Why believe the bible?

by digderidoo 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  PS: should the default position be to accept a miracle which is not described outside the bible, or to put them as the same level of truth as a miracle described in eg. the Quaraan?

  This isn't the WT Bro, you are free to do whatever you like.

  Many people have preconcevied notions already, so they read and accept the infor that fits into THOSE notions and disregard counter-view points and arguments, they also tend to forget that it is all opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

  Lets take the ressurection, do you believe it happend? if Yes, why? if NO, why? and what research have you done to based EITHER view on?
• 

  designs

  PS- no offense taken, its a philosophical street brawl and we're having fun

  Try doing this at a Watchtower Study.....
• 

  bohm

  PS:

  you did not answer my question.. i think its more fruitfull to first try to arrive at a concensus of what the default position should be on the subject, rather than tackle the subject directly as your question does. i mean, its a bit like asking: "are you a christian or not". its a much more involved discussion.

  so to answer your question: No. i base than on the fact that men are not known to fly into heaven, and i have not seen persuasive evidence that the testimony in the bible should be treated as more truthfully than other religious texts.

  how would you answer my question?
• 

  PSacramento

  Try doing this at a Watchtower Study.....

  I have, strangely I didn't get a call back...

  you did not answer my question.. i think its more fruitfull to first try to arrive at a concensus of what the default position should be on the subject, rather than tackle the subject directly as your question does. i mean, its a bit like asking: "are you a christian or not". its a much more involved discussion.

  so to answer your question: No. i base than on the fact that men are not known to fly into heaven, and i have not seen persuasive evidence that the testimony in the bible should be treated as more truthfully than other religious texts.

  So you base it o ne YOUR experience?

  how would you answer my question?

  DO I beleive in miracles?

  If by miracles you mean acts of the supernatural then yes, I do.

  DO I have evidence of it? Yes, the "big bang" for example - if soemthing out of nothing isn't supernatural then what is?

  Do I have PROOF of them? No, not that I can think of.
• 

  bohm

  PS:

  all knowledge of the natural world is derived from our experience of it -- i fail to see your point? It is a shared experience that men are not known to fly. and i strongly believe we both take the default position that any claim of a flying man, if it is like jesus who just fly up, or as with muhammed who fly on a horse, must per default be treated as something which are very unlikely.

  THEN we can introduce additional evidence. THEN we can derive our conclusions.

  My question was not if you believed in miracles, it was this: should the default position be to accept a miracle which is not described outside the bible, or to put them as the same level of truth as a miracle described in eg. the Quaraan?
• 

  PSacramento

  should the default position be to accept a miracle which is not described outside the bible, or to put them as the same level of truth as a miracle described in eg. the Quaraan?

  I am not sure I understand your question...sorry...

  Are you saying that be default we should ONLY accept a miracle of it was written in the bible and no other "holy text"?
• 

  bohm

  PS:

  No. i mean miracles are described in allmost all religious texts in all cultures and in all times... there are thousands of thousands of miracles. If we just take the flying man, i believe i could find the first 100 examples of "flying men-miracles"! I even know of a religious groups which believe it can train its members to fly.

  So we got this huge set of miracle involving flying men. If i pick any of it, and ask you: "Do you think this flying man-miracle occured", you have some default position on that. My default position is no, it most likely did not occur, and i believe we share that.

  After this we get to step 2, where we can discuss the evidence in favor of the miracle.. who are the witnesses, how is it described, etc. etc. and based on the additional evidence we can derive some conclusion -- but at first we need to arrive at some default position on miracles before we can combine that with the additional evidence and derive a conclusion. You see what i am getting at?

  So its a fairly basic question, and perhaps i should ask it in two parts: Should we per default treat a miracle as very unlikely to have occured? (before additional evidence is introduced, see the discussion of flying-men events) and: should we per default treat a miracle in the bible in an equivalent way (in terms of burden of evidence, etc.) as a miracle described in another religious text, eg. the quaraan?
• 

  PSacramento

  So its a fairly basic question, and perhaps i should ask it in two parts: Should we per default treat a miracle as very unlikely to have occured? (before additional evidence is introduced, see the discussion of flying-men events) and:

  should we per default treat a miracle in the bible in an equivalent way (in terms of burden of evidence, etc.) as a miracle described in another religious text, eg. the quaraan?

  Ah, I understand.

  And I would reply that YES, as a default one should treat the mention of ANY miracle as unlikely.
• 

  bohm

  PS: Then, logically, one should per default be critical of the bible (since it describe a number of miracles) just as one should be critical of the quaraan.

  --which bring us to step 2, additional evidence, logical consistency, etc.--

  • both the bible and quaraan are on certain points contradicted by science
  • neither book contain any scientific/historical insight which one require a supernatural agent to explain.
  • neither book predict anything significant which later turned out to be true in a way that can be objectively checked
  • both books have a huge following of believers which believe the book has changed their life in a positive way.
  • etc.

  so, well, there is a burden of evidence to be lifted, and i find it hard to understand which standard of evidence one should use which will make the bible inspired while at the same time exclude the quaraan from being inspired.
• 

  PSacramento

  PS: Then, logically, one should per default be critical of the bible (since it describe a number of miracles) just as one should be critical of the quaraan.

  I agree.

  --which bring us to step 2, additional evidence, logical consistency, etc.--

  both the bible and quaraan are on certain points contradicted by science

  • Perhaps, but neither claim to be science books.

  neither book contain any scientific/historical insight which one require a supernatural agent to explain.

  • Not sure what you mean.

  neither book predict anything significant which later turned out to be true in a way that can be objectively checked

  • That may be the case, anyting in particular that you mean?

  both books have a huge following of believers which believe the book has changed their life in a positive way.

  • Correct.

  etc.

  so, well, there is a burden of evidence to be lifted, and i find it hard to understand which standard of evidence one should use which will make the bible inspired while at the same time exclude the quaraan from being inspired.

  Are you asking what evidence there is that makes the bible inspired and the Quaraan NOT inspired?