Butterfly Christie
Agnostic Atheist
I mean, from what I've seen the Bible is just hearsay from thousands of years ago. That is not evidence at all. The problem with hearsay is its not verifiable to any outside parties. If someone were to accept hearsay from thousands of years ago they might as well accept the Pagan or the Hindu Gods. Modern personal experiences are the same. There are all sorts of people going around saying they were abducted by aliens, or saw bigfoot. People who even say they saw God and its Allah instead. There is no way to verify their experience so its not evidence.
Anecdotes as evidence:
Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On top of that, the gospels appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century. (i.e. 100–150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180. (E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.)
No one knows who these original authors were. They could have been anybody. Including con-artists, scammers, etc. If you saw any other book written around 2000 years ago, and no one knew the authors and it said the author had a flying pet camel, would you believe it? People can say anything, about anything in books.
There are also prophecy claims. It is very easy to make a prophecy fulfilled. Its trying to match up words with the countless events in history. Some people can also make a prophecy vague, or say words in a way that are open to interpretation. Someone can also say something they thought was probably going to happen. They can get away with it that way. On top of that, coincidences happen. There wouldn't be a way to tell if the prophecy fulfilling event was not just a very lucky coincidence. Another way is if the person knew the prophecy beforehand and intentionally made it happen. Since the bible is one of the most widely known books, people are able to do that. Which makes its prophecies not credible.
I know there are places and things like that which were real, but where is the evidence for the supernatural claims? If someone found a Spider Man comic 2000 years from now and the Spider Man Comic mentioned New York would that make it true?
I don't see how a god, who would have been the genius who created the intricate laws of physics, who divised the mathematics of the universe, who made every complex design in the human body, who would be the beginning and end and so knows the future, could only come up with a book full of hearsay from thousands of years ago as evidence. That is one of the worst ways to prove to someone something.
Historians will tell you that they do not work with proof, they only work with probability because once something is in the past it is gone. The event in question is over with. So there is no way to verify that it truly happened. The more far we go in the past, the more difficult it is to see what really happened. Now there are certain things they do to see what probably happened. These probabilities are limited by the human mind; what we already know, something could have happened that we don't know about, or just something that we didn't think of, or something that was improbable happened but we dismissed it because it was improbable. They can see if anecdotes match up with any other form of evidence they have, but pure hearsay is just not considered evidence at all.
For anyone that says "Just have faith, it's not supposed to be evidence" I made a thread explaining that as well and you can reply there:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/113065-blind-faith.html#post2402165
Anecdotes as evidence:
Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On top of that, the gospels appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century. (i.e. 100–150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180. (E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.)
No one knows who these original authors were. They could have been anybody. Including con-artists, scammers, etc. If you saw any other book written around 2000 years ago, and no one knew the authors and it said the author had a flying pet camel, would you believe it? People can say anything, about anything in books.
There are also prophecy claims. It is very easy to make a prophecy fulfilled. Its trying to match up words with the countless events in history. Some people can also make a prophecy vague, or say words in a way that are open to interpretation. Someone can also say something they thought was probably going to happen. They can get away with it that way. On top of that, coincidences happen. There wouldn't be a way to tell if the prophecy fulfilling event was not just a very lucky coincidence. Another way is if the person knew the prophecy beforehand and intentionally made it happen. Since the bible is one of the most widely known books, people are able to do that. Which makes its prophecies not credible.
I know there are places and things like that which were real, but where is the evidence for the supernatural claims? If someone found a Spider Man comic 2000 years from now and the Spider Man Comic mentioned New York would that make it true?
I don't see how a god, who would have been the genius who created the intricate laws of physics, who divised the mathematics of the universe, who made every complex design in the human body, who would be the beginning and end and so knows the future, could only come up with a book full of hearsay from thousands of years ago as evidence. That is one of the worst ways to prove to someone something.
Historians will tell you that they do not work with proof, they only work with probability because once something is in the past it is gone. The event in question is over with. So there is no way to verify that it truly happened. The more far we go in the past, the more difficult it is to see what really happened. Now there are certain things they do to see what probably happened. These probabilities are limited by the human mind; what we already know, something could have happened that we don't know about, or just something that we didn't think of, or something that was improbable happened but we dismissed it because it was improbable. They can see if anecdotes match up with any other form of evidence they have, but pure hearsay is just not considered evidence at all.
For anyone that says "Just have faith, it's not supposed to be evidence" I made a thread explaining that as well and you can reply there:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/113065-blind-faith.html#post2402165
Last edited: