these people less credible because they believe one theory over another very plausible theory? Does this rift make their original solid data, which was used by both, void?

And now you are jumping from one wild example to another and as always missing the point

Quote:

The same concept can be applied to the Old Testament being the solid data that all 3 of these major religions use.

Nope it can't. You can't just say one thing applies like this. One has to take in account the context, the thousands of small details.

Quote:

BTW I love your thorough comments to most of my post, I say the majority of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham. You simply dismiss it as ridiculous. Great comeback!

It's not a comeback. It's depressuion due to how you can't seem to grasp basic logic

Quote:

Call my comments ridiculous if you like but with out explaining why just shows that your ability to have well thought out conversation is found wanting. I respect your beliefs no matter how opposed or ridiculous I think they are. But, I would be mature enough to explain why I feel that way.

Failure to do so lowers your credibility, and makes you look like a guy without answers..... who resorts to quick little insults in lieu of a reason why.

Explaining why your comments are ridiculous is like explaining that the sun rises everyday. It's so obvious that it's pointless to waste time. However fine here you go


Your situation with the murder has all the flaws I pointed out. You ignore them because you haven't reached your through a logical path frbut you have already the answer that in your mind is right and therefore you are simply trying to prove it. In this case by making up a fantasy scenario then try to claim it's identical to a historical scenario even thought everybody who has brain cells can see that it's not and claim this as proof

As for your numbers point do I really need to explain to you why it's stupid? Because that would be just sad.

[adam332]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Unless you want your hypothetical situation to go into the realms of fantasy they are always degrees of credibility for anybody


I am defining it to apply to human beings. Because we are not gods. We can't be completely certain. And the more are involved the less certain we become because the less information we have. This goes a million time for historic events


And now you are jumping from one wild example to another and as always missing the point


Nope it can't. You can't just say one thing applies like this. One has to take in account the context, the thousands of small details.


It's not a comeback. It's depressuion due to how you can't seem to grasp basic logic


Explaining why your comments are ridiculous is like explaining that the sun rises everyday. It's so obvious that it's pointless to waste time. However fine here you go


Your situation with the murder has all the flaws I pointed out. You ignore them because you haven't reached your through a logical path frbut you have already the answer that in your mind is right and therefore you are simply trying to prove it. In this case by making up a fantasy scenario then try to claim it's identical to a historical scenario even thought everybody who has brain cells can see that it's not and claim this as proof

As for your numbers point do I really need to explain to you why it's stupid? Because that would be just sad.

Good grief are you serious? I'm not trying to convert you. I am simply trying to give an example. But you don't like where that example takes you, so you want so desperately to redefine it so you can defend your position.

Just consider for one moment, that it is a real murder, and the witnesses are all credible by your standards. Can you do that? Assume that any doubts about either have been established so firmly that there is no doubt.

It is hypothetical!!! All you have to do is add your thoughts on the situation that is already established!!

If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some. I know your type, the guys who think they know alot but when you ask them a question they don't answer. Instead they ask you a question back.

I don't play those games. If you want a serious, thoughtful discussion on the these theological subjects it has to be tit for tat.

I'll be waiting if you ever decide to respond to my first post as it stands. In a formal debate you would have failed. Trying to reword your opponents question to suit what answer you want to give is absurd, and such behavior wouldn't be fit for even a high school level debate team.

[adam332]

Originally Posted by adam332:

If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some.

Mistype on this sentence...

"If you can't do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some."

[DHoffryn]

Originally Posted by adam332:

Good grief are you serious? I'm not trying to convert you. I am simply trying to give an example. But you don't like where that example takes you, so you want so desperately to redefine it so you can defend your position.

Just consider for one moment, that it is a real murder, and the witnesses are all credible by your standards. Can you do that? Assume that any doubts about either have been established so firmly that there is no doubt.

It is hypothetical!!! All you have to do is add your thoughts on the situation that is already established!!

