Prove that the Bible is from God!

[mingmty]

How is science my religion? BTW, Science and scientific methods have more credibility than your Taoism! Your the one with blind faith.

You are just attacking, I'm an Electronic Engineer and know a lot about science and it's origins, believe me, I use it every day at work and I have faith on it for what rational thought is good for.

For once stop and read my damn post. I just gave you an introduction to science, and you are missusing it.

 

[lamplighter]

mingmty you're forgeting that plenty of agnostics will tell you nobody knows god.And don't get agnostics mixxed up with atheists flying off the handle.

 

[mingmty]

mingmty you're forgeting that plenty of agnostics will tell you nobody knows god.And don't get agnostics mixxed up with atheists flying off the handle.

You are right about that, sorry, got too excited with the discussion for my own good... often happens... Need to stop doing that :S

 

[gnostic]

Hehehe, you made a mistake in your logical and rational "agnostic" argument. If you consider yourself limited to really know God (as agnostics do) then you also can't deny that the book was written by God, you just know too little

If you are so sure that you can prove the bible wasn't written by God then prove God exists, you seem to fit for the job... You can't? too bad... That's the whole point of the agnostics defining themselves as ignorants of God's nature.

Hi mingmty

Sorry, but I think you are misunderstanding "understanding" or "knowledge" with "faith" and "belief".

I don't claim to know or understand about God, but I do know about how literature are written and why.

I loved mythology more so than I like religion. Both are interesting, so I took upon myself to a private research in both. My curiosity on religion doesn't extend beyond good story or bad story. So what I am saying in my last sentence is that I may be curious about the various scriptures, only to understand why it was written, but that doesn't necessarily me that I believe in it, nor that this understanding will lead to faith in the existence of gods.

My agnosticism has remained the same. That is, it is not possible for any of us to actually know of God, of his existence, or of his true nature. Such knowledge is "unknowable".

 

[mingmty]

Hi mingmty

Sorry, but I think you are misunderstanding "understanding" or "knowledge" with "faith" and "belief".

I don't claim to know or understand about God, but I do know about how literature are written and why.

I loved mythology more so than I like religion. Both are interesting, so I took upon myself to a private research in both. My curiosity on religion doesn't extend beyond good story or bad story. So what I am saying in my last sentence is that I may be curious about the various scriptures, only to understand why it was written, but that doesn't necessarily me that I believe in it, nor that this understanding will lead to faith in the existence of gods.

My agnosticism has remained the same. That is, it is not possible for any of us to actually know of God, of his existence, or of his true nature. Such knowledge is "unknowable".

Thanks for the insightful reply, I understand what you are saying, I didn't think carefully the post you are replying to yet your comment is quite interesting.

But I still disagree with you, many scientists and philosophers have said reason beats reason itself. And you are using rational thought in all your arguments. As I said earlier prove me you are not somebody else dream... And since you can't everything is possible, you may have become to existence right now only a fraction of second ago, after all, what are memories? I respect your beliefs, but as a loyal servant of science I found pointless to apply rational thought to religious beliefs as you did, I find agnostics who doesn't deny or claim a thing more wise.

 

[mingmty]

To Genna:

This misconception of science you show is seen everywhere, makes me go crazy, like if we where in 1700.

Here you go, I hate to do research for others, specially when they aren't going to read. But here is it for everybody who is interested:

In the early years of science, the system of acquiring knowledge was viewed as completely objective, rational, and empirical.[6] This traditional view of science held that scientific theories and laws were to be conclusively confirmed or conclusively falsified based on objective data. This was supposed to be done through “the scientific method.” Apparently some sort of method was necessary because humans seemed to have a variety of tendencies and feelings that were not very trustworthy, including biases, feelings, intuitions, and so forth. These kinds of things had to be prevented from infecting science so that knowledge could be reliably obtained.[7] Rigorous and precise procedure (“the scientific method”) was to be followed so that such imperfections of humanity would not hinder the process of discovering nature.

