god

I am not saying god doesnt exist, nor am i saying he does

 

I think this is a very apt quote, but the catch is who bears the burden of proof. If a scientist was trying to prove god doesn't exist he would bear the burden of proof, and your quote would matter then. The problem is most scientists aren't trying to prove god doesn't exist, they don't need to because it would have to be proved god does exist before someone could try and prove he doesn't. What this boils down to is the burden of proof is on the believer, where the argument breaks down though is what qualifies as proof.

The Bible (something that is commonly held up as evidence) has several problems that need to be resolved before it can prove anything. The first thing that needs to be decided on is whether or not it should be taken literally or symbolicly. If it is taken literally then has no strength as evidence because several things that "happen" in the Bible can be scientificly proven wrong in a multitude fo ways. If the Bible is suppose to be taken symbolicly then it still lacks any strength because what it means then is open to interpretation and can't be proven one or another. Finally, if the Bible is assumed to be a conglamerate of both then is suffers the problems of both with addition of what is considered literal and symbolic are open to interetation as well. No matter what way it is spun the Bible has no evidenciary strength on its own. The only way the Bible could have evidenciary strength would be if it taken as literal and it can be proven that all modern science about our planet is wrong (which would be one hell of a hurdle to overcome).

Without the Bible as support any real debate about the existence of god becomes progressively worse becuase without the Bible most arguements lack a solid foundation to build from. Try building without using the Bible in anyway and then you have a good starting place for trying to prove the existence of god.

 

actually, if you discard the bible, some of the better arguements still work

energy cant come out of nowhere, so where did the energy in the universe come from?

 

Seriously, the only probable theory is that god let out a massive fart which ignited the universe and created the stars.

 

The Bible explains itself plain and simple. You read the Bible and it will explain what it means.

 

@GM_K hey, if you got a better one

@bralbers, i did and not really self-exploratoranystufflike(god i need to learn english again)

 

There's plenty of spots where it explains itself. Like for instance Peter's dream of a blanket lowered form heaven with every unclean animal in the world. Later it explains that that dream was God telling Peter to not to just preach to the jews but to everyone because we are all equal. I will admit that there are two spots that I know for sure are very symbolic and that's when it come to the books of Daniel and Revelation. Revelation especially is full of symbolism.

 

Bradlers the bueaty of the point I made earlier is that the content of the Bible doesn't matter unless it is completely literal, which if that is true then the Bible obviously false because of how easy it is prove some of the things in their false. Don't just tell someone to read the Bible and use that as an argument. The Bible is an invalid source unless certain assumptions are made about it, and if you make those assumptions you prove the Bible is an invalid source because of about 500 years of science that goes against it. You bear the burden of proof, if you are not willing to bear the burnde then stop arguing.

ijffdrie you bring up probably the best argument in favor of a higher power and that is the origin of the universe. The simple answer is we don't know and no one has the ability to prove anything one way or another on the subject. Honestly though it doesn't matter because whether or not a super natural being started our universe has no bearing on whether or not one is watching over our little world.

 

Can you tell me, what kind of symbolism is 'Earth is flat', so that some of history's most progressive and brightest minds were burned at the stake because they, using actual science, proved this wrong? Or are you going to say there is no evidence of this either?

 

Alright LK tell me what science has proven wrong thats in the Bible.

 

You bear the burden of proof. Tell me something that is in the Bible that you believe supports the existence of a god that can be interpreted literally.

 

I added that last line to my quote but I already talked about the existence of God. You said that you have proof that the Bible is false.

So I ask you once again what evidence do you have that the makes the Bible invalid? What was disproved? Who disproved it?

 

There are many things corroborating the existence of George Washington (the fact that the U.S. exist as an independent country is one of them). This however really isn't a part of this debate though.

I don't have to prove the Bible is false, because nothing (I am aware of) that is in it has been proven to be true. Either you are intentionally trying to force me to prove a negative (which is nearly impossible), or you don't understand burden of proof. If you are doing the former then this debate is over because you are not willing to try and prove your point of view. If it's the latter the let me try and explain it. In a debate where something is trying to be proved, the burden of proof falls on the person trying to prove the thing to be true. Things are assumed to be null until proven to be something. In this case god is assumed to not exist until someone provides some evidence to the contrary. Therefore the burden of proof rests on whomever is trying to prove god exists (which is you). So far you have only held up the Bible of evidence, I, however, have stated the Bible is invalid as evidence and provided reasons to that effect. If you want to prove the Bible is valid evidence you have disprove my reasoning as to why the Bible is invalid.

I have previously stated that if the Bible is symbolic it can't be evidence because it would be to open to interpretation. I have also, said the Bible could be valid evidence (what you want) if it is literal and it can be shown that is actually what happened.

What you have to do now is either forfeit the Bible as evidence in your attempt to prove god exists, show why the Bible being symbolic isn't to open to interpretation, or show some part of the Bible is literal and how connects to the existence of a god.

This is how the scientific process works by the way. You start off with something you want to prove to be true, then you provide evidence that can be agreed on by everyone involved. If you can't you need to find more evidence to support your original evidence, and this goes on until all of the evidence (for or aginst provided by both parties) can be agreed upon and then some kind of conclusion is made.

My role in this exchange is to either provide evidence against your initial claim (that god exists), which in the case would be nearly impossible because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. Or provide reasons and evidence that show your evidence is bad (something that is very easy in most debates about religion).

