Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
For example for most scientific theories, generally when theories are created there is a hypothesis and a null hypothesis if you cannot show a significant probability that the hypothesis is true then you must accept the null hypothesis. So as the onus of proof is placed on the person wishing to prove that something exists (as proving something doesn't exist is impossible) the hypothesis must be that God exists and the null hypothesis must be that God does not exist. Therefore by the basic principles of science if you can't prove (at least to a certain extent) that God exists then you must accept your null hypothesis which is that God does not exist. Unless you can suspend your belief in science I don't understand how you can believe in God.
|
The thing is, I don't need God's existence to be empirically proved to me to believe. I see evidence, data if you prefer, that leads me to believe in God's existence. The Big Bang, the design I see in nature, history, etc. lead me to believe that God exists. So, I while there is not proof, there is evidence to the affirmative, so at worst I would say it is inconclusive.
Under the scientific method here, I would challenge you to prove to me macro-evolution. The fact is, we see evidence of it in the fossil record (just has I see evidence of God in history, nature, cosmology, etc), but we are not able to directly observe the evolution of one species into another. So, under your reasoning, macro-evolution doesn't jive with science either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laura
I called them stories, since they were passed down as such by word of mouth BEFORE the bible was written. They will have been twisted through tellings, before they were in the bible so dates might historically be accurate, but "I" don't believe events were.
Science, fair enough, a lot of it has not been proven and still remains theories but a lot of it has been proven. DNA for instance, cells etc. Based on these facts we can try and trace back what happened.
Also, quoting a blank wikipedia page doesn't prove your point..
|
My bad, the last parenthese didn't get incorporated into the link. It's fixed now. I realize wikipedia is not an academic source, the information can be found elsewhere as well, it was just the easiest link.
You are painting far to wide of a swash with your comment on the Bible, there. The Bible was not "written," it was assembled from the writings of a good number of authors. Under the Mosaic Authorship approach, the 5 books of the Pentateuch are believed to have been written by Moses. Now, Genesis would fall under your "stories," as Moses would either have to A) Relay the stories he was told by humans or B) Relay the inpiration of God in is writing. Since I can't prove inspiration empirically, I will give you the Book of Genesis on that one. However Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy are all believed to have been written by Moses, and the events would have occured during his lifetime. The same goes for a great number of the prophetic books, as they are believed to be authored by the person that they are named after.
In the New Testament, the gospels are first hand accounts (with the exception of Luke, who assembled his writings from the writing of others as any good 1st century historian would) from men who walked with Jesus. The majority of the rest of the book (Acts and Revelation being the exceptions) are letters to churches written by Paul.
So, not, the great majority of the Bible is NOT stories relayed onto paper that have been told some time. The vast majority of the text is assembled from manuscripts from the person who experienced the event first hand.