The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could you write this on a web page or something and just link to it every ten minutes instead of repeating yourself over and over?

...could you please make a rebuttal ... or stop repeating YOURSELF!!:)

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I am not saying that. I don't see how it's even possible for you to have derived the above from "sure they are".

...you seem to think that moral relativity and Evolutionism are somehow linked ... and I am now accepting your thesis as valid!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...could you please make a rebuttal ... or stop repeating YOURSELF!!:)

I have done and you have just given the same circular argument over and over again in response

J C wrote: »

...you seem to think that moral relativity and Evolutionism are somehow linked ... and I am now accepting your thesis as valid!!!!

No I don't

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But what if the cascade doesn't need a mousetrap? What if it needs a tie clip or a catapult and it's only later on that the part that was formerly used as a tie clip becomes incorporated into the new functionality of the mousetrap?

...the point I'm making is that if a specific cascade needs a 'mousetrap' ... and therefore a 'tie clip' ... or ANYTHING ELSE simply won't do.

The 'conscription' of other functionalities inevitably found in different times/spaces has also not been adequately explained.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have done and you have just given the same circular argument over and over again in response

...where is your rebuttal then?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't

...OK ... so they're not linked after all ... and therefore ... the evidence for evolution stands (or in actual fact falls) on its own merits ... completely independently of whether New Testament Standards of moral behaviour are accepted or not by society!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the point I'm making is that a specific cascade DOES need a 'mousetrap' ... and THEREFORE not a 'tie clip' ... or ANYTHING ELSE.

Of course it does, no one ever said otherwise. A mousetrap needs all the parts of a mousetrap to function as a mousetrap. But that does not mean that the components parts of a mousetrap cannot have any functionality, it just means they cannot function specifically as a mousetrap. They can perform other functions and later be "conscripted" as you put it. The idea of irreducible complexity is totally reliant on ignoring this fact.

J C wrote: »

The 'conscription' of other functionalities inevitably found in different times/spaces has also not been adequately explained.

What would you like explained? It's not that difficult to explain but since we've already gone through the various stages of the evolution of the eye and you still say it's irreducibly complex I'm not sure how much help I can be. I don't think you actually want an explanation to be honest because then it would become more difficult for you to claim that it has not been explained. Difficult but far from impossible for a creationist

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...where is your rebuttal then?

See the previous few hundred pages and the above post

J C wrote: »

...OK ... so they're not linked after all ... and therefore ... the evidence for evolution stands (or in actual fact falls) on its own merits ... completely independently of whether New Testament Standards of moral behaviour are accepted or not by society!!!

You have misunderstood me. To me they are not linked but creationists think they're linked as evidenced by Wendy Wright's repeated references to morality in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs, for example:

Wendy Wright wrote:

What a person believes about how human beings were created shapes what they believe about human beings, that if we believe that human beings were created out of love, that is by a loving creator who has given us not only a material body but a spirit and a soul we then are more likely to treat other people with respect and dignity

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course it does, no one ever said otherwise. A mousetrap needs all the parts of a mousetrap to function as a mousetrap. But that does not mean that the components parts of a mousetrap cannot have any functionality, it just means they cannot function specifically as a mousetrap. They can perform other functions and later be "conscripted" as you put it. The idea of irreducible complexity is totally reliant on ignoring this fact.

...BUT the point I'm making is that if a specific cascade needs a 'mousetrap' ... a 'tie clip' ... or ANYTHING ELSE simply won't do.

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all by Ken Miller's arguments ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...BUT the point I'm making is that if a specific cascade needs a 'mousetrap' ... a 'tie clip' ... or ANYTHING ELSE simply won't do.

You're just repeating yourself, I have already responded to exactly that statement.

If a cascade needs a mousetrap then of course that particular function cannot be performed but other functions can be performed by the component parts and they can later be "conscripted" to perform the new function. Not being able to perform one specific function is not the same as not being able to perform any function. The statement you keep repeating shows the former but the idea of irreducible complexity requires the latter.

