Re: What is your strongest disproof of the Bible?

[Whitney]

What about the issue of why God would need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to circumvent a rule he created?

That would be in the "logical inconsistency" category. It's very easy to say, for example, that He didn't create the rule, the rule just exists because of who He is.

The Bible very obviously states that God created everything, so it would include him creating the rule.  

Also, how is him finding a way for people to get around a rule count as justice?

I think logical inconsitencies should count as evidence against the Bible if what the Bible says can't correct the inconsistency.

[suntzu]

Fine,

I withdraw the part about Christians being jack-holes.  Sorry for the personal attack.  The rest is completely valid.

Suntzu

[Kylyssa]

Freshwater fish will die from osmotic shock when placed in saltwater, some species will slowly die from even small changes in specific gravity.  Many corals and other sessile invertebrates will die from very small shifts in specific gravity and PH.  Land and freshwater snails die rapidly in saltwater.  Freshwater shrimp die swiftly in saltwater and saltwater shrimp don't do so well in lower specific gravities.  Most amphibians cannot live in saltwater.

If we are basing the water on the amount of water that actually exists on earth, the majority of it is saltwater.  A world covered uniformly in water would be covered in saltwater but it would be saltwater of a lower specific gravity than the acceptable natural range of seawater.  Most corals and sessile invertebrates would have died from too low a specific gravity.  Most other invertebrates, fresh and saltwater, would have died from either too low or too high salinity.  Many saltwater species of fish would have survived at the lowered specific gravity of the whole-world ocean, however, none to almost none of the thousands of varieties of freshwater fish would have survived.  Most to all amphibians would have died.  Why are all of these species alive today?

[Kylyssa]

I'd also like to mention that we've found DNA in Neanderthal bones and it is not homo sapiens DNA.

[minstrelofc]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it occurs to me that if God is all powerful, even inconsistencies with the Bible and history could be explained away as him covering up the evidence of his miracles and testing you.  I mean, you've already accepted that he exists, how much easier is it to accept that he might be testing the world because he must?

I refuse to accept this as a valid thing for God to do. However, I have some conflicting data, so I'll have to get back to you on exactly why once (and if) I can resolve it.

Unorganized thoughts: (I recognize it as valid for God to provide less data than we need to be scientifically certain, but not valid to destroy incidental data. Perhaps a perfect being would not need to destroy "dangerous" evidence because they would have done a better job (or at least done a different thing) in the first place.)

"testing the world because he must" - I do not see which part of His character would compel Him in this circumstance.

Regarding the rest of your post:
To state my objective in other terms, I wish to find something very falsifiable in the Bible, and test it. Pink Unicorns on the Dark Side of the Moon is falsifiable (unless they're invisible - ooooo) but not easily. (there have been a few flybys I remember correctly, but they might not have had enough scanning resolution) Anyways, I'm looking for something that falsifiable that I can test, and come to a conclusion one way or the other.

I already am a Christian, so I accept the Bible as true (remember what I said in the OP about no Burden-of-Proof Shifting   ) to be disputed. If I were to attempt to dispute your picture, I would start by tracking down the originator, and seeing if they would "confess" to it being untrue. Other than that, it appears non-falsifiable. It seems to make no claims that can be tested.

In the Bible, I'm looking for claims that can be tested.

Anways, I was quoting the Bible in response to a direct (probably rhetorical) question.

Your holy helper is a SUCKS!  If he is going to "teach you all things" maybe he should teach you all the SAME thing!

(I think your argument boils down to the above)
<insert standard response about not all those who claim to be Christians being Christians>
Also, even allowing for the above, it's a guided process - we would not go from knowing nothing to being an expert immediately.
(and discussions of pi should be in that other, not-yet-created thread)

The Bible very obviously states that God created everything, so it would include him creating the rule.  

Also, how is him finding a way for people to get around a rule count as justice?

I think logical inconsitencies should count as evidence against the Bible if what the Bible says can't correct the inconsistency.

