I have meant to go in to further elaboration on this subject with you before now...and am glad to finally do so.

You have at times elluded to no proof that Jesus as spoke of in the Bible actually existed.
While I can not give you His definate last known address since the postal service did not implement "return address service requested" yet :) I can give you some historical evidence that the man we now know as Jesus did in fact exist and live in the flesh.

I will not copy a lot of stuff on the board but would like to share a link that offers some non-christian avenues of historical evidence you may want to investigate further. Mind you I am not at this time starting a discussion or debate about WHO He was or wasn't....just that the MAN did in fact live and teach what we read that He taught.

http://www.probe.org/docs/ancient.html

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, `He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."



And I shall pray that we can have this discussion in an open-minded, knowledge discovering, shareing of ideas way and the thread will not get slandered with accusations of evil from certain sources. :O)

*Originally posted by Taken
the thread will not get slandered with accusations of evil from certain sources.*

Heaven forfend that a thread should get slandered.
Oh, and who might those "certain sources" be?

Hi taken,

Ok a good challenge although I have seen all these references before and I am pretty sure I can show how they are all false. It will take me some time to grab the relevant references though.

Unfortunately I have two major projects at work that are taking all my attention at the moment and I will have little time for sciforums for some weeks yet. I’m also aware that I owe responses in a number of threads here.

Please be patient and I’ll return to this as soon as I can, it is after all easy to spot, i.e. it has my name in the topic – thanks.

Later
Cris

PS. As for those who might disrupt – they are all in my ignore list – so it is no problem for me. But I share your concern, it is a shame.

*Originally posted by Cris
PS. As for those who might disrupt – they are all in my ignore list – so it is no problem for me. But I share your concern, it is a shame. *

For shame.

Those dastards, daring to not agree with you.

Here me and Cris are preparing to go out on an expedition to find Jesus:) ...and all you can do is offer up another childish rasberry. How Christian of you.
Glad to see you are still your first priority and only consideration....must please dad greatly.

*Originally posted by Taken
Here me and Cris are preparing to go out on an expedition to find Jesus ...and all you can do is offer up another childish rasberry.*

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
(Luke 6:39, KJV).

I can see it now.
Taken: I'm not sure where he is.
Cris: I think he might be over there, so let's go over here.

"Seek and Ye SHALL find. Ask and it SHALL be answered. Knock and the door SHALL be open." :)


If I am as lost as you like to believe then it is a good thing that I go looking for Jesus isn't it? *smiles*

This being known as Tony1 seeks only to disturb others with his small mind and innability to comprehend.

There is some evidence that a Jesus existed, but many of the details of his life are unsubstantiated. Back then the Romans made long records of everything, including executions. You must remember though, that finding one Yaisuah (the Jewish form of the name, as far as I can remember) would be difficult. In most of the biblical stories there are some factual bases. It would not be surprising were a Jesus to exist.

It is strange, How can we find out about Historical or religious figures if they really existed or not?? I mean when we talk about proof. We have Bible we have Quran and Torah etc etc. We have lots of Prophets and messanger. Then we have historians. Now this question is for all of you and even for me, What do we need to believe in GOD?. What kind of proofs? What excatly are we looking for. I am not an athiest, I do believe in Higher power, I do believe there was a jesus, Muhammad, Moses etc. I have been reading Quran for a while, Read Bible and Torah.

But still lots of things are unanswered. May be I got them answer but just don't want to believe them. It is hard to leave on religion and go to other if you know what I mean. :rolleyes:

*Originally posted by Taken
"Seek and Ye SHALL find. Ask and it SHALL be answered. Knock and the door SHALL be open."

If I am as lost as you like to believe then it is a good thing that I go looking for Jesus isn't it? *smiles* *

Awww, she finally has something in the way of a comeback.
Isn't that cute?

I never did think you were lost, just extremely confused.
And while it IS a good thing that you seek Jesus, the idea that you are not lost should indicate that you shouldn't have to.
For a Christian to "seek" Jesus just begs the question: who is it you are serving now, if you don't know Jesus?

*Originally posted by Teg
This being known as Tony1 seeks only to disturb others with his small mind and innability to comprehend.*

Only small minds think like that.

*Originally posted by Markx
but just don't want to believe them.*

That's why it's called unbelief.
You can choose to believe or you can choose not to believe.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

Notice the hint there as to what to do, in the event that you are undecided.

But what says it? The word is near you, even in your mouth, and in your heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shalt be saved.
(Romans 10:8,9, KJV).

Have you ever cited another document besides the bible? More works were printed beyond that one book. Perhaps if you took the time to read those other books you might be more apt to see my position. Also you might be more open-minded.

It is strange, How can we find out about Historical or religious figures if they really existed or not?? I mean when we talk about proof. We have Bible we have Quran and Torah etc etc. We have lots of Prophets and messanger. Then we have historians. Now this question is for all of you and even for me, What do we need to believe in GOD?. What kind of proofs? What excatly are we looking for. I am not an athiest, I do believe in Higher power, I do believe there was a jesus, Muhammad, Moses etc. I have been reading Quran for a while, Read Bible and Torah.

But still lots of things are unanswered. May be I got them answer but just don't want to believe them. It is hard to leave on religion and go to other if you know what I mean.

~~~

Hi Markx,

The closest thing we have to “proof” are historical records. From these records, it seems quite likely that people named Jesus, Muhammad, and Moses existed. At this point in time, I, personally, have no reason to doubt that these men existed. The simple fact that they existed however does not mean that everything they claimed to be true... was true.

We have the recorded claims of these famous people; their assertions that they believed some kind of higher power existed, and that they spent their time trying to convert others to embrace the same beliefs. In many instances, Jesus and other “eye-witnesses” shared their experiences and their interpretations of the same with friends and casual onlookers. Then the recipients of these stories shared the details with others, who eventually shared with yet other various and sundry scribes. Plus, some of those closest to Jesus were scribes of a sort, storytellers themselves, according to the records that have survived.

Some historical records are considered by researchers to be more credible than others--to a degree--because they are affiliated with a known governmental entity, well-established religious/philosophical group, or royal household, etc... The accounts provided by friends and observers of Christ are not to be discounted out of hand, but cannot be accepted by a rational skeptic as unbiased or completely factual. This, in and of itself, is significant enough to support reasonable doubt.

It’s not much different than hearing eye-witness accounts in a court of law. You take what you hear with the understanding that it’s only worth so much, and that some accounts will be worth more or less. Depends on the circumstances and/or how a jury or courtroom spectators are instructed to interpret what they hear--according to the law, the judges’ preferences, or according to what the observers already know to be true or false, likely or unlikely. Tricky business, interpretation. Something many religionist tend to ignore.

That being so, we aren’t left with a lot of substantial evidence to support most claims made by the faithful, then or now. Again, it seems that Jesus Christ was born, lived and died. His words and actions made a serious impact on Mankind. But was he the true “son" of a true god?

What do all of these records and stories really tell us? They tell us what other people were convinced they should believe. Or wanted to believe. Or somehow felt compelled to believe. We don’t know what any of these people actually experienced. We don’t know how accurate their interpretations were; accuracy measured against what? We do know, for a fact, that people in “biblical times” were prone to believe in all kinds of mysticism.

Today, I think we have more evidence to support the “rightness” of our natural and proper tendency to doubt, than to accept these mysterious stories.