In order to show irreducible complexity you must show that none of the components parts of any particular mechanism can perform any function whatsoever independently of each other. Pointing out that they cannot perform the function of a mousetrap is meaningless. It's not even in dispute.

philologos

Interesting that Kenneth Miller is himself an advocate of God's existence. What do you think of his views concerning the compatibility of evolution with a belief in God Sam? You can really be only okay with his viewpoint within certain limits surely?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting that Kenneth Miller is himself an advocate of God's existence. What do you think of his views concerning the compatibility of evolution with a belief in God Sam?

One example from his video debunking ID is that he said that he could see the hand of god in the victory of his favourite baseball team the previous week but even if that is true, it's not a scientific question. Essentially he separates his religious beliefs from his scientific endeavours. So he might think that god was involved in the process of evolution somewhere but that is just his personal belief and there isn't necessarily any hard evidence to support that belief.

Of course there is a world of difference between your statement:

"I do not believe that the conditions for life could have been achieved without some form of organisation and some form of structure from an organiser

and his. Your position is that god must have been involved and that makes it a scientific question because it would then be impossible to explain it without invoking god. You are asserting that there cannot be a natural explanation for it and therefore that science must either allow supernatural explanations or must stop researching this area because the answer to the question is "god did it".

philologos

My position is that God set up the conditions for evolution to take place.

Asides from this Kenneth Miller's two books (I've researched outside of the video) deal with the compatibility between evolution and Christianity. His latest book appeals to Americans to consider the possibility of theistic evolution.

If I remember correctly on this thread, you agreed with Sam Harris that Francis Collins wasn't suitable to administrate research for his beliefs on God, why doesn't this discredit Kenneth Miller in the same way?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

My position is that God set up the conditions for evolution to take place.

So which questions are you declaring to be outside the realms of science? Early evolution and/or abiogenesis? Late evolution and the improvements in the human mind that it brought? Anything before the big bang? That's quite a grand statement to make to be honest

Jakkass wrote: »

If I remember correctly on this thread, you agreed with Sam Harris that Francis Collins wasn't suitable to administrate research for his beliefs on God, why doesn't this discredit Kenneth Miller in the same way?

No that was your repeated straw man of my position. I can't remember what they were now but my position (and Sam Harris') was that he was unsuitable because of specific anti-scientific statements he made and not just "for his beliefs on God". To give an example, you don't believe that morality could have evolved, you don't think it's a question for scientists and as an administrator this belief could effect your decisions on how to allocate funds, ie why would you fund scientists to research something that you believe to be outside the realms of science?

If you were in the job you might be able to separate this belief from your job and allocate funds anyway but it's preferable to have someone in the job who doesn't think he already has answers to certain questions that science is trying to address. Collins has shown that he has trouble in this area but Miller has not

philologos

Hang on, didn't you say a few posts ago that evolution merely facilitates our ability to hold to a moral system. Are we discussing about moral zeitgeist or biological evolution, both are different things.

My main point is that Miller would most likely would disagree with you in respect to the God question, and as to how Creation was brought about.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on, didn't you say a few posts ago that evolution merely facilitates our ability to hold to a moral system. Are we discussing about moral zeitgeist or biological evolution, both are different things.

Remember when I said to go back and read one of my posts and to keep reading it until you understand why that is an invalid response to it? Well you haven't read it enough yet

Jakkass wrote: »

My main point is that Miller would most likely would disagree with you in respect to the God question, and as to how Creation was brought about.

Disagreeing with me on the god question is absolutely fine as long as this belief does not interfere with this scientific endeavours.

Although really it doesn't matter if it interferes with his scientific endeavours because his experiments based on his religious beliefs will simply fail but Collins was put in a position where his religious beliefs could interfere with other people's scientific endeavours and he had shown that he had trouble separating the two

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Disagreeing with me on the god question is absolutely fine as long as this belief does not interfere with this scientific endeavours.

