Quote:
Simon Moon wrote
I am absolutely NOT narrow minded.
I am willing to believe anything for which demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic is presented.
And that is the most important aspect.
Where it the evidence EXTERNAL to the Bible which confirms any of the god and miracle claims in the Bible?
This is sort of true.
An invalid and unsound syllogism can have a true conclusion, but the conclusion was not derived from the flawed syllogism. It might be a lucky guess, or it might be known from other source.
If all one has is a flawed syllogism for their conclusion, there is no way to know if it is actually true.
One can't use flawed reasoning and guarantee they will reach a true conclusion. The conclusion is correct, despite the flawed logic.
Here is an example of a unsound syllogism with a true conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, yet it is still true.
(1) All humans are dogs. False
(2) Lassie is a human. False
(3) Lassie is a dog. True
Not sure I quite understand this...
But, even if a miracle in the Bible can be proven to be true, it does not follow logically, that the god claims must also be true. You are making an unsupported assertion that the only way to have miracles, is if a god exists. How did you eliminate the possibility of a person that is not a god, having magical powers?
Logic is a tool used to tell if a conclusion is supported by the arguments. If one's logic is flawed, there is no way to tell if the conclusion is true.
Again, Muslims use circular logic, exactly the same way you are advocating here, and they reach a completely different conclusion (the truth of the Koan) than you do.
How am I, a person outside of BOTH religions, if all I am given is flawed logic, able to tell which one of you is correct?
Sure, there is no question that the Bible does contain SOME true historical accounts. So what? The Bible also contains a lot of historically inaccurate events, and events known not have happened. I can list them if you want...
How do some historical accurate accounts in the Bible give any credence to the supernatural god and miracle claims?
Homer's Iliad and Odyssey also mention real cities, people that actually existed, accounts of actual wars and battles, etc. Does that mean the god claims also contained in those texts are also true?
And by the way, do you know how the historically accurate accounts in the Bible were confirmed to be accurate?
By comparing them to other accounts external to the Bible. Historians do not believe any historical events are true just because they are in the Bible, they need to confirm them independently.
|
A few points.
First off, the historic truth of stories or accounts in the bible are mostly validated, not by external sources, but rather by differing authors within the Bible.
As I keep telling everyone here, it is not that important to find an External source to the Bible to validate the truth of the Bible. The Bible is 66 books, most written by differing authors, the differing books can authenticate other books passages.
You mention how can supernatural appearing claims be validated. Obviously a scholar would have to look at any such claim with extreme skeptism. But as I have written the main "supernatural" claim in the bible which serves as the basis to the Christian faith is validated by mainstream historic scholarship in that there is general agreement that
a) Jesus existed
b) Jesus died on the cross under Pontious Pilate
c) Followers genuinely believed to see Jesus post mortum.
You can try to deny a, b and/ or c, but each assertion unto themselves holds intellectual water. To deny the resurrection narrative (truth of resurrection) one has to ignore historic scholarship type skeptical analysis of the records.
I'm glad you saw the merit of my argument that just because the concept regarding the divinity of the Words of the Bible is circular - that bares no weight - one cannot tell - if the conclusion is true or untrue. For this reason it really shouldn't be mentioned in Atheistic rhetoric - no value.