Unfortunately, hypothetico-deductivism also has problems. The philosophy that rigorous proof is necessary for good science has serious problems even if we assume that sense experience, memory, and testimony are all generally reliable.[13] For one thing, we cannot be sure that we have examined all the germane data.[14] There is always the opportunity for future observations to topple even the most established of theories.[15] For example, there is always the possibility that an observation could conflict with any known scientific law. This is what caused Newtonian mechanics to be cut down to size. Rather than being a total account for the nature and dynamics of the universe, Einstein, Heisenberg, and other physicists demonstrated that the realm of Newtonian mechanics is much more restricted than what was once thought. Unrevealed data can also contradict the predictions of any explanatory theory as well. Every theory has an infinite number of expected empirical outcomes, and we are incapable of testing all of those expectations. So even though a theory can be confirmed to some extent by empirical data, it can never be conclusively confirmed.

So it does seem that, if the only way to evaluate theories is in terms of empirical predictions, science is in trouble. In testing theories, scientists use auxiliary assumptions for which they have rational reason for being true, even though the assumptions and theories are not conclusively proven. Yet, given the underdetermination of theories, we can’t just pick a theory and justify it solely by the data. We can’t even justify a particular theory as probable by the empirical evidence since there are an infinite number of other theories that can explain the exact same set of data.

 

[gnostic]

I have studied science, but perhaps not to the extent that you know science, 1st year in mathematics and physics in my computer degree. However, I am also interest in many different fields unrelated to scientific world - history, art and literature.

However, these other fields are mainly private researches, just like mythology and religion.

My actual love is mythology and storytelling, and had done a website called Timeless Myths. I had tried to find as many literature I could on mythology, and since there are so many sources from different authors and different time. Some are detailed and some are sketchy, some are in clear narrative and some are metaphorical or symbolic - I had tried to use my "rationality", as you would call it, to piece all the sources together in a summary, in what I hope to be one article or page that are both informative and in chronological order, and still retain the original myth.

I don't claim to be either Jung or Campbell, but then again, I don't to be an psychoanalyst or anthropologist. I am just trying to make sense in these confusing world, but in my term. And I am mere applying the same technique that I use in science in mythology and even in religion.

What is science anyway? To me, it me it is trying to "understand" the natural world through empirical observation and measurement. I am trying to "understand" religion and mythology in similar fashion, through their literature, hopefully without religion or the supernatural influencing me.

 

[Genna]

This misconception of science you show is seen everywhere, makes me go crazy, like if we where in 1700.

Here you go, I hate to do research for others, specially when they aren't going to read. But here is it for everybody who is interested:

In the early years of science, the system of acquiring knowledge was viewed as completely objective, rational, and empirical.[6] This traditional view of science held that scientific theories and laws were to be conclusively confirmed or conclusively falsified based on objective data. This was supposed to be done through “the scientific method.” Apparently some sort of method was necessary because humans seemed to have a variety of tendencies and feelings that were not very trustworthy, including biases, feelings, intuitions, and so forth. These kinds of things had to be prevented from infecting science so that knowledge could be reliably obtained.[7] Rigorous and precise procedure (“the scientific method”) was to be followed so that such imperfections of humanity would not hinder the process of discovering nature.

Unfortunately, hypothetico-deductivism also has problems. The philosophy that rigorous proof is necessary for good science has serious problems even if we assume that sense experience, memory, and testimony are all generally reliable.[13] For one thing, we cannot be sure that we have examined all the germane data.[14] There is always the opportunity for future observations to topple even the most established of theories.[15] For example, there is always the possibility that an observation could conflict with any known scientific law. This is what caused Newtonian mechanics to be cut down to size. Rather than being a total account for the nature and dynamics of the universe, Einstein, Heisenberg, and other physicists demonstrated that the realm of Newtonian mechanics is much more restricted than what was once thought. Unrevealed data can also contradict the predictions of any explanatory theory as well. Every theory has an infinite number of expected empirical outcomes, and we are incapable of testing all of those expectations. So even though a theory can be confirmed to some extent by empirical data, it can never be conclusively confirmed.