If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some. I know your type, the guys who think they know alot but when you ask them a question they don't answer. Instead they ask you a question back.

I don't play those games. If you want a serious, thoughtful discussion on the these theological subjects it has to be tit for tat.

I'll be waiting if you ever decide to respond to my first post as it stands. In a formal debate you would have failed. Trying to reword your opponents question to suit what answer you want to give is absurd, and such behavior wouldn't be fit for even a high school level debate team.

Oh dear god man how many times do I have to tell you your entire foundation is flawed? it doesn't matter how credible your witneses are. Hell it doesn't matter if I myself am a witness. Nothing is perfect(the closest you can come is if you are the murdered yourself. If you experienced it. Hence why faith comes from withing and not from false logic). It's still a degree of credibility not perfect. That's what I am trying to explain to you. Faith is not a degree of credibility.

And do you honestly can't see how bad it is try and compare to a historic event which due to it's nature has even less credibility. Yes we can agree that well doumented people like Napoleon existed but there is still a lot of arguing about the details of their life

Same with your Bible. One can easily agree that parts of it are historical in nature but that is NO proof for the supernatural part.

And if it was it was(and it isn't) then the SAME would apply to other religions and their myths. And no please don't evne mention numbers. If you stop just for a second you will realise how idiotic this argument makes you sound


So do you finally get it are you still going to try and limp with your horribly mispalced and illogical comparsions?

[adam332]

If I said the sky was blue, you would argue that it's actually light blue.
If I said what if you and I were on the moon who do you think could jump higher?. You would argue on how two civilians like us could never go to the moon and that since it's not realistic I won't answer.

Like I said, if you can't answer a hypothetical scenario as it stands then I have nothing to say to you. You are a little nitpicker who wants to argue, not talk.

Toodles Noodle.

[DHoffryn]

Originally Posted by adam332:

If I said the sky was blue, you would argue that it's actually light blue.
If I said what if you and I were on the moon who do you think could jump higher?. You would argue on how two civilians like us could never go to the moon and that since it's not realistic I won't answer.

Like I said, if you can't answer a hypothetical scenario as it stands then I have nothing to say to you. You are a little nitpicker who wants to argue, not talk.

Toodles Noodle.

Do you really have such a hard time accepting that your examples suck? You truly are a child. I already answered all your arguments point by point on why they don't work when it's concerning faith. And instead of trying to actually give some solid arguments in return you simply whine, whine some more and then for final whine evne more. Either man up or get out

[adam332]

Originally Posted by Blind Seer:

*What I mean by that statement is that there are things around us in this universe (big bang, human and animal anatomy, ecosystems, etc.) that are proven scientifically.

How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Originally Posted by adam332:

If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred.

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?

I agree. Well put.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Originally Posted by adam332:

I believe in the second sentence, which you happened to omit in your quote of my inquiry, I defined them as credible. Which happens to answer your first remark about the reliability of said witnesses. If you think that it's not hard to "stage" a murder witnessed in broad daylight by more than a hundred credible witnesses....well we are on completely different wavelengths.

Simply put; with the factors I mentioned such a comment is ridiculous.

No, you can't say that about any religion. You may want to look at current population numbers of said religions before making such a claim.

If you consider that as of year 2000..... statistics show there were more Christians on the planet than any other religion. If you then consider that combined with Judaism, and Islamic believers. We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.

Why would I include all three of those major religions as a single populous? Just ask a Christian, an Israelite(Jew), and a Muslim if they believe in the God of Abraham.

All were founded on essentially the same group of writings. It was only less than 2000 yrs ago that the Christians broke off from Judaism based on their belief that the current events they had witnessed were indeed proof of a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Then it was hundreds of years after that in which the Islamic believers were formed based on their belief that Muhammad was the latest prophet in a continuation of the base religion.

To act as if those who believe in the God of the old testament are just the same as any piddly religion is a incredibly huge understatement. In actuality, they make up the majority of the entire planet.

