I will just repeat. Bible is not an evidence of God, as it has little verification in actual historical events and little basis in science.
It is clearly explained in the video, why Bible is not an evidence.
Bible IS NOT and evidence of existence of Christ, same as Marvel comic book is not an evidence of Spider-Man.
I should not even reply to your comments as it is typical nonsensical response by someonee who clearly lack capacity for logical reasoning and understand logical fallacies . Typically, you have just used a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning - god exists because the Bible says god exists and, since god wrote the Bible, it must be true.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ah, telling a rocket scientist he is incapable of logical reasoning. Very good.
Have it your way. Eyewitness accounts respected, collected, preserved and distributed by thousands of their contemporaries don't count as evidence.
It is true that those eyewitnesses did testify that "all Scripture is inspired by God" and therefore, if you choose to believe them you can proceed to infer that God wrote the Bible. But it is not required that you believe that until you decide what to do about those pesky eyewitness accounts.
Other holy books have eyewitness accounts as well. What makes the bible more trustworthy than the others?
I think we should use eye-witness accounts for evidence of things in the universe and place them above all other forms of evidence. Instruments that can see more of the electromagnetic spectrum and experiments that provide continued reliability at providing effective results should be placed lower than eye-witness testimony. This way, the electron doesn't exist, along with every element on the periodic table! : )
Now you just used another logical fallacy when you mentioned that you are "rocket scientist"
It is called "appeal to authority".
If I tell you a story and ask you to keep it safe and tell the people of the world, how long would it be before that story was changed by the people you told it to? a word added here and there, a passage or two removed because they didn't fit in with what someone else thought of the story.
We are Human and we have many weaknesses two of them are not having amazing memories and not being very trustworthy when it comes to the power over people that religion can provide.
Combine the two and you get multiple religious beliefs and armies of people that will kill over them.
Thousands of their contemporaries?
There were four writers and their writings are at least 60 years after the fact.
There were lots of contemporaries who were still alive when the various books of the New Testament were written, cherished, preserved, and distributed. For example:
and
and then you go through counting up all the specific people who were part of the early church and widely known, for example, the last chapter of the book of Romans mentions these specific individuals that Paul greeted. It's a bit long, but that's my point - there were plenty of people in all the early churches who knew and accepted Paul.
You say God exist from microscopic view, the quartz change depending the watcher , and the way of view of every watcher, not same all the time, how explain that atom, where 90% is nothing, give consistency of matter to things
That's why my premise is to review its claims...for consistency with scientifically understood principles.
All truth should be consistent not so?