~~~

Your questions: “What do we need to believe in GOD?. What kind of proofs? What exactly are we looking for.”

1. What does any individual require to convince them that their senses are lying to them?

They must have a need to turn away from and to distrust their own judgment. What inspires such a need? Fear, Pain, and Guilt Fear that they don’t understand enough--or even anything--about anything. Pain from being convinced that they have been hurt, harmed, threatened in some way. Guilt from being convinced that they have or are hurting others and themselves. Apply the three any way you like, it all works out the same.

Many of the world’s religions teach man to be filled with fear, pain and guilt. Salvation is what so many religions convince Man that he needs, then like a snake-oil salesman, religion whips out a dark mysterious bottle of the miracle cure: SALVATION!

Religion strives to deceive man and unfortunately has succeeded all too often.

2. What kind of proofs?

The same kind of proofs the world’s scientific community require when, say, they try out a new medicine on human volunteers. Control groups and repeatable results. The “Placebo Effect” is taken into account as much as it can be. Disclaimers are made by any honest pharmaceutical company when the new medicine seems only to help a certain percentage of humans, or only helps in limited ways. Possible or probable side effects are made known. Plenty of discussion on these threads about what a skeptic requires as proof.

3. What exactly are we looking for?

Good question! Every individual will and does seek something different than his neighbor. And each will interpret his own findings and experiences in his own way. But a healthy, normal human being can comprehend that the sky is the sky, and regardless of the various ways science or religion can break down the concept of “sky.” Our feet are on the ground, on this planet we call Earth. Above is the thing we call sky. Many skeptics are seeking nothing but simple truth as such is understood by rational men.

~~~

For most skeptics, the problem isn’t that other people want and do believe in supernatural entities. The problem is when they, the believers, wish to impose their beliefs and moral codes on the rest of the world. How many times does this have to be explained to the people who come here claiming not to understand Atheists? And let’s not pretend such impositions have never happened. They happened in ancient times and they are happening today. In a variety of absurd ways, the faithful claim they were/are right to do this. Whether out of fear, or out of some misguided sense of “love” for mankind, they take it upon themselves to be their brother’s conscience.

The faithful can explain why they think it right for them to have their myriad beliefs, but totally fail to prove why other individuals should accept their claims. They say that the skeptic’s claim of “Your so-called proof isn’t good enough for me” isn’t rational, logical, sane...

So the skeptics ask, again & again & again.... “Why isn’t it rational, logical or sane to ask for proof that makes sense to us--and to the majority of Mankind in most situations? Do you, the faithful, assert that only the faithful are rational or logical OR sane?"

(still waiting for a reasonable answer to that one)

Anyone who wishes to convince one man to give up his “soul” or “self” or whatever you wish to call it, for the sake of anything else, ought to be prepared to give some damn good reasons why. Reasons that can be clearly understood by a majority. Reasons that don’t automatically negate the experiences already explored by the skeptic. Claims of all skeptics being doomed to a mythical hell if they don’t abandon their reason just aren’t going to cut it.

Any devout believer who has had to deny that he/she won’t make it to their own idea of a heaven after their death here, should be able understand this much.

~~~

Counterbalance

CoutnerBalance,
I think you answered my questions. Thank you and yes what you said make perfect sense. I think it is more depend on Individual thinker then any thing else. But what if there is a Book out there which is so accurate and scientificly proved to be correct on incidents and not for just one part or tribe of the world but for whole mankind? And give the description of God as some thing beyond our imagination some thing perfect some thing not like you and me? I am not sure what religion do you practice but coming from christian beliefs I think there are lots of misconeceptions about God and lots of other stuff. Anyways it will start a whole new debate, But I like to say that your answer was very indetail and very helpfull.

Thank you again.
:)

You are very welcome, Markx.

What if there is a book that provides evidence and satisfies both science and religion?

Bring it on!

~~~

;)

Counterbalance

Originally posted by Counterbalance
You are very welcome, Markx.

What if there is a book that provides evidence and satisfies both science and religion?

Bring it on!

~~~

;)

Counterbalance

I am not a science buff, I leave that for the guys here. But I have been talking to xelios about some aspects of Quran, I think not many people have read the book for certain reasons. But I did. In detail. From description of God to the creation of Universe, Lots of things are in there. But there may be things not in there. Since science is every changing process but basic facts remains the same. If you like I can start from this same thread or start a new one what ever you perfer. I read OT, NT, Geeta and Quran. I can say if I were to believe in something that would be the Quran. But I am like lots of other people who like to be 100% convinced. I am not talking about from religious point of view but from scientific point of view. We will talk about religious point of view later on. I believe in science but I do believe in one Mingty creator.


I will start from the following statements by Quran and would like some one to shed light on the scientifc aspect of it,



Astronomy - Big Bang


[B]"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together before We split them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

Surah Al-Anbiyaa Surah 21 Ayah 30[\B]


It is commonly known among serious scientists and particularly among astronomists that there was a Big Bang at the beginning of the universe. One evidence for it is the fact that the universe is expanding with a steady (or decreasing, or increasing) rate.

This has been supported by the data collected by the Hubble Telescope, see Universe development, Expansion. Edwin Hubble was the very founder of the theory of the expansion of the universe (see "The Birth of Time" by John Gribbin, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 1999).



Before this Big Bang, all agree, matter must have been concentrated in a hugely dense and solid mass, the size of which nobody knows. Scientists conjecture by estimating density and size of the known universe. They interpret the difference between electromagnetic waves, like the colour of light, that can be measured in distant galaxies. This is the redshift. There must have been a big explosion in the beginning.


Astronomy - Formation



[B]Moreover He Comprehended in His design the sky and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together) in willing obedience."

Surah Ha-Mim Surah 41 Ayah 10[\B]

Scientists agree that shortly after the Big Bang small particles or smoke (nebula) filled up the existing space, as this has been discovered in distant interstellar space.

Most of the universe is vacuum and its main elements are atoms of Helium and Hydrogen, which build up to 98% of the matter in the universe until today. Out of this substance the supernovae came together. These are gigantic young stars that can measure light years across they build up the distant heavens.



The older they get, the more they come together and the smaller and denser they become. Planets likewise come together out of these nublae, as shown in the picture above. Our planet Earth came together like this inside planetary nebulae.


Astronomy - Expansion


[B]"We have built the heaven with might, and We it is who expand it. "

Surah Az-Zariyat Surah 51 Ayah 47[\B]

All scientists agree that the universe is expanding at a steady, some say increasing , others decreasing rate (, see John Gribbin, "The Birth of Time", Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999, page 206). The Quran describes it in the clear verse above.

At the beginning of this century Edwin Hubble formulated his theory of the expansion of the universe. He based this on the theory of relativity postulated by Albert Einstein. Infrared images taken by the Hubble telescope, which was set up in the orbit in 1995 confirm Hubbell's theory directly by showing a red shift in distant galaxies.

This red light indicates that it has little energy and must be coming from sources that are moving away. So distant galaxies, that lie 14 Billion light years away, show us, that the universe is expanding rapidly.