Although really it doesn't matter if it interferes with his scientific endeavours because his experiments based on his religious beliefs will simply fail but Collins was put in a position where his religious beliefs could interfere with other people's scientific endeavours and he had shown that he had trouble separating the two

Both Collins and Miller are good scientists irrespective of their religion. See, the issue I have is that you use Miller's argument against J C, but then in the next foul swoop you suggest that he mightn't be good enough to serve a certain position in comparison to an atheist.

One cannot have the cake and eat it too. Either Miller and Collins are good scientists or they are not.

Indeed, Collins has done good work in setting up the BioLogos Foundation to present the view that faith is compatible with modern science. This is a project funded by the John Templeton Foundation an organisation that supports science.

I don't think one is anti-scientific for questioning the extent of how much evolution explains human nature, this is something that is contested amongst many thinkers in science, if I am to look at this range of opinion featuring Collins on the Templeton site.

Mjollnir

J C wrote: »

Sam Vimes is showing quite well how to become an evolutionist right now

Step 1: Make a statement that has no basis in reality

Step 2: Ignore everyone who shows unequivocally that the statement has no basis in reality and/or say they're in denial

Step 3: Repeat the aforementioned unfounded nonsense

Step 4: stick fingers in ears

Step 5: la la la la la la la la

It would be funny if these people didn't have so much influence in the world!!

Ironically, like science, you show no indication of any understanding of humor.

... another illogical non-sequitur!!!!
... why am I not surprised???

You're surprised because you don't understand the term 'logic', what it represents and how it is applied.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think one is anti-scientific for questioning the extent of how much evolution explains human nature, this is something that is contested amongst many thinkers in science, if I am to look at this range of opinion featuring Collins on the Templeton site.

Well you would actually need to understand what science is first then.

wikipedia wrote:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Science is all about questioning everything all the time.

Of course its not unscientific to question the extent of how much evolution explains human nature. But its completely unscientific to suggest that anything supernatural had any part in it. Science cannot talk about the supernatural by its very definition.

Science requires evidence and testable hypothesizes, trying to fill in something with 'God did it' tells us absolutely nothing about anything.

This kind of rubbish is exactly what Miller himself despises. If you try and fill in the blanks of human knowledge with 'God did it' then what happens when those blanks start to get filled in ?

Miller is a Christian and he is also an excellent scientist and as far as I'm aware he doesn't allow his beliefs to interfere with his research.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Both Collins and Miller are good scientists irrespective of their religion. See, the issue I have is that you use Miller's argument against J C, but then in the next foul swoop you suggest that he mightn't be good enough to serve a certain position in comparison to an atheist.

One cannot have the cake and eat it too. Either Miller and Collins are good scientists or they are not.

Again you make me wonder if it's worth the keystrokes. Why ask the question if you're going to ignore the answer Jakkass? I said my problem with Collins was specific anti-scientific statements he made, not his belief in god but you've just ignored that and said again that I should also have a problem with Miller because you still want to believe that my problem is just that he believes in god

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, Collins has done good work in setting up the BioLogos Foundation to present the view that faith is compatible with modern science. This is a project funded by the John Templeton Foundation an organisation that supports science.

Yeah I've heard of the Templeton foundation and what little I've heard is not good
. Remember when I told you about scientists that found something that conflicts with your religious beliefs and you said:

Jakkass wrote: »

I am wary of scientists who are using science to pursue an atheist agenda.

Well I'm equally wary of scientists using science to pursue a christian agenda. The difference is though that the Templeton foundation actually has a christian agenda, where the people I linked you to just found something that conflicts with your beliefs

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think one is anti-scientific for questioning the extent of how much evolution explains human nature, this is something that is contested amongst many thinkers in science, if I am to look at this range of opinion featuring Collins on the Templeton site.

See monosharp's reply

And remember that I never said that evolution completely explains human nature and I have already repeatedly corrected you on that using bold, italicised and underlined words but that doesn't mean that the gaps must be filled in with god. Evolution has given us the ability to reason and that ability has allowed us to rise above our evolutionary compulsions and make rational decisions, it has allowed us to develop culture and technology and everything we associate with human beings, including religion. I see no connection between having the ability to reason and the existence of a theistic god. Evolution explains how we developed the ability to reason and the ability to reason itself explains the rest

philologos

monosharp: There appears to be a difference between science and scientific speculation that isn't being taken into account here.