So, when I say that those who have faith that all those Biblical events that are recorded(for arguments sake just the Old Testament) should be counted as credible as those who say Napoleon existed is very fair indeed.

There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well. It is supported by secular history, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, the testimonies of those who have converted, the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history, the manner in which is was preserved, the manner in which the books were compiled, the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.

[adam332]

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx:

There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well. It is supported by secular history, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, the testimonies of those who have converted, the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history, the manner in which is was preserved, the manner in which the books were compiled, the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.

One could also point out the extreme measures they went through to preserve their lineage. They placed huge importance in tracing the ancestors back to the original twelve tribes and ultimately to Abraham himself.

Which puts these accounts found in the Old Testament in a very different light. To doubt their validity would be the equivalent of calling their ancestors liars. They thought lying was a sin worthy of damnation and took that even more seriously than their meticulous record keeping.

[Dusk Illz]

To answer the thread's initial question;

"beliefs held without evidence, may also be dismissed without evidence"

[adam332]

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz:

To answer the thread's initial question;

"beliefs held without evidence, may also be dismissed without evidence"

Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?

[Dusk Illz]

Originally Posted by adam332:

Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?

You're wrong, it isn't. In fact, the entire notion of evidence presupposes that it isn't: if evidence was subjective we could never establish the truth of any assertion, hence never know anything. Yet we obviously do. How do we do so? By providing evidence, which can be checked by others, who can repeat the tests you did to see if they arrive at the same conclusions.

Having to provide evidence for your claims is common-sense in all domains of human knowledge; and for very obvious reasons. It is what has allowed us to learn over the millennia, to slowly build up a body of knowledge, collectively, not subjectively. There is no good reason to exempt religious and spiritual experiences and their resultant knowledge from that common-sense requirement whatsoever.

[adam332]

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz:

You're wrong, it isn't. In fact, the entire notion of evidence presupposes that it isn't: if evidence was subjective we could never establish the truth of any assertion, hence never know anything. Yet we obviously do. How do we do so? By providing evidence, which can be checked by others, who can repeat the tests you did to see if they arrive at the same conclusions.

Having to provide evidence for your claims is common-sense in all domains of human knowledge; and for very obvious reasons. It is what has allowed us to learn over the millennia, to slowly build up a body of knowledge, collectively, not subjectively. There is no good reason to exempt religious and spiritual experiences and their resultant knowledge from that common-sense requirement whatsoever.

So every person on this planet no matter what the subject will always agree with what is and what isn't evidence? Obviously the answer is no. Therefore evidence is subjective.

One laboratory may have certain standards and another lab may have a completely different rules before they consider something evidence.

In courts what evidence is can vary from state to state, country to country, etc.....

[filcher]

Originally Posted by adam332:

If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.

It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief in this instance. Ask an investigator, and almost every one will tell you that no witness sees the same as the other witnesses, so we cannot base the facts on witness testimony alone.

Originally Posted by adam332:

We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.

Again, truth is not based on the popularity of an event or idea. If you look at the work of the early christian missionaries, they commited some heinous crimes on the heathens to make conversions. Due to the European love of imperialism and colonialism we spread our religion across the World and forced conversion of peoples, not something I am particularly proud of.

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

Originally Posted by adam332:

So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?

You may as well as ask that about the early worship of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Celts, Norse, and all other religions. They were founded on the same platform as Judaism, Christianity and Islam; stories and legends that were passed along and believed by the populace.

The accounts of the existence of Napoleon are many fold, and his legacy is still with us today. The evidence beyond credible witnesses is that he lived and was a conqueror of most of Europe. There is too much evidence that Napoleon was an actual historical figure to dismiss as non credible.

The same can not be said for God, or Jesus or Mohammed. We can make a case that Jesus and Mohammed were actual people, but especially in the case of Jesus, there is no way we can verify the truth of the gospels, they were written after his death and in some cases only based on the stories of the Apostles, not written by the Apostles themselves. Again dealing with Christianity, there have been times when various Gospels have been suppressed as contrary to the will of the Church, and there are even writings considered as the word of God (so they cannot be destroyed) that are not in the average bible.