Scientists think that this might go on forever. It has been doing so for 14 billion years. The picture shows a deep-space view from the Hubble Telescope which was taken by pointing the telescope to an apparently dark spot for 10 days and collecting the data. Even in that region billions of receding galaxies are found.

( There were pictures and I wasn't able to load them. )

Now counterbalance or any one else who is familiar with science is it possible that Writer of this Book have known all these facts 1400 years ago?. And are they accurate or not?.

Thanks in Advance.

Markx,

Now counterbalance or any one else who is familiar with science is it possible that Writer of this Book have known all these facts 1400 years ago? And are they accurate or not?. The trouble with emerging scientific theories is that they tend to change and adapt, as more information is known. The Big Bang theory is no different. Try this link that explains how our perceived big bang universe is simply just a bubble in a potential infinite sea of big bangs. The article is by Alan Guth Professor of Physics at MIT – the big bang theory is changing.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html

Take care with what you mean by facts. We have yet to discover exactly what causes big bangs or what came before them. If the new emerging theory variations are true then an infinite universe means no creator and little need for gods to exist. But more importantly your religious quotes would not match with your perception of a universe having a beginning.

We could take the quotes and re-interpret them in numerous ways. They are simply not sufficiently precise to conclude they are referencing the beginning of a universe.

Cris

*Originally posted by Teg
Perhaps if you took the time to read those other books*

I did take the time to read those other books, thousands of them.

*you might be more apt to see my position. *

I do see your posistion, however, I reject it.

*Also you might be more open-minded.*

Sorry, I just don't want the wind whistling thru my skull.

*Originally posted by Counterbalance
Something many religionist tend to ignore.*

Can't be, since we are constantly accused doing nothing but that, except when we're accused of not doing that.

*Today, I think we have more evidence to support the “rightness” of our natural and proper tendency to doubt, than to accept these mysterious stories.*

That makes no sense at all.
Doubting by definition means not having a belief, therefore how can the absence of something be "right?"
The best you could do is "not wrong" and that's only if you can prove that the doubted belief is in fact wrong.

*The same kind of proofs the world’s scientific community require when, say, they try out a new medicine on human volunteers. Control groups and repeatable results.*

Yes.
You are part of the control group for unbelief, which in turn gets burned at the end of the experiment.

*How many times does this have to be explained to the people who come here claiming not to understand Atheists?*

Many, many times.
After all, most people, even relatively uneducated ones, aren't complete fools.
Thus, complete foolishness has to be carefully explained, because it really makes no sense.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

*Claims of all skeptics being doomed to a mythical hell if they don’t abandon their reason just aren’t going to cut it.*

True.
That's why I fight the concept of the mythical hell.

*What if there is a book that provides evidence and satisfies both science and religion?*

There is, it's called the Bible.
Be warned though, the Bible is rejected by antireligion, so if you fall into that camp, you won't like the Bible.

*Originally posted by Cris
Take care with what you mean by facts.*

Good point, Cris.
There are many who bandy about idle speculation, aka theory, and call it fact.

One of the, shall we say, 'problems' of trying to develop some measure of the authenticity of historical religious writings is indeed the lack of historical, scientific, and other non-religious information (i.e. facts) that can be used for verification. I think that is why the majority of religions depend on faith, which is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." I personally am very sceptical that any "proof" could be found that would convince anyone that God existed. But I am very interested as to what others would consider valid "proof" of the existence of God.

--------------
If only there were more posters like counterbalance, and fewer like tony1.

Taken,

About 10 years ago I took an interest in the Dead Sea scrolls and their interpretations. This gave me my first hint that the image I had had all my life (traditional Christian) of an historical Jesus was clearly inaccurate.

The next stage was an attempt to come to terms with and understand what life was like 2000 years and how an historical Jesus was really perceived. This led me to the project that had been undertaken by historians for the last 300 years to do the same thing. This project was known as Q. Q is a shorthand form of Quelle which in German means source. The original intention was to find the source for the gospels of Mathew and Luke.

Probably the best summary of the Q findings is in the book “The Lost Gospel” (the book of Q and Christian Origins), by Burton L Mack. This work does not in itself question the existence of an historical Jesus although it paints a very different image from that traditionally taught by Christians. What Q does show quite well is what life was like 2000 years ago and how the mythologies of Christianity were developed and created.

There were two notable items I always remember from Q and they were how Mark (80 CE) was the origin and basis for the other gospels that appeared a decade or more later, and secondly how the miracle stories had to be created (50CE) to give credibility to an emerging new religion. After all one can’t have a god who doesn’t perform miracles, so suitable mythologies were duly created.

The sources for Mark were many and Q1 (50CE) certainly contributed and was probably the closest anything had come to a historical Jesus from Galilee.

My image of Jesus at this point is someone whose real name is unknown, who is one of a number of would be saviors, and who is well educated and charismatic and was probably wealthy. Such figures would automatically attract a following. The problem of identifying a particular individual is that in the times of an oppressive occupying force there were many who were vying to lead the Jews to freedom in fulfillment of their religious prophecies. Q records many sayings and ideas from that time that had been passed down by oral traditions. The ultimate fate of the charismatic leader and teacher that gave rise to much of Q is simply not recorded and is unknown.

More recently I have read two further pieces of research that further question the nature and existence of an historical Jesus. These are –

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S.

Combined with my earlier studies these last two pieces of analysis convinced me that all the stories of the traditional Jesus were fabrications.

So did such a man called Jesus exist? There may have been someone whose name is unknown and who may have inspired some to tell some interesting stories that were verbally handed down for five decades before being selectively adopted, adapted, and partially transformed into a gospel known as Mark.

Was there a man who performed miracles, told parables, and claimed to be the son of man, and who was born in a manger of a virgin and visited by 3 wise men at birth? No definitely not. Those stories are just part of the imaginative myth making process.

It needs to be understood that there were no standards for objective and truthful reporting 2000 years ago. Nearly everyone was illiterate and they wanted to hear stories to lighten their short and harsh lives. Those who were literate would also be the storytellers and simple factual stories would not attract much of an audience. Hence, enter the mythmakers, those who would exaggerate and add exciting substance to minimal or non-existent facts. And what are myths? These are stories of gods, and kings, and heroes. And from these stories arose the wonderful mythology we now know as Christianity. A mythology that many unwary now believe was real.

Enough for now. I’ll get back to your specific quotes a little later.

Cris

Makaera,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

If only there were more posters like counterbalance, and fewer like tony1. Many of us simply ignore those like tony1 – try sciforums control panel/ignore list.

Have fun
Cris

*Originally posted by makaera
If only there were more posters like counterbalance, and fewer like tony1*

Awww, isn't that sweet?
Little makaera is trying to form insults.

It doesn't matter if Jesus actually lived anymore than it matters if Socrates actually lived. The question of Jesus' historical being has little bearing on the usefulness of the moral teachings attributed to him.

I wouldn't believe your word alone if you told me that you could raise the dead, so why would I believe a 2000 year-old claim? The claim of such miracles only makes me wary of the content of the New Testament as a whole. Despite my caution, I'm actually fond of a number of Jesus' moral teachings; return good for wickedness, the meek shall inherit the Earth, love your enemies, etc. The difference is that these ideas make sense to me. To accept them I don't have to toss out my sense of reason. It's too bad the moral teachings of Jesus were packaged along with such nonsense. They were good enough to stand on their own merit.