#1 The Bible states that God created "the heavens and the earth". It doesn't say that He created any part of Himself.

#2 It isn't a way for people to "get around" the rule, it's a way to fulfill the rule in a "better" way.

#3 I think I mentioned that they are actually acceptable, but that I didn't want them because they were too easy to disprove. They are also too easy to come up with. So what we would end up having is you (collectively) coming up with them, me explaining them, you coming up with extensions/more/disproofs of my explanations, me explaining all of that, etc, etc, etc, and me never getting any time (and energy) to verify that there is no era that Jesus could have lived in that satisfies the claims of the Bible. (or whatever I end up going with)

I withdraw the part about Christians being jack-holes.  Sorry for the personal attack.  The rest is completely valid.

No worries, I was just wondering when you were going to get to the Q and K "-holes" (You know, AKQJ.... I was sensing a pattern)  

Freshwater fish will die from osmotic shock when placed in saltwater

That is a tricky one. I think I avoid it due to not being sure of how quickly evolution can progress - if the species survived the flood, could they have diversified that much in the past 4-5k years? What I know of current evolutionary theory says "no", but testing that myself could be very difficult.

I'd also like to mention that we've found DNA in Neanderthal bones and it is not homo sapiens DNA.

Oooo - thanks - I'll add that to my list.

[Ihateyoumike]

I know for a fact that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I have a picture, which a man made under the instruction of the FSM, which will prove it.
[...]
You may now attempt to change my mind. However, you may not dispute my proof (the picture) because I hold this picture to be sacred and holy.

I have nothing but respect for your belief in FSM. The thing is, I want my proof (The Bible, in case anyone lost track ) to be disputed. If I were to attempt to dispute your picture, I would start by tracking down the originator, and seeing if they would "confess" to it being untrue. Other than that, it appears non-falsifiable. It seems to make no claims that can be tested.

In the Bible, I'm looking for claims that can be tested.

Anways, I was quoting the Bible in response to a direct (probably rhetorical) question.

You respect my belief in the flying spaghetti monster? That's not right, no one actually believes in that nonsense. I mean, it's a flying monster made out of spaghetti. My parents did not tell me when I was young that there was a spaghetti monster in the sky that I need to worship, or once I die I will be punished forever. No one ever started a war over FSM. No one from 2000 years ago ever wrote conflicting stories which someone stitched together, long after the fact, to make the FSM into a god. Because of that, no one really believes in it. Well, no one except for a few whack jobs. Really, I just found a picture on google images to try to make a point, which I don't think you got. So now that you know that I am not really preaching the FSM to you, I offer you the chance to go back and read that post with that knowledge, and try to find the actual meaning of that post.


Edit: Here's a hint for you:

you might be able to see why your bible quoting seems just a little too convenient to an atheist.

[minstrelofc]

You respect my belief in the flying spaghetti monster? That's not right, no one actually believes in that nonsense. I mean, it's a flying monster made out of spaghetti. My parents did not tell me when I was young that there was a spaghetti monster in the sky that I need to worship, or once I die I will be punished forever. No one ever started a war over FSM. No one from 2000 years ago ever wrote conflicting stories which someone stitched together, long after the fact, to make the FSM into a god. Because of that, no one really believes in it. Well, no one except for a few whack jobs. Really, I just found a picture on google images to try to make a point, which I don't think you got. So now that you know that I am not really preaching the FSM to you, I offer you the chance to go back and read that post with that knowledge, and try to find the actual meaning of that post.


Edit: Here's a hint for you:

you might be able to see why your bible quoting seems just a little too convenient to an atheist.

I respect every bit of flying-spaghetti-monster-belief that you have.  

I attempted to respond to your proposal of His Noodliness' sacred image in the manner that I'm asking/hoping people will respond to my proposal of The Bible. An analogy, if you will.

[suntzu]

minstrelofc,

suntzu wrote:Your holy helper is a SUCKS! If he is going to "teach you all things" maybe he should teach you all the SAME thing!