Quote:

How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.

The 'Big Bang' theory is the best conjecture scientists have to explain the formation of the Universe. Based on the evidence they have at hand. As for altering the theory over time, all theories evolve as more evidence is uncovered and evaluated. It does not mean the theory or the scientists are wrong, just that they are uncovering more evidences they can use to reach a conclusion. I have yet to see a scientist totally reject the concept of the Big Bang and have the evidences to challenge the basic concept as we know it.

Originally Posted by Xfrodobagginsx:

There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well.

I will take these one at a time.

Quote:

It is supported by secular history,

In what way is it supported? Please explain this claim.

Quote:

the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies,

It is easy to have a fulfilled prophecy, there are millions of them everyday in the astrology columns. We have fulfilled prophecies in all religions, how are the prophecies of the Bible anny different?

Quote:

the testimonies of those who have converted

This cannot be used as an argument of the existing of a God, as many of these people may have existing problems at the time of conversion, and many more that converted have reported no difference in their feelings about it.

Quote:

the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history

Again, not a measure of truth but a sign of fanaticism towards their religous belief. There have been heathens put to death by other religions, who refused to renounced their gods. That does not make their religions any more credible.

Quote:

the manner in which is was preserved

Again, there was a growing vaccuum for a religion that could fill the depravity of the present religions in Rome. Christianity was a religion that grew to become what the population desired, especially in Council of Nicena, where even killing was sanctioned by the Church leaders at the time.

Quote:

the manner in which the books were compiled,

The books were compiled by men who chose what to add and take away based on their own interpretation of the message of Jesus. That is why Jesus's message of "Love your Neighbor" has so many caveats to it..like... as long as it is not same sex... inter racial.. other religions...

Quote:

the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well

Again you lose me. In some things the Bible does talk about things that border on scientific truths as we understand them, but many of the parables of the Bible are far removed from being supported in any measure by science. Science fictinj writers of the 1800's have a much better prophetic measure than the Bible in this regard, and I see no religion celebrating Verne, or Wells

Quote:

and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.

It does contradict itself numerous times though. There are 2 accounts of the creation, for instance. There are thousands of Christian sects, and many Christian sects that have different beliefs, that are all based on the biblical writings. The evidence is that it does quite strenuously contradict itself, numerous times.

Originally Posted by adam332:

One could also point out the extreme measures they went through to preserve their lineage. They placed huge importance in tracing the ancestors back to the original twelve tribes and ultimately to Abraham himself.

As evidence of truth in religion, this has no weight. It also shows the xenophobia and racism of the early Jewish tribes. The chinese can trace their ancestry back thousands of years also. Are you making the claim their religion is as credible as the religions based on the Abrahamic God?

Quote:

Which puts these accounts found in the Old Testament in a very different light. To doubt their validity would be the equivalent of calling their ancestors liars. They thought lying was a sin worthy of damnation and took that even more seriously than their meticulous record keeping.

Accounts of the earliest portions of the Bible were by word of mouth and memorization. It wasn't until the first four books were compiled that there was an actual account of the religion, or the genealogy of the peoples.

Quote:

Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?

What physical form or manifestation, what mathematical equationn, what chemical or magnetic abnormality exists that we can examine and test the theory that God exists or that the Bible is divine? Scientific theories are based on an interpretation of various evaluations that can be tested and proven in a classroom or under laboratory conditions, the theories can be tried numerous times without deviation from already detailed conclusions. Observed deviations in the minutest form create scientists to observe and research why there are abnomalies in the calculations, which result in a more precise understanding of the theory being tested and at times a new belief and theory being generated. The ability to observe the physical, or observed measured magnetic, gravitational or energy forces, chemical balances and other measurable phenomena in the world around us constitutes evidence.