So it does seem that, if the only way to evaluate theories is in terms of empirical predictions, science is in trouble. In testing theories, scientists use auxiliary assumptions for which they have rational reason for being true, even though the assumptions and theories are not conclusively proven. Yet, given the underdetermination of theories, we can’t just pick a theory and justify it solely by the data. We can’t even justify a particular theory as probable by the empirical evidence since there are an infinite number of other theories that can explain the exact same set of data.

ok, ok! can you help me refute this guy gnostic!

 

[mingmty]

To me, it me it is trying to "understand" the natural world through empirical observation and measurement. I am trying to "understand" religion and mythology in similar fashion, through their literature, hopefully without religion or the supernatural influencing me.

But science isn't that, Heisenberg killed the "empirical observation and measurement" belief of science and Einstein kicked the corpse several times. The people most concerned with empirical observation found their error and walked away, remember that Einstein's relativity isn't about the observation but the observer, you are mistaking now days science with long dead 1700's science.

Yet I admire your studies, I love myths and always thought of reading more of them and about them, but haven't found the time.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, ok! can you help me refute this guy gnostic!

Why not refute me, youself, Genna?

Unless you want mingmty to do all the work.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, mingmty. But the science I did in classes, didn't involved in studying the philosophy of empiricism or any other scientific philosophy. And, we didn't studying individual scientists. My scientist teachers only make brief introduction to scientist of how or why a theory or unit was named after him, and then we jump headlong into the theories, equations and calculations. I love doing the actual pracs, but I didn't like report writing it inevitably involved, even though I got good marks for my physics reports.

Even though I didn't make science into a career, I am all for the progress of science....well, within reason. Science has its ups and downs, and some become outdated, but that's what make the history of science so interesting. We can look back, and say that though there has been a few stumbles along the way, at least they are moving forward.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Depends on which part of you're referring to. The Jews wrote the bulk of it, I assume? The gospels are attributed to the men they're named for.

Some reading won't hurt you.

From wiki

For Jews, the Torah was traditionally accepted as the literal word of God as told to Moses. For many, it is neither exactly history, nor theology, nor legal and ritual guide, but something beyond all three. It is the primary guide to the relationship between God and man, and the whole meaning and purpose of that relationship, a living document that unfolds over generations and millennia.

From wiki

The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels.
Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person?

 

[mingmty]

Sorry, mingmty. But the science I did in classes, didn't involved in studying the philosophy of empiricism or any other scientific philosophy. And, we didn't studying individual scientists. My scientist teachers only make brief introduction to scientist of how or why a theory or unit was named after him, and then we jump headlong into the theories, equations and calculations. I love doing the actual pracs, but I didn't like report writing it inevitably involved, even though I got good marks for my physics reports.

Is not only theory, in now days science one can freely play and experiment, is not longer seen wrong to challenge a "law" as it would when science was positivist. But with great power comes great responsibility, scientists can no longer claim to have found the truth, the one and only theory, the nature of mechanics (or thermodynamics, chose whatever you want). That's why your comments aren't scientific, a scientist now days must ALWAYS leave space for his OWN FAILURE, that's today's approach to the scientific method.

My best physics teacher once told us "you are not a scientist until you are ready to challenge everything you think you know".

If you think the history and current status of science doesn't have anything to do whit "theories, equations and calculations" you surely haven't learn a thing about relativity or any other modern scientific theory (and its equations and calculations). I'm sorry to tell you this but classic mechanics, which is what you surely learned, date back to 1700 and is still used only because is easy to calculate. You want the real cutting edge science? What is moving the world now days? The closest we are from the scientific truth? You aren't going to find certainty in this theories my friend, you are using centuries old beliefs that have been proven wrong by those specialized in them (and who dedicated their life to their advancement).

As I said most people misunderstand what science really is, even those that learn it's basics.

 

[gnostic]

As I said to you earlier, I'm not really a scientist, even though I got a bachelor in applied science; my main field is in computer science, not a full-blown science/physics field. The first year student only 1 year of physics, and two of mathematics. Most of what I study in physics was electricals, electronics, magnetism and sound waves, not on quantum mechanics; this would have been overkill for computer students. We didn't touch on quantum mechanics at all; and as to mechanics and thermodynamics, we barely touch on these two, because they were really relevant for us, not unless I was going to do civil or mechanical engineering.