(I think your argument boils down to the above)
<insert standard response about not all those who claim to be Christians being Christians>
Also, even allowing for the above, it's a guided process - we would not go from knowing nothing to being an expert immediately.
(and discussions of pi should be in that other, not-yet-created thread)

1.  If god is teaching Christians, and God is perfect in every way, then in the end all experts should interpret the bible the SAME way.  Biblical experts (priests, ministers, pastors, monks...) disagree about interpretation ALL THE TIME.  Furthermore, if it is a "guided process" the longer they study the more their beliefs should converge.  This is certainly not the case.

2.  What is this garbage about some Christians not being Christians.  Is this idea designed to explain the variance in interpretation of bible?  Am I to understand that all true Christians interpret the bible the correct way while all of the false Christians are responsible for the myriad of other interpretations?  If this is the case then you can't know if you are a real Christian because you can't know if your interpretation is correct?  Wow!  If what you say is true then most people who call themselves Christians are headed for hell just like us non-believers.  This is of course ludicrous.  The only qualification for Christianity is belief.  I have known many people who were definitely true believers and their opinions about biblical interpretation were radically different.

You need to stop trying to defend the bible with logic and reason.  Reason and logic are the tools of science, which are not friendly to theism.  Every time you attempt to use reason to combat atheism or defend theism you lose.  Find a different tactic, because this one is only going to make people lose respect for you capacity to reason.  There is light at the end of the tunnel.  If you continue to use reason long enough, you will eventually be an atheist.  So let me be the first to say to you, preemptively of course, welcome to the club.

[jcm]

The others are too easily "explainable".

do tell  

[Whitney]

The Bible very obviously states that God created everything, so it would include him creating the rule.  

Also, how is him finding a way for people to get around a rule count as justice?

I think logical inconsitencies should count as evidence against the Bible if what the Bible says can't correct the inconsistency.

#1 The Bible states that God created "the heavens and the earth". It doesn't say that He created any part of Himself.

#2 It isn't a way for people to "get around" the rule, it's a way to fulfill the rule in a "better" way.

#3 I think I mentioned that they are actually acceptable, but that I didn't want them because they were too easy to disprove. They are also too easy to come up with. So what we would end up having is you (collectively) coming up with them, me explaining them, you coming up with extensions/more/disproofs of my explanations, me explaining all of that, etc, etc, etc, and me never getting any time (and energy) to verify that there is no era that Jesus could have lived in that satisfies the claims of the Bible. (or whatever I end up going with)

#1)So you are saying that God has no control over his laws.  Doesn't that hurt the idea of him being all powerful?  If God is not in control of his laws, who/what is?  How could his rules/laws be a part of his nature?  For example, it's in my nature to be (mostly) nice but to also get frustrated by annoying people.  Did the form rules always exist because they are a part of my nature or did I have to come up with them?

#2)  Please, explain how this would be a better way.  You have mentioned justice being important to God (right?  maybe it was someone else).  The rule is that unforgiven sin leads too eternal damnation.  However, this 'better' way involves an innocent person taking the fall for everyone else.  How is that justice?  And yes, I am familiar with Aquinas' views on this.

#3) I thought your op stated logical inconsistencies were not acceptable, my bad.  For the record, I don't care what era Jesus lived in nor if we can prove who wrote the books of the Bible. Imo, we don't need to get into that much research to find that there are flaws in some of the most basic Chrsitian beliefs.  It's really just a matter of breaking through the tendency to want the rationalizations to make sense.

[Kylyssa]

Freshwater fish will die from osmotic shock when placed in saltwater

That is a tricky one. I think I avoid it due to not being sure of how quickly evolution can progress - if the species survived the flood, could they have diversified that much in the past 4-5k years? What I know of current evolutionary theory says "no", but testing that myself could be very difficult.