Science: Biological evolution occurred.
Speculation as in the New Scientist article I showed Sam: We believe in God because we have imaginations.

The latter cannot be seen as anything more than speculation.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

monosharp: There appears to be a difference between science and scientific speculation that isn't being taken into account here.

Science: Biological evolution occurred.
Speculation as in the New Scientist article I showed Sam: We believe in God because we have imaginations.

The latter cannot be seen as anything more than speculation.

Why?

Both are "speculation" if you want to get technical, but speculation supported by a scientific model that tries to explain the evidence and can be tested.

You can never prove that we believe in God because of our imaginations just like you can never prove that gravity pulls things down at a certain acceleration

What you can do is build up a compelling scientific model for such things and support that model by showing the model matches phenomena

People are already doing that with the topic of religion, despite this being quite controversal topic (who wants to find out that their wonderful religion that promises so much is actually the product of the human mind)

Ultimately the results will stand or fall based on the quality of the science, but already what scientists have come up with seems quite convincing, though possibly not to the religious themselves for obvious reasons.

liamw

Premise 1: Humans invented God/s
Premise 2: God/s actually exist

Although evidence supporting premise 1, does not disprove premise 2, it is certainly very convincing in lowering the probability of premise 2.

Premise 2 has zero supporting evidence.
Premise 1 has a lot of supporting evidence, such as that shown in the Andy Thomson video (link by Sam above), and shows convincingly that religious beliefs are likely misfirings of evolved traits.

Probability, clearly, stands in favour of the fact that Christianity and other man-made religions are indeed a bunch of nonsense. It seems that Christians, like Jakkass, have such a bias in favour of religion (surely emotional attachments) that they refuse to acknowledge the clear probabilities here.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Probability, clearly, stands in favour of the fact that Christianity and other man-made religions are indeed a bunch of nonsense. It seems that Christians, like Jakkass, have such a bias in favour of religion (surely emotional attachments) that they refuse to acknowledge the clear probabilities here.

I think that you and others have emotional attachments to atheism, but let's leave that aside for now.

Why is it that Christianity is nonsense in your opinion? Whenever we get down to this question, people always duck and dive without dealing with it. Explain why. Just because you have a problem with my view point doesn't mean that yours is advocated any more.

I personally would say that the probability is in favour of Christianity on several grounds.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is it that Christianity is nonsense in your opinion? Whenever we get down to this question, people always duck and dive without dealing with it.

Really? I list a good few reasons why religions appears to be imaginary (and why they are non-sensical ie nonsense), though I'm not sure the charter allows me to do it here.

Out of curiousity do any of your reasons why they aren't include reasons other than "It makes sense to me" type reasoning?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that you and others have emotional attachments to atheism, but let's leave that aside for now.

Why is it that Christianity is nonsense in your opinion? Whenever we get down to this question, people always duck and dive without dealing with it.

Explain why. Just because you have a problem with my view point doesn't mean that yours is advocated any more.

You asked me to justify why I don't believe in your god yesterday, which I did only for you to respond to every part of my post except that part. I think your perception of people ducking the question might be a bit skewed tbh

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? I list a good few reasons why religions appears to be imaginary (and why they are non-sensical ie nonsense), though I'm not sure the charter allows me to do it here.

Out of curiousity do any of your reasons why they aren't include reasons other than "It makes sense to me" type reasoning?

He has lots of reasons beside that, such as physical evidence for the existence of Sodom because apparently proving that the city existed lends credence to the belief that it was destroyed by god and that he finds it hard to believe that the 12 apostles could have been deluded. I pointed out that a million presumably deluded people showed up to a recent birthday party for modern day miracle worker Sathya Sai Baba but he didn't respond to that

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that you and others have emotional attachments to atheism, but let's leave that aside for now.