I've wondered why the New Testament was written to include such a freak-show of claims beside the perfectly laudable moral concepts? An answer occasionally given is that the authors were merely speaking figuratively. Another answer is that the miracles were included to encourage otherwise intellectual oafs to accept these ideas. It's true that I don't care if the village idiot learns that murder is wrong from the writings of Jesus, Grimm's Fairy Tales, or from the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Just so he learns it! But it's wrong to think that people who lived two thousand years ago were in anyway less rational beings than we are today. Euclid's Geometry, that veritable monument to reason, was written in the same Biblical time.

So, why do people generally embrace otherwise nonsensical religions? A pleasant (though outrageously untrue) myth provides comfort for those who are willing to buy into it wholesale. But the entire edifice starts to unravel as soon as one begins to question even one small aspect of it. Thus, nearly all religions discourage questions of the fundamental veracity of the myth itself. They promote the concept of "faith without proof" to the status of a virtue, when it is actually a highway to intellectual ruin. Religions instead tend to encourage debate on peripheral matters, such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

"Religion has the power of emotional warmth, while skepticism has the force of cold consistency. When emotions come into conflict with reason, emotions win-this is why most people in the world follow a religion."
D. Calne

Sincerely,
Michael

Orthogonal,

Excellent, I can relate to all of that.

The unfortunate aspect of Christianity is that an historical Jesus has to have existed because of the resurrection claims, and that is the fundamental basis of Christianity. If the man never existed then clearly the resurrection never occurred and Christianity would be shown as an elaborate hoax.

If it was merely his philosophies that were of interest, then yes you are right it wouldn’t matter if he existed or not.

But your point about emotional warmth is where I think the real issue is found. I can easily convince myself that something must be true because it ‘feels’ right, and Christians will talk about how they ‘know’ they are right because their ‘heart’ tells them it is so. These are all appeals to emotionalism. And the conclusion they draw is that if it feels right then it must also be factual. Unfortunately, most people, if they are truly honest with themselves, know very well that cold hard facts often do not feel very nice whatsoever. And facing facts is something many people avoid. But that takes me to my other topic on belief in a god being based on self-delusion again.

The existence of an actual Jesus is very doubtful based on the available evidence and appears very difficult to prove. What is even more difficult and I think impossible are the claims that he was divine, performed miracles, and rose from the dead. There should be little doubt that those claims are pure myths.

Cris

Markx wrote:

I am not a science buff, I leave that for the guys here. But I have been talking to xelios about some aspects of Quran, I think not many people have read the book for certain reasons. But I did. In detail. From description of God to the creation of Universe, Lots of things are in there. But there may be things not in there. Since science is every changing process but basic facts remains the same. If you like I can start from this same thread or start a new one what ever you perfer. I read OT, NT, Geeta and Quran. I can say if I were to believe in something that would be the Quran. But I am like lots of other people who like to be 100% convinced. I am not talking about from religious point of view but from scientific point of view. We will talk about religious point of view later on. I believe in science but I do believe in one Mingty creator.

~~~

Thanks, Markx...

I appreciate your willingness and desire to communicate your speculations, as well as your courteous manner. I think this thread is the appropriate place for your questions and contributions, though that’s just my opinion. If our exchanges have veered a bit too far off topic, then apologies to Taken and Cris. I’ll try to be brief. (can’t promise... ;) )

I also applaud your desire to be convinced by scientific means. One of the most redeeming aspects of Science, or the Scientific Method when it’s practiced correctly, is that the “seeker” of knowledge or truth (including the author of any theory) is doing just that: seeking to be convinced, or to convey their observations in as an objective a manner as possible. Contrary to what is sometimes alleged about Atheists, the skeptic or non-believer does not have a fifty foot high wall built around their minds or hearts. What they do often have is a keen sense of discrimination. Utilizing such mental or emotional filters is a reflection of how much value they place on “truth.”

In response to the quotes you shared, I’ll have to agree with Cris when he wrote:

“It needs to be understood that there were no standards for objective and truthful reporting 2000 years ago. Nearly everyone was illiterate and they wanted to hear stories to lighten their short and harsh lives. Those who were literate would also be the storytellers and simple factual stories would not attract much of an audience. Hence, enter the mythmakers, those who would exaggerate and add exciting substance to minimal or non-existent facts. And what are myths? These are stories of gods, and kings, and heroes. And from these stories arose the wonderful mythology we now know as Christianity. A mythology that many unwary now believe was real....

and in a separate post...

“Take care with what you mean by facts.... We could take the quotes and re-interpret them in numerous ways. They are simply not sufficiently precise to conclude they are referencing the beginning of a universe.”

And this, Markx, I think is the crux of the matter. (And orthogonal’s post touched upon this, too.) We can read and search through virtually all of the world’s religious “teachings” and come up with much the same thing: Stories. Stylized interpretations. And far too often, stories intentionally fabricated to use as tools or weapons to force Man into numerous types of slavery. I don’t think it matters what we call the book--the Holy Bible or the Quran. What is offered in these is a collection of interpretations, be they the interpretations of how the universe came into existence, or how to ‘keep’ your local pastor in a style-of-living your church happens to believe he should become accustomed to. The primary purpose of these “works” are to tell Man how to live his life--not as the individual man thinks best, but as his more god-favored brethren have determined he should live his life. And in order to fool some of the readers, or would-be believers, the authors of such works weave in bits about how God or some kind of higher power created our universe in a language that is designed to be appealing to the uncertain or the unwary--specifically, to the fearful, the pain-impacted, or those susceptible to guilt.

Then again, and this is what amazes me sometimes, most religions are pretty straight forward about their intentions. So much so, that people will rationalize themselves into a delusion when trying not to deal with the stark truth... and the irrational interpretations that arise from this are just downright sad.

I have no problem with recognizing a possibility that it may turn out that a force beyond Man’s comprehension has been in play all along. But I won’t believe it, and certainly won’t try to convince others of it, until or unless I have a good reason to do so. We don’t actually know whether such a force can or could exist--and to assert such as truth requires us to choose to make a leap of faith and to claim: “I give over my own ability to reason and accept the faithful’s interpretations.”

So what’s the difference when a scientist chooses to accept the previous claims of his fellow scientists?

That individual, a true scientist, is choosing to “accept,” yet only to a point, and does so because what others are proposing is based on tangible proofs or theories that are based on the same. ...And in any event, most scientists don’t threaten others with a curse of eternal damnation if others don’t agree or conform. Most scientist don’t seek to segregate Man into two classes: the blessed and the damned. We could pick this apart for an eternity, but the significant difference is really not that difficult to comprehend. A good scientist wishes to explore and to improve Man’s understanding or existence without exacting the price of another’s “soul” or mind. A good scientist, while open to new ideas or differing explanations, does not seek to deny obvious truth--truth that any man can recognize--in favor of something that can never be proven to his, or any other honest man’s, satisfaction.

So, it’s okay by me if some people want to embrace the assumptions made by the authors of different religious doctrines. But it’s not okay for these people to insist that I accept their version of truth, or be penalized in any number of ways because I resist. If these people, those who choose to embrace religious faith, wish to assert that they are right, and that I and others are wrong, then they MUST give me more proof than ancient stories and conflicting interpretations.

Thus, while not all we’ve read in the bible or the Quran is hogwash, as they are, these theories or suppositions are not enough for me.