But the Bible says God created every living thing in six days!  Ask a young earther and they'll tell you that every living species is just as God made it during the creation.  There is no evolution in the Bible.  To me, this looks like an attempt to patch together select bits of the Bible with select bits of science to make things work.

[minstrelofc]

Firstly, let me apologize to everyone here. I am not without limitations, and I cannot answer all of your questions. Perhaps if my experiment (the OP) proves fruitful, I'll consider putting together a team of Christians who will specifically be able to address all of your questions, but it is beyond my solo abilities.

The purpose of my original post still stands - I'm looking to see if there are any falsifiable parts of the Bible that I can research on my own to prove (or fail to prove) that the Bible is not perfect. (apologies for the double-negative)

Other discussions, while they can be fun, can end up draining after a while, resulting in my being less motivated to follow up on "real, practical" research.

I'll answer the current stack of questions, but only in "short form" (the full explanations would probably take me a couple of hours of work to compose - I'm a *very* slow codifier of thought) After that, I'll probably only respond "on topic".

1.  If god is teaching Christians, and God is perfect in every way, then in the end all experts should interpret the bible the SAME way.  Biblical experts (priests, ministers, pastors, monks...) disagree about interpretation ALL THE TIME.  Furthermore, if it is a "guided process" the longer they study the more their beliefs should converge.  This is certainly not the case.

2.  What is this garbage about some Christians not being Christians.  Is this idea designed to explain the variance in interpretation of bible?  Am I to understand that all true Christians interpret the bible the correct way while all of the false Christians are responsible for the myriad of other interpretations?  If this is the case then you can't know if you are a real Christian because you can't know if your interpretation is correct?  Wow!  If what you say is true then most people who call themselves Christians are headed for hell just like us non-believers.  This is of course ludicrous.  The only qualification for Christianity is belief.  I have known many people who were definitely true believers and their opinions about biblical interpretation were radically different.

You need to stop trying to defend the bible with logic and reason.  Reason and logic are the tools of science, which are not friendly to theism.  Every time you attempt to use reason to combat atheism or defend theism you lose.  Find a different tactic, because this one is only going to make people lose respect for you capacity to reason.  There is light at the end of the tunnel.  If you continue to use reason long enough, you will eventually be an atheist.  So let me be the first to say to you, preemptively of course, welcome to the club.

1. People (even Christians) are imperfect and stubborn. They have the ability to refuse to understand things.
2. If someone says they're a Christian and then goes out killing people who don't agree with them, then they are not a Christian. (IMNSHO)
(3.) Reason and logic are the tools of thought. Science starts with certain propositions, theism starts with others.

The great flood would have needed cloud cover so dense it would have blocked out the sun, thus killing noah and all the animals he was trying to save.

Women are not made out of male bones.

Snakes don’t talk

The earth is not older than our sun

The moon is not a “small sun” that creates light in the same way the sun does.

Rainbows existed before the great flood.

Thou shall not kill yet killing animals, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses and people who are deemed “evil” is morally acceptable.

The others are too easily "explainable".

do tell  

Miracle,
Miracle,
Miracle or They did then,
("science")The atoms that make them up would be the same age, (/"science") Way too many questions regarding sure determination of sun age, earth age, other things
The moon is a "lesser light" that "rules the night"
You have no proof, only presumption that things were the same then as they are now
Thou shalt not murder - non-humans don't count, "state" executions are not murder, explicit orders from God overrule general principles

You may not agree with my answers, and the earth/sun thing *could* be looked into, but it has too much wiggle room for my liking.

#1)So you are saying that God has no control over his laws.  Doesn't that hurt the idea of him being all powerful?  If God is not in control of his laws, who/what is?  How could his rules/laws be a part of his nature?  For example, it's in my nature to be (mostly) nice but to also get frustrated by annoying people.  Did the form rules always exist because they are a part of my nature or did I have to come up with them?

