What I said was I think the Bible came about because of an event or events that did occur.
I know. You're being incredibly vague, and I'm trying to ask you to be specific. As soon as you mention a specific example, we can weigh it/judge it on its individual merits. I think that if you were to try to be specific, it would be revealing to you, and to others.
tinyevil777 said:
That's interesting, how can you actually 100% prove that it didn't happen? You can say its unrealistic, but to say it "could have never happened" is incorrect. You weren't alive thousands of years ago, you have no way of proving what was fact or fiction.
But if you use that logic, how can you ever 100% prove anything? If the burden of proof is 100%, then we as a people don't actually "know" anything.
Plus, that brings in the "I am god" problem. Example: I am god. Prove me wrong. You can't prove me wrong, not 100%. But do you actually believe it for one iota of a second? Of course not. So, you obviously have some burden less than 100%.
Mike375 said:
I think it is reasonable to say that Noah's Ark did not happen as in the image created by the Bible. However, a large flood could have occurred which gave rise to the story in the Bible.
I'm sure it did. Have you ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? There is speculation that the bible plagarized the flood from the epic.
If it was lifted from the epic, then it obviously was not divinely-inspired. And if one part of the bible can be proven to not be divinely-inspired, then that casts a shadow on the entirety of the bible. For many people that is already the case. I'd hazard to bet that very few people, even religious people, believe that everything that is supposed to have had happened in the bible really happened.
Mike375 said:
Adam, do you 100% believe that the Bible is a set of stories that is based on total fiction. As a side note have you spent time with a very educated "born again" and tried to shoot the Bible down?
I think the bible is composed of stories written by men of its age.
I don't think she is a "born again", but I have had several conversations with a Sunday school teacher. I told her I had purchased a copy of the bible to study, in the academic sense, and if she would mind if I asked her questions. She said she'd be glad to answer any questions I had.
We had several conversations after that. One in particular that sticks in my mind was the age of Adam and Eve, how long they happened to have lived. I asked her how it was possible that they lived that long, and she said it was because they were pure human beings.
Her thoughts were that the blood of humans has been degraded, which is why we get sicker sooner, die sooner, and probably a host of other things as well. So then I asked her how that could possibly be if we're all descended from Adam and Eve. If they were the only 2 people in existence, and they were pure, how did impurities enter the blood? She said she didn't know.
Mike375 said:
But you are not factoring a miracle into the equation.
As soon as you open the door to the possibilities of miracle, as you are using the term, you would have to change your entire world outlook.
If a person is given a prognosis of 6 months to live, and they end up living for 3 years, that's a miracle. If someone falls from a plane, their parachute doesn't open, and they survive, that's a miracle.
If the entire world floods, but a small group of people were able to round up 2 of every species of creature in the world, fit them on a seaworthy vessel made in that age, keep them from eating one another, then the waters receeded (where do the waters go again?), and all those beings survive... You get the idea.
Mike375 said:
Then Glaxiom and the crew are finished. But he has "faith" that is not the case. He is working on the basis that whatever happens here with atoms or whatever will provide the answers.
Faith is a word that means different things to different people. Scientists say "I can prove x, y and z". This is based on facts. But any old person can come along and say "That's wrong, god says q". There has to be some type of objective way of measuring which of these situations is more accurate.
Therefore, scientists go through a very detailed process to prove, by the scientific method, what it is that they assert. Is it infalliable? Of course not, but it is more reliable, and more likely to be accurate than what Joe Schmo on the street says.
Therefore, the term "faith" has a connotation with belief in something without any facts or evidence to suggest it. Galaxiom seems to have the facts or evidence that suggests to him his standpoint. Therefore, it is not "faith"-based, as you're trying to suggest.
The reason that religious people try to muddy the waters in this way is to try to make the statement that biblical claims (or other religious/non-scientific ideas) are just as valid as scientific claims.
But even you, Mike, don't agree with that. Earlier in the thread I asked if you would rather have a trained doctor treat you or someone who had faith that they could treat you, and you said the doctor. So I'd say it is safe to assume you value science higher than non-scientific claims when it is important.
) that the laws of physics could have been different before the universe existed. However, the story of Noah takes place well into the current physical realm, even if you accept the whole 'Earth is only thousands of years old' idea. At that point, the laws were the same as now, were they not? Yet God can just 'magic' up stuff on a whim that contravenes these laws.