~~~

Thanks again, Markx...

(wish you fruitful results in all of your quests)

Counterbalance

It is commonly known among serious scientists and particularly among astronomists that there was a Big Bang at the beginning of the universe.

A major problem with most religions is that they assign a point of beginning. It is a classic sign of inhibited understanding. The need for such a concept is primative in origin. It comes from the individualistic concerns about self-preservation. We begin at birth and end at death, in other words. Such a concept lacks the understanding that our birth is only a recent addition to a long chain of events. After death we are simply returning to the void. Remember that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It is quite likely that time and space are infinite in all directions. So where does the circle start? Any such point is arbitrary.

*Originally posted by orthogonal
I wouldn't believe your word alone if you told me that you could raise the dead, so why would I believe a 2000 year-old claim?*

You've actually raised one of the best points in a long time.
Allow me to answer, FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

The point is not believe claims, but to believe your own eyes.
If someone claims to raise the dead, but doesn't, then why would you believe them?
On the other hand, if someone claims it AND does it, is that still enough?
Most would say yes.
I, on the other hand, am skeptical enough to check the claim, and the presented proof, against some standard.

*The claim of such miracles only makes me wary of the content of the New Testament as a whole.*

Well, if you haven't seen any miracles, in spite of the claims for them, then that wariness would be a good thing.
OTOH, if you see the miracles and dismiss them as sleight-of-hand without any proof for that dismissal in turn, then you would simply be foolish.

*I've wondered why the New Testament was written to include such a freak-show of claims beside the perfectly laudable moral concepts?*

If the moral concepts really are as laudable as you say, then they should have some visible effect in the world, otherwise they blend into the plethora of similar competing claims.

*An answer occasionally given is that the authors were merely speaking figuratively.*

There is a fine line between figure and insanity, unless the figure turns out to be real.

*But it's wrong to think that people who lived two thousand years ago were in anyway less rational beings than we are today. Euclid's Geometry, that veritable monument to reason, was written in the same Biblical time.*

If they are as rational as you say, then why were they saying the things they said?

*Originally posted by Cris
an historical Jesus has to have existed because of the resurrection claims, and that is the fundamental basis of Christianity. If the man never existed then clearly the resurrection never occurred and Christianity would be shown as an elaborate hoax.*

Exactly correct.

*Christians will talk about how they ‘know’ they are right because their ‘heart’ tells them it is so. These are all appeals to emotionalism.*

Sad, but true.
The basic tenet of Christianity, but no other religion, is that following one's 'heart' is a waste of time.

*Originally posted by Counterbalance
One of the most redeeming aspects of Science, or the Scientific Method when it’s practiced correctly, is that the “seeker” of knowledge or truth (including the author of any theory) is doing just that: seeking to be convinced, or to convey their observations in as an objective a manner as possible.*

The unfortunate aspect of the scientific method is the failure to abide by its own strictest requirements.
Ordinarily, if one were to conduct an experiment to prove a hypothesis entirely within the scientific method, one would be remiss if the results of the experiment were either unrepeatable or unverifiable.

The scientific method itself fails, although the method is repeatable, because of the unverifiability of the method by ANY other method.
There is no alternate method available to verify the scientific method.
Saying that alternate experiments can be performed is merely reiterating the REPEATABILITY of the scientific method but not the verifiability of the scientific method.

*A good scientist, while open to new ideas or differing explanations, does not seek to deny obvious truth--truth that any man can recognize--in favor of something that can never be proven to his, or any other honest man’s, satisfaction.*

The hidden assumptions there are...
1. that all science is obvious
2. that only the obvious can be proven
3. that the non-obvious cannot be proven

If science really were like that, it would be trivial.

*If these people, those who choose to embrace religious faith, wish to assert that they are right, and that I and others are wrong, then they MUST give me more proof than ancient stories and conflicting interpretations.*

That's where the miracles come in.
A person would have to be stupid to believe something without proof.

*Originally posted by Teg
A major problem with most religions is that they assign a point of beginning. It is a classic sign of inhibited understanding. The need for such a concept is primative in origin.*

See the underlined words?
They mean the same thing, therefore you have assigned a point of beginning and you have inhibited understanding, as per your own analysis of assigning a beginning.

Awww, isn't that sweet?
Little makaera is trying to form insults.


tony1,
I strongly suggest you stop acting like a child if you wish to remain a member of this forum.

I'll take that as a correction, and revise my posts accordingly.

<i>Saying that alternate experiments can be performed is merely reiterating the REPEATABILITY of the scientific method but not the verifiability of the scientific method.</i>

This ignores the relationship of experiments to the real world. If dating Antarctic ice cores, looking at tree rings and radioactively dating rocks all give us the answer that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years, for example, then it becomes very unlikely, given the differences in methodology between the different experiments, that the earth is other than 4.5 billion years old. Science does not take place in environments insulated from the natural world; science is the study of the natural world. As such, its results are constantly checked against the reality of nature.

*Originally posted by James R
This ignores the relationship of experiments to the real world. If dating Antarctic ice cores, looking at tree rings and radioactively dating rocks all give us the answer that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years, for example, then it becomes very unlikely, given the differences in methodology between the different experiments, that the earth is other than 4.5 billion years old. Science does take place in environments insulated from the natural world; science is the study of the natural world. As such, its results are constantly checked against the reality of nature. *

The problem is that doing your analysis that way essentially amounts to checking the results that you obtain from nature against the results you obtain from nature.
That is circular.
While I don't dispute that the results obtained by the scientific method should agree with each other, I am skeptical of the assumption that that constitutes verification.

In actual fact, if the scientific method itself is in question, then using the sci. met. three different times only proves that it produces repeatable results.
One needs to have results obtained by some other method, to VERIFY that your conclusions are valid.

For example, you gave three different methods used within the sci met to verify results obtained within the sci met.
That's great if you assume that the sci met is already valid.

However, when the sci met itself is being questioned, merely giving iterations of the sci met verifies nothing other than the repeatability of the sci met.
So, what is the other method being used to support the assumption that the scientific method is a valid way to analyze reality?

As you say, science is the study of the natural world.
If the natural world turns out to be a very small part of reality, then the scientific method would be one of the poorest possible ways to analyze reality.
In addition, it has been repeatedly postulated in this forum, that the scientific method is limited to experiments involving rather limited amounts of time.
The sci met is actually incapable of producing reasonable results even in natural terms for experiments lasting, say, two million years or even 1000 years into the future.
Thus the scientific method is limited in terms of the reality it is able to analyze; it is limited in terms of time to considerably less than a individual's lifetime and it cannot test the past at all.

A major problem with most religions is that they assign a point of beginning. It is a classic sign of inhibited understanding. The need for such a concept is primative in origin.*

See the underlined words?
They mean the same thing, therefore you have assigned a point of beginning and you have inhibited understanding, as per your own analysis of assigning a beginning.