#2)  Please, explain how this would be a better way.  You have mentioned justice being important to God (right?  maybe it was someone else).  The rule is that unforgiven sin leads too eternal damnation.  However, this 'better' way involves an innocent person taking the fall for everyone else.  How is that justice?  And yes, I am familiar with Aquinas' views on this.

#3) I thought your op stated logical inconsistencies were not acceptable, my bad.  For the record, I don't care what era Jesus lived in nor if we can prove who wrote the books of the Bible. Imo, we don't need to get into that much research to find that there are flaws in some of the most basic Chrsitian beliefs.  It's really just a matter of breaking through the tendency to want the rationalizations to make sense.

#1 God is who He is, and won't do anything that is against His Character. Otherwise He wouldn't be God. Humans often act more seemingly randomly.
#2 Sin leads to Death. Always. The 'better' way involves the One who loves us sacrificing Himself in our place so that we can live and be with Him. It's an act of Love. (I am not familiar with Thomas Aquinas' views, this is from what I've read/heard/understand)
#3 I understand, I've had a rl convo with an agnostic who didn't "get" that either - believe me, for (my type of) a Christian, finding any errors (no matter how tiny) in the Bible is the ultimate "Big Deal". Beyond that, it's just interpretation.

But the Bible says God created every living thing in six days!  Ask a young earther and they'll tell you that every living species is just as God made it during the creation.  There is no evolution in the Bible.  To me, this looks like an attempt to patch together select bits of the Bible with select bits of science to make things work.

The young earthers might not be correct. The Bible does not clarify if it meant 24 hr periods or Inertial Earth Turns (there's a huge difference considering the relativistic speeds that follow a large explosion).
If the Young Earthers are correct on that point, the Bible does not say that evolution doesn't exist. It just says that the "kinds" of animals were created - "kind" is not a narrow term, and may encompass massive genetic shifts.


Phew - only 30 minutes.

Currently what I have are:

• Walls of Jericho
• Writing dates, order, and motivations of the NT
• Jesus Couldn't have existed with conditions as the Bible specifies
• http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html
• Jesus is Horus 2.0
• Neanderthal DNA

[Whitney]

Might I suggest adding The Blind Watchmaker and/or The God Delusion to your reading list?

[minstrelofc]

Might I suggest adding The Blind Watchmaker and/or The God Delusion to your reading list?

Absolutely - I've been reluctant to pick them up in the past for a couple of reasons.

Blind Watchmaker seems to be making the point of how evolution could result in highly complex lifeforms (humans) evolving from much simpler ones. I've actually already evaluated Evolution, and found it to be a brilliant theory with many applications that could very well be true. "Could be" true does not mean that it "must be" true, however, so I don't think it would sway me. Could be a fun read anyways though.

God Delusion is an interesting one - I found Amazon's least favorable, most helpful review (probably written by a theist) and glanced down the summary of the points made. My prediction is that it would be a very frustrating book to read, as Professor Dawkins does not seem to have an "insiders perspective" of theism, and therefore makes more "outsider"-type arguments which, while I can understand his viewpoint and objections, lose their power when examined from my perspective. (My prediction was validated the other day when I was in a bookstore and read a bit of the book)

[curiosityandthecat]

My prediction is that it would be a very frustrating book to read, as Professor Dawkins does not seem to have an "insiders perspective" of theism, and therefore makes more "outsider"-type arguments which, while I can understand his viewpoint and objections, lose their power when examined from my perspective. (My prediction was validated the other day when I was in a bookstore and read a bit of the book)

I love it when theists take this position. It's akin to saying that we can't study Marx from a feminist point of view because it's an "outsider" perspective. I think I mentioned this in one of Messenger's threads (imagine that). We have to look at things with differing perspectives. This is how we make progress. The problem theists run up against is that when religion is examined from nearly every other perspective (historical, anthropological, neurological, biological, psychological, sociological, etc) it just doesn't hold up. At all. The only way religion (the Bible, for instance) stands on its own two legs is if it is examined in a vacuum. Everything else is simply grasping at straws.