The science was tailored for those in the fields of computer. I didn't even touch chemistry (except in high school).

 

[verita]

There are many religions and many faiths all contending and claiming to be messages from God, and yet their gods vary vastly. How can one prove that the bible is from God? Anyone can write words and make the declaration that God had written it, where is the proof?

The Bible is compilation of the books written by the Prophet, Apostles and Evangelist. Before our Lord Jesus Christ came into flesh God dictates his words to the prophets and they wrote it. When Jesus started preaching, the Apostles wrote down the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now the OP is, Prove that the Bible is from God!

Job will not know that the earth is hanging in space without a Supreme Being telling him.
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.

Isaiah won’t even know that the earth is a circle if God did not tell him that.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Pardon me if my grammar is wrong. I should have not escape my English Class when I was at school. Too late to realise the importance of English:banghead3.

God bless you.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

****MOD POST****​

Several posts on this thread have been deleted for being off topic or in violation of the rules.​

If you intend to post, I HIGHLY recommend clicking here for a refresher course on the Forum Rules. Got a question, PM me, and keep it OFF the thread. I thank everyone ahead of time for their cooperation.​

Here is the OP, so feel free to debate within the rules.

There are many religions and many faiths all contending and claiming to be messages from God, and yet their gods vary vastly. How can one prove that the bible is from God? Anyone can write words and make the declaration that God had written it, where is the proof?

 

[sojourner]

Where is the proof that I love my wife? Because I married her? (People can marry for money, steady sex, etc.) Because I buy her flowers? (Perhaps I just want to ingratiate myself to her.) Because I kiss her? (Maybe I'm horny.) Where's the proof?

As I said in another thread, proof isn't what we're after here. It's evidence we're after. Evidence is what is required -- not proof. Proof is a scientific process. Evidence is more a philosophic endeavor.

I think, also, that many people do not claim that the Bible was written by God. The claim is that humans wrote the Bible through divine inspiration. The Bible is not proof of God, but it is revelatory -- hence, evidenciary.

 

[Fluffy]

Proof is a scientific process. Evidence is more a philosophic endeavor.

That looks totally backwards. Science is built upon induction and so cannot possibly provide proof for anything other than likelihoods. It is about analysing and interpreting evidence. Philosophy is the realm of deductive proofs.

I think, also, that many people do not claim that the Bible was written by God. The claim is that humans wrote the Bible through divine inspiration. The Bible is not proof of God, but it is revelatory -- hence, evidenciary.

It is not relevant evidence. When people ask for evidence they are asking for relevant evidence. Towards that end, the evidence that is put forward must be shown to be relevant. In this case, the evidence is not relevant because it is justified in a circular manner.

 

[doppelganger]

It is not relevant evidence. When people ask for evidence they are asking for relevant evidence. Towards that end, the evidence that is put forward must be shown to be relevant. In this case, the evidence is not relevant because it is justified in a circular manner.

In addition to being relevant, evidence should also be capable of authentication, be traceable to someone's personal knowledge, and generally bear indicia of reliability.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that hearsay in a book by an unknown author, whose purposes in writing and basis in personal knowledge for the things written is likewise unknown, isn't compelling evidence of anything.

the doppleganger

 

[sojourner]

That looks totally backwards. Science is built upon induction and so cannot possibly provide proof for anything other than likelihoods. It is about analysing and interpreting evidence. Philosophy is the realm of deductive proofs.



It is not relevant evidence. When people ask for evidence they are asking for relevant evidence. Towards that end, the evidence that is put forward must be shown to be relevant. In this case, the evidence is not relevant because it is justified in a circular manner.

Absolutely wrong. Evidence is presented to the court for its consideration. If the evidence is found worthy, it becomes proof. (One must be proved guilty from the evidence presented.) An observance is made and evidence presented from which a hypothesis is formed. That hypothesis must be proved in order to become a theory.

What do you mean "relevant?" Relevant to what? I find plenty of evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. Can I prove it? No...but then, I don't have to. To ask for proof in matters of faith is to ask the wrong question. To ask for proof in matters of science, is good science. Faith requires evidence, but not proof. When proof is applied, we have science, not faith.