When I state an origin it is only out of neccessity that others can comprehend. Such an origin is only the next effect of a long string of events. I would not be so stupid to say that I could mark a point after which stupidity existed. You however are a part of that chain of events. I use the word origin as a marker in that chain of events that led to such thoughts. If I were to explain it thus you might have lost the neccessary comprehension. As humans we still cling to such ideas as start and end. Being that I have identified you as belonging to said group I can see why such a concept is inherent in your nature.

Origin is a concept you can understand. Infinity seems beyond your grasp. Remember too that your book assigns an end. As vague as the assignment of a beginning, so too is this end. It is funny however that it states that an end is only a beginning. Life after death? This is not a neccessary tool, people may loose the small ability we deem consciousness, but we are indeed not ended. Everything that is us falls back to the cycle. It is easy to understand this if you recognize that you are the same you at any given point. Our cells go through a similar process. We are the whole of our parts, matter cannot be destroyed. We simply organize into different matrices. Of course such a concept would be beyond a person unable to understand even the rudamentary concept of defication being used as food for plants. This would be a case where reading other books might have helped. Of course the bible offered its own explanation of your question about where the crap goes. I am less inclined to follow the proccess which you seem so adept at. I don't eat my crap straight up.

tony1,

Ah - some real arguments at last. Keep it up.

<i>One needs to have results obtained by some other method, to VERIFY that your conclusions are valid.</i>

An experiment is the best you can do. There is no oracle who will tell you Absolute Truth. Suppose you hypothesise that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects, and never the other way around. So, you go out and observe lots of different kinds of objects and you find that your hypothesis is supported, and that there are no counter-examples. Is it fair to say the hypothesis can be considered more likely than not now? I think it is. Certainly there are always more tests you can do, and there COULD conceivably be one or two objects for which your hypothesis fails. But, at this stage, you'd have to say it works pretty well.

What alternative method could you use to try to establish if heat flows from hot to cold but not vice versa? You could look at your bible, but I don't think it says anything about that. You could phone God, but I doubt he'd answer you in any way which all other people would accept as evidence. So, tony1, what other method do you propose we use in this instance? Or are we supposed to throw up our hands and give up because there are no other methods?

<i>As you say, science is the study of the natural world. If the natural world turns out to be a very small part of reality, then the scientific method would be one of the poorest possible ways to analyze reality.</i>

That doesn't follow. If it is the only method, it may well be the best possible way.

<i>In addition, it has been repeatedly postulated in this forum, that the scientific method is limited to experiments involving rather limited amounts of time.</i>

No. It can be applied to long time periods, too.

<i>The sci met is actually incapable of producing reasonable results even in natural terms for experiments lasting, say, two million years or even 1000 years into the future.</i>

There are other types of scientific knowledge than experimental knowledge.

<i>Thus the scientific method ... cannot test the past at all.</i>

This is wrong. The process is: form a hypothesis for what we'd expect to see if the past was one way rather than another way. Then, go out and look at how things are. From that, judge the validity or otherwise of the initial hypothesis.

Cris, Counterbalance, Teg, and James R: Wonderful posts from all!


"Scientific theories are fundamentally different (from religion). They are designed to be blown apart if proved wrong, and if so destined, the sooner the better." E.O. Wilson

"(A good scientific theory makes) very clear and testable predictions.
A bad theory…is one that is so flexible that it can be adjusted to account for any data." Martin Rees

A good scientific theory allows one to make successful and unambiguous predictions based upon data obtained from reproducible experiments.

Religious dogma does not rely upon data obtained by reproducible experiments. Religion (and astrology) relies exclusively upon ambiguous statements. The meaning of these statements shift at the whim or necessity of the proponents of those "statements". Religion is a form of abstract poetry. The prayers, chants, and hymns are pretty and beguiling, but they are in fact designed to be open to interpretation. An idea open to interpretation is an idea resistant to denouncement.

I might hear a poem and think of an ocean wave. Another man hears the same poem and thinks of a traffic jam. One man reads the bible and comes away loving his enemy, while another picks up his sword and cries, "Onward Christian soldier!" If I complain that the Bible incites violence, a Christian could point to the passage where we are told to turn the other cheek. Something that can have any meaning whatsoever, ultimately has no meaning whatsoever. When on past occasions a rouge religious figure has made an unambiguous prediction, to the extent that it is testable, it has proven to be false (i.e. claims about the end of the world).

It is undeniable that overwhelming majorities of humans believe strongly in their various gods, spirits, ghosts, demons, trolls and gnomes. A common thread among all is their inability to summon the slightest tangible proof for their beliefs. Religious (spin) doctors universally realized as much and thus have long campaigned to reshape our mindset on the requirement of proof itself. The degree that we today sneer at the very thought of requiring proof for our beliefs is the same degree of success that religions flourish around the world.

This stroke of public relations genius had an unintended downside however. It effectively removed religion once and for all from the company of philosophy and science. Religion is an art, a social club, an entertainment, a consolation, and a crutch. Religion might tell us something about ourselves; about our longings and our fantasies, but religion can tell us nothing of value about our world as it is.

I don't much care if religion as mere pageantry either flourishes or becomes extinct. My mother takes great comfort from her saints, her holy water, and her prayers. I'd be a monster to want to take these away from an old woman. My honest efforts to understand the world are not threatened by her beliefs.

I do hope and expect however that in time religion will become divorced from politics to a much greater degree than exists today. I look forward to the end of the religious state, and those who would impose their quaint but dangerous views upon me. It will also be to the betterment of mankind that the concepts of moral behavior and religious doctrine are further separated. While he probably overstated the case in his quote, in principle I agree with the words of Arthur C. Clarke

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. However valuable that may have been in enforcing good behavior on primitive peoples, their association is now counterproductive."

Michael

It's like the Theory of Inflation tony. In the original Big Bang theory, there was no inflation and space today would have to be very uneven and not uniform at all. However, through observing the background radiation in space we have found that no matter where we look, it is almost perfectly uniform. Thus, the Theory of Inflation was thought up, and it has since then solved many more problems with the Big Bang theory. In addition, there is so far no evidence to prove it wrong, and so it is accepted as the best hypothesis we have at the moment.

Sure, it may turn out to be wrong, but that's the whole idea of science, to keep revising our ideas as new information becomes available. Eventually, we will have a very good understanding of things like the Big Bang, and have no need to formulate any new hypothesis on it. At that point, we move on to tackle larger problems. Science is putting together an image of how our universe came to exist and how it exists, one piece at a time.

Insulting remark posted by makaera about tony1:

***If only there were more posters like counterbalance, and fewer like tony1***

Tony1's response about makaera's insulting remark:

***Awww, isn't that sweet?
Little makaera is trying to form insults.***

Porfiry to tony1:

***Awww, isn't that sweet?
Little makaera is trying to form insults.

tony1,
I strongly suggest you stop acting like a child if you wish to remain a member of this forum.***

You have got to be kidding, Porfiry. Why are you only seeing one side of this exchange?

You have got to be kidding, Porfiry. Why are you only seeing one side of this exchange?

Because I've received numerous complaints about tony1, and none about makaera. People's tolerance is wearing very thin.