Lack of belief in a deity does not comfort me in any way. It means nothing to me, so I don't see how I can have an emotional attachment to it. It's like a stamp collector telling someone that he has an emotional attachment to non-stamp collecting.

Why is it that Christianity is nonsense in your opinion? Whenever we get down to this question, people always duck and dive without dealing with it. Explain why. Just because you have a problem with my view point doesn't mean that yours is advocated any more.

I personally would say that the probability is in favour of Christianity on several grounds.

The primary reason I think it's nonsense is because you believe that supernatural events actually occurred and you have zero supporting evidence for them. If you claim that the resurrection happened, that is a scientific claim.

The only 'evidence' i've seen from you about this is the fact that certain places actually existed or that you don't believe so many people could have made it up. So you have probability of a supernatural event vs. probability that it was just a made-up story.

Whenever you try to claim that a supernatural event occured (or in fact a supernatural entity exists), you really need a lot of undeniable and supporting evidence becuase it is a massively important claim. Wishy washy 'evidence' just doesn't cut it whatsoever.

The interesting thing is, you wouldn't accept it either in any other field. You don't believe in Allah or in any other supernatural claims as easily as you accept the Christian ones. If I told you my pen magically started flying around the room by itself and it was a supernatural event, you would want proof. You wouldn't believe me, even if I had the pen in my hand, and rightly so! You just don't apply the same scrutiny and critical thought to your religion. Or perhaps, you do? Can you show me?

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

The primary reason I think it's nonsense is because you believe that supernatural events actually occurred and you have zero supporting evidence for them. If you claim that the resurrection happened, that is a scientific claim.

The only 'evidence' i've seen from you about this is the fact that certain places actually existed or that you don't believe so many people could have made it up. So you have probability of a supernatural event vs. probability that it was just a made-up story.

Whenever you try to claim that a supernatural event occured (or in fact a supernatural entity exists), you really need a lot of undeniable and supporting evidence becuase it is a massively important claim. Wishy washy 'evidence' just doesn't cut it whatsoever.

The interesting thing is, you wouldn't accept it either in any other field. You don't believe in Allah or in any other supernatural claims as easily as you accept the Christian ones. If I told you my pen magically started flying around the room by itself and it was a supernatural event, you would want proof. You wouldn't believe me, even if I had the pen in my hand, and rightly so! You just don't apply the same scrutiny and critical thought to your religion. Or perhaps, you do? Can you show me?

It really is that simple. Religious people try to pin all these irrational ideas on us like we're just trying to be cool or rebel or that we're angry at god or religion or that we want to break god's commandments or don't like authority or whatever but it really is as simple as: I see no reason to treat the unsubstantiated supernatural claims of christianity any differently to how I treat any other supernatural claims. I don't see why someone would need an emotional reason not to single out one particular unsubstantiated claim and declare it to be true and all others to be false

Jakkass, since you argue that we have an emotional attachment to atheism, would you describe your rejection of every other world religion in history as an emotional attachment and if not, what's the difference between your rejection of other religions and my rejection of the same religions?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Lack of belief in a deity does not comfort me in any way. It means nothing to me, so I don't see how I can have an emotional attachment to it. It's like a stamp collector telling someone that he has an emotional attachment to non-stamp collecting.

The existence of authority is a difficult one, and people generally don't want to accept the implications of this, especially divine authority.

liamw wrote: »

The primary reason I think it's nonsense is because you believe that supernatural events actually occurred and you have zero supporting evidence for them. If you claim that the resurrection happened, that is a scientific claim.

The primary reason why I think that a purely natural world is impossible, is due to the fact that the likelihood of our existence being as it is makes winning the lottery every day throughout the entire year look like a near certainty.

I can't get myself to ignore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or the question "What purpose does this existence serve?". This is a major reason why I can't hold to your view.

The Resurrection happening is a supernatural claim. Precisely because we don't hold to the fact that the Resurrection could happen any day of the week naturally. It requires divine involvement.

liamw wrote: »

The only 'proof' i've seen from you about this is the fact that certain places actually existed or that you don't believe so many people could have made it up. So you have probability of a supernatural event vs. probability that it was just a made-up story.