 

Alright LK I see where you are coming from. I shall present to you some facts and then you may tell me what you think.. First of I used the example of George Washington because yes America is free but was he really there? We have people's words but maybe they made it up. Maybe George Washington never existed except in some stories people told that has just been passed down through generations. As for the Bible, yes I did say that it is a God source for proving God exists. So long as someone, like yourself, is willing to talk about the Bible rather then just shove it aside. The Bible has literal and symbolic areas in it. The symbolic areas all have explanations about what they may. Like with Peter's vision of the blanket full of unclean animals. It was talking about how we should fellowship with all people. Also there are parables in the Bible, those are symbolic as well and they always explained somewhere in the Bible. As for saying literal. Well Joshua literally conquered areas. Peter really did exists, heck we found his house. We found tablets with Pilates name on it. A couple years ago a group of people were ecstatic to have discovered Noah's ark. Also just to say why I want you to speak first and all. How this thread was started was form someone saying that it's false and I said your wrong. So I felt that means that people on this thread should say why they think it's false and I refute them. Rather then it being the other way around. But you don't like it that way so oh well.

 

Im not a religious person but im a firm believer that anything is possible because this existence we live in is just too complex to put anything to rest.

 

Cool we are on the same page now. From here on out lets just assume George Washington was a real person, I am pretty you believe he was real, and I know do so there is no dissagreement there. Also, from here on out can we assume I know nothing that is in the Bible (I know fragments, but not intimately considering I have grown up pretty much seperate of all religion). The advantage of this (other than helping me) is it means you can re-use where you se fit with almost anyone.

First question, how can you be sure what areas of the Bible are symbolic and what are literal? I ask because if can't then everything has to be assumed to be symbolic and that suffers the problem of interpretation (assuming it isn't explicity explained later in the Bible).

Next assuming we did find Noah's Ark (I say assuming until I am sure we did, or I have proof we didn't), how does that prove there is god, or better how does that prove the flood happened exactly as it was described in the Bible?

I only ask about Noah's Ark because that is one of the few things I feel pretty solid on as far as the story goes. Can you give a synthesis of what the Bible says about Joshua and Peter as well as the sources that corroborate those stories.

As far as this goes my response to the OP would simply be god doesn't exist until someone proves otherwise. Trying to prove a negative is an effort in futility, and almost always creates arguments on top of generally being a pointless endeavor because the thing in disscussion was never proven in the first place.

 

God may possibly my not be real but the message of the book is still there but so is every other message ranging from Macbeth to hp Lovecraft.

 

Well we can know parables are symbolica because they were just stories made up to teach a lesson. We know Peter's vision is symbolic because of the explanation taht was given. We know the Revelation is symbolic because I don't think it litterally means that giant grasshoppers with guns are going to attack. Daniel talks about his visions so we knwo his visions had symbolism. The Bible also talks about actual journeys that people made. While the symbolism areas don't mention actual names and places. When the Bible switches to literal it also names people, places and events.

As for the findings of Noah's Ark. I say a documentary about it 3 or 4 years ago. I even jsut typed discovery of Noah's Ark on google and got loads of articles form normal peopel to news angencies talking about the findings. The giant remains of a boat was discovere right where the Bible said the Ark had rested.

Joshua is the man in the old testament that after the Jews left Egypt, thanks to Moses, He led them into conquering Canaan. The Bible lays otu exactly where the land of Canaan is. Plus if you want proof go to the Hebrews history books. Sure Isreal believes in God but we don't question what other countries says about their past. Also just to add that the Bible does lay out land marks to marks out where battles and cities took place. Remains have been found of cities in these areas.

Peter was a disciple of Christ, whom Bishops can be quoted saying that only the Catholic is the tue Church because they came from Peter. I don't believe that but that's a whole other argument. Like I said before somewhere, I'm typing this on Notepad so I'm not looking at the Forum, we know he exists because we found the location in the Bible where Peter lived. Plus tablets have been found with Pilates name who is mentioned a lot in the Bible as well.

Also as for trying to prove that God exists. The Bible can be a source but if you don't accept the Bible then what kind of proof do you want? Rather then trying to shove things at you I should jsut ask. What kind of proof o you want?

I hope this all makes since, I've been up since 6:30 because of Mother's Day so my ability to make sentences that flows good has kind of fallen apart I think.

 

Theories of atoms aren't evidence of subatomic particles, and you completely missed the point, our knowledge is far from absolute and just because we do not have evidence of something now doesn't mean it cannot exist, we may even find evidence in time...

Can you tell me, where the bible states that earth is flat? And says that anyone thinking otherwise should be burned to death?


About the bible literal/symbolism argument, the bible is a collection of books, with different authors, each book should be individually cross-referenced, checked etc to see if it has literal grounds not conflicting with many other accounts.

 

@bradlers I am simply looking to see if you can provide a chain of evidence that shows god exists. Assuming we found the ruins of Noah's Ark and Peter's House, as well as the land conquered by Joshua, how does that prove there is a god versus just proving there were 3 people named Noah, Peter, Joshua; one who built a boat another a house, and another an empire? My current theory is that the Bible talks about some things that really happened, as well as a god, but the things that really happened have nothing to do with a god, and the things that have to do with a god never really happened.