Porfiry,

How many complaints would you expect to get about someone who has made a total of 8 posts? Not because my tolerance is wearing thin but, rather, in the interest of fairness, please consider my observation of makaera's insult to be the first. (Actually, the second, if you take tony1's observation into account).

Thanks.

*Originally posted by Teg
As humans we still cling to such ideas as start and end. Being that I have identified you as belonging to said group I can see why such a concept is inherent in your nature.*

Well, thanks for identifying me as part of that group.
However, are you not yourself part of the same group, namely humans?
Since you are, Teg, I suspect that such a concept is inherent in your nature, as you say yourself.

*Origin is a concept you can understand. Infinity seems beyond your grasp.*

It only seems that way.

*Remember too that your book assigns an end.*

Actually, it doesn't.

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
(Revelation 22:5, KJV).

*Of course such a concept would be beyond a person unable to understand even the rudamentary concept of defication being used as food for plants.*

Hopefully, you realize that plants take up space, even when they die, in the form of humus.
Thus, while explaining 4.6 million feet of crap may not literally be necessary, that still leaves the question of the location of about 2.3 million feet of humus.

*I don't eat my crap straight up. *

Thanks for sharing that, it makes me feel better.

*Originally posted by James R
Ah - some real arguments at last.*

They were there all along, too subtle, I guess.

*An experiment is the best you can do. There is no oracle who will tell you Absolute Truth.*

Of course, the issue of "the best you can do" is what is in question here.
Within the sci met itself, there is indeed no such oracle.
However, in the absence of such an oracle, one should verify the results of the sci met against some other method to reach some reasonable level of certitude that the sci met produces valid results.

*Suppose you hypothesise that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects, and never the other way around. So, you go out and observe lots of different kinds of objects and you find that your hypothesis is supported, and that there are no counter-examples. Is it fair to say the hypothesis can be considered more likely than not now? I think it is.*

Repeating error works the same way, though.
For example, one could hypothesize that lotteries do not work.
One could sample tickets at random after the draw, and deduce that tickets do not win.
With a large lottery, one could analyze millions of tickets and conclude that no ticket wins.
Statistically, one would be correct, however, the winner will merely laugh.

*What alternative method could you use to try to establish if heat flows from hot to cold but not vice versa?*

No other method is necessary for that and similar examples.
IOW, within the sci met, establishing conclusions following certain rules follows said rules.
The question is whether those rules validly produce results for that and similar examples.

The lottery example is one example of following strict scientific criteria and ending up with an invalid result.
Looking at that example from within the framework of science, one may draw the conclusion that there is quantifiable and identifiable error being produced, and for relatively obvious reasons.

However, what if such error is being produced BY the scientific method, rather than within the scientific method?
How would you verify that such error is limited to specific instances, rather than to the sci met as a whole?

*So, tony1, what other method do you propose we use in this instance? Or are we supposed to throw up our hands and give up because there are no other methods?*

I doubt that throwing one's hands up is appropriate.
However, since you believe in the scientific method far more than I do, it is your problem rather than mine.

*If it is the only method, it may well be the best possible way.*

Ah, IF it is the only method.
Big if.
OTOH, if there is even one other method, it may turn out to be the worst possible way to analyze reality.

*There are other types of scientific knowledge than experimental knowledge.*

I'll bite, such as?
Given that the scientific method essentially is dependent on formulating a hypothesis, proving said hypothesis and reaching a conclusion, what possible other scientific knowledge can there be?
Keep in mind that measuring things, while done in science, isn't limited to science.

*The process is: form a hypothesis for what we'd expect to see if the past was one way rather than another way. Then, go out and look at how things are. From that, judge the validity or otherwise of the initial hypothesis.*

In any other field, that is fallacious thinking called "Affirming The Consequent."
That takes the form of an initial statement "if p then q" which is perfectly logical and valid.
Then you say "we found q, therefore p" which is hopelessly illogical and fallacious.

For one to prove p from finding q, one would have to establish that there is no "a which implies q" AND no "b which implies q" AND no "c which implies q" AND etc.
IOW, one would have to prove the absence of ALL other possible reasons for finding q, before one could reasonably conclude p.

Let p=evolution, and let q=the way things are, and you can see that it is hopelessly impossible to prove evolution logically.
There would have to be another way, if it is true.

*Originally posted by orthogonal
"A bad theory…is one that is so flexible that it can be adjusted to account for any data." Martin Rees *

The ToE seems to be able to handle any data at all.

*Religious dogma does not rely upon data obtained by reproducible experiments.*

There is only one universe, and you live only a single life.
What's reproducible about that?

*Originally posted by Xelios
Sure, it may turn out to be wrong, but that's the whole idea of science, to keep revising our ideas as new information becomes available.*

The issue is whether that is a valid way of analyzing reality.
Does the scientific method actually produce valid results?
If so, what other method do you use to verify that scientific results are valid results?

tony1,

<i>However, in the absence of such an oracle, one should verify the results of the sci met against some other method to reach some reasonable level of certitude that the sci met produces valid results.</i>

It's all very well to wave your arms about and say "some other method", but you seem to be having trouble pointing to any such method.


Your lottery example is flawed, because it is not a well designed scientific test. If you know how many tickets there are in total, you will be able to statistically estimate the sampling error. Similarly, if you know anything about how the lottery is drawn you will be able to combine your knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion from your sample. If, on the other hand, you don't know either of those things, then as a scientist you would have to be very wary of drawing definite conclusions in the absence of relevant data. The best you could say is: "on the basis of the tickets we've seen so far, no ticket wins". You'd have to take the sample size into account. And you may well be right in this instance (lotteries can jackpot). On the other hand, you would probably find that some of your sampled tickets had won minor prizes, and it would therefore be reasonable to hypothesise that an unsampled ticket might have won the major prize.

<i>However, since you believe in the scientific method far more than I do, it is your problem rather than mine.</i>

That's a cop-out. If you assert that some other method should be used, it is up to you to point to such a method.

<i>Ah, IF it is the only method. Big if.</i>

This seems to indicate you have something in mind. Why not say what it is?

I said: <i>There are other types of scientific knowledge than experimental knowledge.</i>

You said: <i>I'll bite, such as?</i>

Look at any historical science, where it is not possible to experimentally repeat all the relevant conditions. Can we still do science in that case? I think we can.

<i>In any other field, that is fallacious thinking called "Affirming The Consequent."</i>

Scientists are well aware of that. But science is not strictly logical. You cannot do science by deduction, which is the only true logical procedure. Instead, practically all science works by induction. Philosophers still debate the so-called Problem of Induction. The fact is, no conclusion in science is beyond question. Potentially any finding of science might be overturned by an observation which clearly refutes it. The test of the validity of a scientific theory is a pragmatic one rather than a strictly logical one - does the theory work? Does it match what we see? Does it make useful predictions? That sort of thing.

<i>Let p=evolution, and let q=the way things are, and you can see that it is hopelessly impossible to prove evolution logically.</i>

True. Evolution (along with all other scientific theories) is not a deductive theory at its base. It is inductive.

<i>There would have to be another way, if it is true.</i>

Such as?