Quote:

So every person on this planet no matter what the subject will always agree with what is and what isn't evidence? Obviously the answer is no. Therefore evidence is subjective.

No, you are talking about interpretation of evidence, which does create schism between opposing views.

Quote:

One laboratory may have certain standards and another lab may have a completely different rules before they consider something evidence.

No. the scientific community is very strict about what constitutes evidence and what is allowed and what isn't allowed. If a result cannot be duplicated by other laboratories, then the result claimed by the one laboratory is dismissed as an anomaly.

Quote:

n courts what evidence is can vary from state to state, country to country, etc.....

Only to a certain degree. Evidence cannot be disallowed, but interpretation of what the evidence means must be presented IIRC.

[adam332]

Filcher, you have written quite a bit but fell incredibly short of answering the gist of the points I was making.

You said;
"It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief..."

The criteria for ones belief that something occurred, could easily be said that it is the criteria that one has faith that something occurred. The words are interchangeable to an extent, unless you are just arguing semantics. If that's the case then just assume that everywhere I wrote faith, I actually wrote belief. That should satisfy any semantics issues you have with the word "faith".

You said;
Again, truth is not based on the popularity of an event or idea.

Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly? I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.

You said;
"You may as well as ask that about the early worship of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Celts, Norse, and all other religions."

Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived? I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.

About your comments on Napoleon, where is the cut off line? How far back does one have to go to before you doubt the recorded existence or events of a person. Constantine? Alexander the Great?

I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.

At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?

Was it in 1906, when the Hittite Empire was discovered as being more than a Biblical myth?
Maybe it was the discovery of the City of Ur which Abraham was said to have lived.
Perhaps the city of Pithom that was found to be real.
Or the city of Neta'im.

Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.

So much so that scholars use the Bible as a road map to help them locate these formerly non-existent events and places. So who gets to claim that one passage by a writer is historically accurate, but the very next passage by the same author isn't? Does the minority get to choose?

Sorry, that just doesn't sit well with me. Yet it seems that some allegedly logically thinking people would do just that.

I have to go, and don't have time to address every counter-point you said. Perhaps that will give you a little to chew on in the meantime.

[Saint Sinner]

Quote:

Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived?

I can answer that
Cause early Christians went to war with and killed anyone that opposed their beliefs and as it was the last religion to arise in such a way right before our age of industry and enlightenment ... its the one we got stuck with

[filcher]

Originally Posted by adam332:

Filcher, you have written quite a bit but fell incredibly short of answering the gist of the points I was making.

I will try to answer your questions, then.

Quote:

You said;
"It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief..."

The criteria for ones belief that something occurred, could easily be said that it is the criteria that one has faith that something occurred. The words are interchangeable to an extent, unless you are just arguing semantics. If that's the case then just assume that everywhere I wrote faith, I actually wrote belief. That should satisfy any semantics issues you have with the word "faith".

You misunderstand my position. When I talk about evidence to support a bdelief, especially as regards a criminal investigation or to support scientific theories, I am discussing evidence we can relate to physical interpretation. It does not matter if a hundred people say that I killed my friend, without physical evidence to support the accusation I am relying solely on evidence I cannot prove or disprove in any physical form. With bloodstains, a body, a murder weapon, then we can rely on the belief I killed my friend is accurate.

Quote:

Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly?

I am breaking your quote up to explain what I mean. If one laboratory does an experiment and gets a different result, using the same process and same types of processes as all the other labs, than any other lab that did that experiment, then it is an anomaly. If it continues to get that same result, even under different researchers, then it is capable of creating a new theory or explanation of why.

Quote:

I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.

It is a reason to dismiss them if you want to explain in any scientific terms the existence of God. There is no way that stories and tales of God's existence can be credited any more than the stories of Ghosts and spirits, of Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, or any other legend can be credited as real. I do not doubt that those who believe in his existence feel the stories should be considered true, but without additional information we cannot make a judgement call on whether they actually are true or not.