There is no absolute proof either way in this debate. The best we can do is provide what suggests to us that this is true. I believe there is far more to suggest the truth of Christianity rather than that it is a falsehood.

Place names aren't proof. The point of that argument was to back up that the Bible is reliable, even then it wasn't the only thing that I had provided. I had provided archaeology that backs up Biblical claims. Every day of the week this is cropping up in Israel and Jordan. Just before Christmas, we had the refutation to the skeptics claim that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. A settlement was found there dating to the time of Christ. King Zedekiah's cave (featured in the historical books of the Jewish text, and in the prophesy of Jeremiah) was found underneath the city of Jerusalem. As more and more is becoming apparent, and as we have reason to believe that divine involvement in Creation isn't unreasonable in the slightest. These reasons, edge us more to regarding the Bible as truth.

They do not prove that it is truth, but rather they provide evidence to suggest that it is likely to be true. I've never claimed that the Bible has been proven.

I believe the points I provided were as follows, I've added more in here than before actually. I believe I only provided 7 reasons last time.

1) Historical figures in the Bible
2) Biblical archaeology
3) Arguments from Creation
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing)
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes
6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles
9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature

One cannot claim honestly that I do not have reasons for my belief, and that it is merely emotional. Note, I don't deny that emotions are involved, precisely because they are, and they are in every relationship. However, there are emotional considerations involved in atheism, it's not entirely rational by any means.

liamw wrote: »

Whenever you try to claim to a supernatural event occured (or in fact a supernatural entity exists), you really need a lot of undeniable and supporting evidence becuase it is a massively important claim. Wishy washy 'evidence' just doesn't cut it whatsoever.

I believe that these events are certainly possible if God exists. If God doesn't exist, if everything is material, then of course I would reject this. The problem is that I am convinced of God's existence, that's why I will view miracles as being different to how you would view them.

liamw wrote: »

The interesting thing is, you wouldn't accept it either in any other field. You don't believe in Allah or in any other supernatural claims as easily as you accept the Christian ones. If I told you my pen magically started flying around the room by itself and it was a supernatural event, you would want proof. You wouldn't believe me, even if I had the pen in my hand, and rightly so! You just don't apply the same scrutiny and critical thought to your religion. Or perhaps, you do? Can you show me?

I believe in Christianity because Christianity has enough back up for it to be shown to be probable. I looked into Islam to a certain degree as well.

As for the scrutiny I have put into Christianity, I don't think you realised, but as I was looking into the Bible, I was thinking and questioning the whole way along. I had quite a few doubts, that after research became a lot clearer. I think it's presumptuous for you to suggest that I haven't put scrutiny into Christianity. I've put a lot more scrutiny than many atheists have, and I continue to study the Bible. It will be a lifelong activity.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The primary reason why I think that a purely natural world is impossible, is due to the fact that the likelihood of our existence being as it is makes winning the lottery every day throughout the entire year look like a near certainty.

Well let's think about winning the lottery every day for a year, that means winning the lotto 365 times. What do you think would be your chances of winning the lotto 365 times if you played it every day for 4 billion years?

Also that point has nothing to do with christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no absolute proof either way in this debate. The best we can do is provide what suggests to us that this is true. I believe there is far more to suggest the truth of Christianity rather than that it is a falsehood.

Place names aren't proof. The point of that argument was to back up that the Bible is reliable, even then it wasn't the only thing that I had provided.

I pm'ed liamw as soon as I saw his post with the word proof in it to warn him to change it to evidence to avoid exactly this line of conversation. He said it would be an awfully pedantic thing to do but that he'd change it anyway. Unfortunately I was too late


I'll let liamw respond to the rest. I'm sure he's as capable as I am of spotting the problems with it

philologos

It's an important point. Proof is a different thing than evidence. There is evidence for Christianity, but there is no absolute proof. What confirms Christian belief is when one experiences God for themselves. It's an important distinction. Good reason, and a good relationship promote thoughtful Christianity.