|
theo_book -> Can I prove God wrote the bible? (4/10/2008 9:11:06 AM)
|
An Athiest friend of mine argued: You cannot support an argument based on words alone. Those words must be supported with evidence. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a human being can be created from dust, no scientific evidence that shows god even exists. None. Words from a book does not count. My response: Evidence is that which is offered in argument in support of a contention at issue. Legal evidence is data presented to a court or jury in support of a contention at issue and may include testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. The only testimony not allowed is hearsay evidence. Evidence is any information given in support of a contentious issue, or issue in contention,, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source. Again, hearsay evidence is the only testimony rejected consistently. "Proof" does not exist. "Fact" does not exist. "Fact" is the result of agreement among people who think they have adequately examined a matter sufficiently to render a judgement as to its truth or falsity. If a preponderance of those involved, after examining the evidence in support of a perspective as to what the thing means or is, agree, then it is said that they have "proved" their premise. The actuallity of course is, they have agreed upon a popular opinion as to the merits of what has been examined. Many times examination is faulted by virtue of examining the wrong thing. Look at how many times the earth was "proved" flat. The examinors who were in agreement "proved" their scientific acumen by examining the wrong thing. As soon as someone tried successfully to sail around (circumnavigate) the earth, it became obvious they were examining the wrong thing. In this case the "wrong thing" being examined was Portugese sailor's testimony, who only wanted to protect their trade with other nations, from English and French interference. Proof is a conclusion reached by examination of evidence so compelling as to remove all reasonable doubt. A point has been "proved" when those examiners of evidence agree as to a conclusion with a preponderance of agreement as to its value in determining truth. Any argument may be supported by words alone if the words can convey sufficient accord as to their evidentiary value toward apprehending truth. The words themselves may be offered as evidence, their value to be determined by the examiners. (In other words, "leave it to the jury to decide") My Athiest friend stated: There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a human being can be created from dust, My RESPONSE: To what does a body return, if not to dust? Are you saying that a body deteriorating into dust is a metamorphosis? It certainly serves as "scientific evidence" whether it alone is sufficient remains for argument. But scientific evidence it is. My Athiest friend said: "no scientific evidence that shows god even exists. None. Words from a book does not count." My RESPONSE: "Words in a book does not count" where? It most certainly DOES count in a court of law, a court of enquiry, and a court of scientific investigation. Where does it NOT count? All theological documentation, upon discovery, are taken through a vigorous scientific examination to determine authentication, age, and degree of probability as to its claims for itself. Scientific documents on the other hand, are NOT given the same exposure to theological examination. And properly so. But how about just a little bit of regard for truth here? Scientific examination is not for the purpose of making every theological discovery a lie, nor is it for the purpose of manufacturing new truths; it is for the purpose of allowing the documents to serve as evidence in their own right. It offers identity to the document, credentiality so to speak. You need to reevaluate the value of scientific experience to the conclusion of truth. You see, when you experience something in the scientifically controlled laboratory, how can you possibly teach others of what you have discovered except through TESTIMONY? You can publish written composition with explanations, graphic illustrations, bell curves, geometric figures, statistical data, whatever you want to include as having evidentiary value. Or you can give a speech, have a debate, or lecture till your heart is fully satisfied you have offered your best evidence. But it remains TESTIMONY, not experience, that is the best evidence. Experience only constitutes evidence to YOU. EVERYONE else must depend upon your TESTIMONY, whether it be regaling the experience, showing the depth of enthusiasm it has conjured up, showing how a moral change has been effected by this experience, or some other focus of influence. The fact remains, the only way you will get others to understand why your experience is significant, is with your TESTIMONY. SPOKEN AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY is and has always been the best evidence. And a written record is accepted as testimony in any court IN THE WORLD as evidence. To say a book cannot speak for itself, is to say "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." Far too much credence is given to allegations about "experience" than those experiences warrant, for the simple reason, experience is only as good as the testimony that relates it. Experience was never inspired. Testimony was inspired in over forty authors who wrote sixty-six books, called the bible. Eye-witness testimony was inspired in participants in some of the most profound historical events ever recorded. Experience is not evidence. It is experience, and proves nothing. It still requires analysis, and testimony to even understand what it is being experienced. Even in those circumstances in which testimony is silent, it is still considered by the one experiencing whatever it is that happened to him/her. Even fingerprint evidence is worthless in a court proceeding, without testimony to instruct the jury as to their significance. I may produce fingerprints in court, but without explaining (testimony) whose fingerprints they are, where they were found, and a myriad of other considerations, the "evidence" supposed by the fingerprints would not even be allowed to be shown to the jury. And it is "evident" that many experiences are misunderstood, and fanaticism may develope from just such a misunderstood experience. "The earth is flat" for example. Testimony therefore, remains the best evidence. All testimony can be rebutted with equal credence given to the author of the rebuttal. All he has to do is establish equal credentials with those of the author of the original statement. Consider - Original Testimony of God "Be still and know that I am God." Rebuttal? What resolves the issue is consideration of the following: God separated the seas from dry land. In their first state, they shared a common DNA source. Separated, they still share a common DNA source. Do I "have evidence" that God separated dry land from the sea? You bet I do. It is in the form of original factual unrebutted testimony. When one says "Be still and know that I am God." and also says that he created the heaven and the earth, and separated the dry land from the sea, until there is at least equal testimony from someone with equal credentials, testifying in opposition to the former, I will accept the testimony of the former before I will accept the doubt promoted by the latter. When the creator speaks, the creation does not have an adequate rebuttal when it offers "everyone knows" as an argument. And when scientists offer "Evolution" as a FACT when IN FACT IT IS ONLY A THEORY, I have even less reason to accept the argument. When God created fish and birds from the sea, why does it concern some if they have a "certain percentage" of common DNA?" Because men who study this, determine how closely related they are. And based upon their consensus, decide birds didn't directly come from the sea, they evolved from therapod dinosaurs. But the unrebutted author God said, "let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas;" [Gen 1:9-10] "And God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, AND FOWL THAT MAY FLY ABOVE THE EARTH IN THE OPEN FIRMAMENT OF HEAVEN. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH abundantly, after their kind, and EVERY WINGED FOWL AFTER HIS KIND;" [Gen 1:20-21] But man says not so, our scientists have determined that our theories are facts, and "God" is only a theory accepted by a dellusional few. But, my friend, the evidence is on my side. It is simple, factual, and unrebutted by equal authority. To establish "equal credentials" with God science will have to produce a scientist who is God. And they will have come full circle; Disproving God by being God. Again, When God made the trees, herbs, animals, and man, there is a common source for DNA. IT does NOT prove one descended from the other, rather it proves a common creator." Quote profferred by Athiest:Again, no evidence that God did it. When you look at nested hierarchies that confirm genetic similarities of closely releated lifeforms, it DOES overwhelmingly support a common ancestor for all of life. My RESPONSE: Again, the best evidence, my friend..... Unrebutted testimony from not just a witness, but from the perpetrator himself. To rebutt the testimony of God it is required that you show by unrefutable evidence that he did not make the statements attributed to him, or that he lied, or that his testimony is innacurate in some manner. "I disagree" or "I do not believe it" is not rebuttal my friend, it is a simple statement of doubt. Science will never PROVE any of their speculations about the inheritance of special peculiarities because the testimony has already been given by one who brought it about, and there is no rebuttal to the testimony, only doubt and disbelief. Doubt and disbelief do not make good witnesses.
|
|
|
|