Quote:

Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived? I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.

I think you may be under a misrepresentation here about lengths of time . I think that the worship of animals pre dates the Abrahamic religions and has existed in a greater area for a longer time, than has Judaism, and it grew not just in one corner of the World, but in all areas of the World. They have cave paintings that would suggest a worship of various animals, as well as totems and carved images from all over the World. It only lost popularity at the hands of the Christian missionaries, who converted at the point of a sword.

Quote:

About your comments on Napoleon, where is the cut off line? How far back does one have to go to before you doubt the recorded existence or events of a person. Constantine? Alexander the Great?

We have no "cut off" line in terms of what is and isn't factual. we have numerous books and archaeological discoveries that exist beyond the popular writings of people like Alexander the Great, and we can use secondary sources to also prove he was a real person. We cannot prove Robin Hood was a real person, despite the popularity of legends simply because there are no records that support the accounts often told of him. It is not a question of when, but a question of what; what records are there, who has written of them, what physical evidence of his life remains?

Quote:

I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.

It merely went through what any other new religion went through since the dawn of history. That it survived does not mean that it is true or Divine, it merely means that it was a religion the largest group of people were able to feel comfortable with.

Quote:

At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?

When we are able to verify what is written in it. The old testament is a history of the Jewish peoples, and as such it can be verified; the religion doctrine shows the religious beliefs but it does not show that the God of Abraham exists.

Quote:

Was it in 1906, when the Hittite Empire was discovered as being more than a Biblical myth?
Maybe it was the discovery of the City of Ur which Abraham was said to have lived.
Perhaps the city of Pithom that was found to be real.
Or the city of Neta'im.

Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.

You are describing a history book. No one has ever said that the Bible is not an account of the history of the Jewish race. What it is not is evidence of a Divine being.

Quote:

So much so that scholars use the Bible as a road map to help them locate these formerly non-existent events and places. So who gets to claim that one passage by a writer is historically accurate, but the very next passage by the same author isn't? Does the minority get to choose?

No, we should let common sense tell us. If there is physical evidence relating to the passage, then we should say that is proof. So far it has shown several historical facts with physical proof, but no divine ones.

Quote:

Sorry, that just doesn't sit well with me. Yet it seems that some allegedly logically thinking people would do just that.

Unfortunately I have never seen physical evidence of God that you can actually use to prove his existence. The Bible is a human compilation of many writers and story tellers that. The Church is an organization that was created by human beings, and the Church Doctrines were created amongst great debate and controversy.

All the evidences that you have presented rely on hearsay evidences and circumstantial evidences, there is no evidence that you have bought forth showing God exists.

Quote:

I have to go, and don't have time to address every counter-point you said. Perhaps that will give you a little to chew on in the meantime.

The main problem is that you know what you know, but you do not see that others have a hard time accepting evidences that cannot be proven or verified by physical evidences or by secondary reports. I am definitely not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, I am saying that others may not see as clearly as you do in some ways.

[Greeney]

Quote:

Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly? I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.

There have also been lots of people who have claimed God told them to do psychotic things. There's no guarantee that any of these people had anything more than delusions or lies.

Quote:

Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived?

That's like arguing that people should be Jewish because Jews have been around longer... not really the most convincing argument.

Quote:

I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.

Not logical at all.

Quote:

I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.

I'll go with Jews again. They've been around far longer, denounced far more, and have been far more oppressed. You should be Jewish?

Quote:

At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?

You do realize there are things in the bible that are inconsistent with science and technology?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

If you go to court and claim you saw someone murder someone else, when it can be proven that you were nowhere near the scene, even if the person your accusing did commit murder, your testimony on anything you have ever said in court counts as nothing and you deserve to be tried for perjury. The fact that there is so much in the bible that has been proven wrong makes it more than hard for a logical person to accept it as reliable.

Quote:

Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.

It can have a million facts, but it still has many things that are clearly wrong.