*Originally posted by James R
It's all very well to wave your arms about and say "some other method", but you seem to be having trouble pointing to any such method.*

Well, I have another method, but no matter to this discussion.
The point is that for the results of a method to be verified, a different method should be used for verification.
Otherwise, you end up in a situation similar to using two different compasses to verify each other.
All well and good if both point north, but if you are standing next to a magnet, both will be equally wrong.

*Your lottery example is flawed, because it is not a well designed scientific test. If you know how many tickets there are in total, you will be able to statistically estimate the sampling error. Similarly, if you know anything about how the lottery is drawn you will be able to combine your knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion from your sample. If, on the other hand, you don't know either of those things, then as a scientist you would have to be very wary of drawing definite conclusions in the absence of relevant data. The best you could say is: "on the basis of the tickets we've seen so far, no ticket wins".*

Your analysis assumes that you already know the exact nature of the reality that you are investigating.
The point is not the exact duplication of the use of the scientific method, but the highlighting of an obvious error produced when one does not know the nature of some reality in advance.

*You'd have to take the sample size into account. And you may well be right in this instance (lotteries can jackpot). On the other hand, you would probably find that some of your sampled tickets had won minor prizes, and it would therefore be reasonable to hypothesise that an unsampled ticket might have won the major prize.*

For the purposes of this discussion, we can assume one prize only.
Secondly, the lottery example is not an exact duplication of a real experiment.
Also, in real life one may not know the actual number of "tickets."

*That's a cop-out. If you assert that some other method should be used, it is up to you to point to such a method.*

No, it isn't.
You place your faith in the scientific method.
I don't personally care if you sink or swim using the sci met.
You might care, though.
Based on what you've said in previous posts, I can see that you have all confidence in the sci met.
I can see that you are using an unproven method, but if you feel that it is proven enough for you, so be it.

*This seems to indicate you have something in mind. Why not say what it is?*

I've been saying it.
The scientific method has not been verified as a valid method under its own rules.

*Look at any historical science, where it is not possible to experimentally repeat all the relevant conditions. Can we still do science in that case? I think we can.*

Well, we can, but what is the nature of the scientific knowledge?

*The fact is, no conclusion in science is beyond question. Potentially any finding of science might be overturned by an observation which clearly refutes it. The test of the validity of a scientific theory is a pragmatic one rather than a strictly logical one - does the theory work? Does it match what we see? Does it make useful predictions? That sort of thing.*

It's interesting that you admit this since it's pretty much what I've been getting at, both with science in general, and the ToE in particular.
The concept of "useful predictions" is a strange one.
For example, if you do some "science" and determine that you need to turn left to arrive at some destination, then a prediction would be that turning left will take you to that destination.
However, if that destination isn't where you want to go, then what use is that prediction?

*True. Evolution (along with all other scientific theories) is not a deductive theory at its base. It is inductive.*

OK, at least we're on the same page with that.
Your position is in contrast with some others who insist that evolution has been definitively proven.

*Such as? *

Having God tell you would be too easy.
However, as I said before, the issue of how valid the sci met is, is up to you.
I can say that you haven't verified the sci met according to its own rules, but if you feel that it is certain enough, then go for it.
Given that you only have one life, you are betting that one life that you are right, but it is your life to bet as you see fit.

Taken,

Since this thread seems to have been slightly hijacked I have started another thread to answer your quote by Josephus.

http://www.sciforums.com/t5335/s/thread.html

I'll report back here when I can find more time to tackle the other claims.

Take care
Cris

tony1,

That was actually a very reasonable post from you. Thankyou.

<i>Well, I have another method, but no matter to this discussion.
The point is that for the results of a method to be verified, a different method should be used for verification.</i>

Only if the method you're using to check is as reliable as (or more reliable than) the method it is checking.

<i>The point is not the exact duplication of the use of the scientific method, but the highlighting of an obvious error produced when one does not know the nature of some reality in advance.</i>

One does the best one can with the information available. As I said, there is no oracle by which you can know the Whole Truth.

<i>You place your faith in the scientific method.</i>

Until something better comes along. I realise that the scientific method is flawed, but I believe it is the best way we have of ascertaining things free of (much) human bias.

<i>I can see that you are using an unproven method, but if you feel that it is proven enough for you, so be it.</i>

I think all this technology we have shows that <i>something</i> about the scientific method works. It seems to be a useful way of gathering knowledge to me.

I said: The fact is, no conclusion in science is beyond question. Potentially any finding of science might be overturned by an observation which clearly refutes it. The test of the validity of a scientific theory is a pragmatic one rather than a strictly logical one - does the theory work? Does it match what we see? Does it make useful predictions? That sort of thing.

You said: <i>It's interesting that you admit this since it's pretty much what I've been getting at, both with science in general, and the ToE in particular.</i>

So we agree for once. Great.

<i>For example, if you do some "science" and determine that you need to turn left to arrive at some destination, then a prediction would be that turning left will take you to that destination. However, if that destination isn't where you want to go, then what use is that prediction?</i>

Not much use, in that instance. But if you had only one method for determining the way to go, surely you'd use that method even if it might turn out to be wrong, rather than make a random choice?

<i>Your position is in contrast with some others who insist that evolution has been definitively proven.</i>

I agree it isn't definitely proven, but nothing in science is. Absolute proof is impossible, and science does not strive for that. I might also point out that Creation is not definitively proven, either.

<i>Having God tell you would be too easy.</i>

The problem is that God seems to tell different people different things. There's no general agreement on what God says. Whereas, anybody can go out and check what science says for themself (in principle). Science is reproducible.

<i>I can say that you haven't verified the sci met according to its own rules, but if you feel that it is certain enough, then go for it.</i>

Thankyou. I shall.

*Originally posted by James R
Only if the method you're using to check is as reliable as (or more reliable than) the method it is checking.*

Obviously.
However, in saying that, you do see the need to have a method at least as reliable as the scientific method in order to verify the sci met.
Now, the problem is that the other method may appear to be less reliable, while actually being more reliable.

For example, in using a compass, the compass appears to be a very reliable method for finding north, unless one is standing next to a magnet.
Asking a bystander to point north appears to be a very unreliable method of finding north, unless one is standing next to a magnet.
The bystander is relatively unaffected by the magnet whereas the compass is definitely affected.

The trick would be in knowing if one is standing next to a magnet.
(For the purpose of this discussion, we won't assume piles of prior knowledge)

*One does the best one can with the information available.*

In the case of the lottery example, the "best" might be to throw out the winning ticket.
It is only with prior knowledge of how lotteries work, that one would not throw out a winning ticket.

How would one be able to tell if one is in a lottery-type situation relative to reality, using only the scientific method?

*Until something better comes along. I realise that the scientific method is flawed, but I believe it is the best way we have of ascertaining things free of (much) human bias.*

Faith means believing.
Thus, the scientific method is just as much a religion as religion is.

*I think all this technology we have shows that something about the scientific method works. It seems to be a useful way of gathering knowledge to me.*

That is very similar to saying that a stopped clock is exactly right twice a day, therefore something about it works.
In actual fact, nothing about a stopped clock works, but there is the appearance of working twice a day.

*Not much use, in that instance. But if you had only one method for determining the way to go, surely you'd use that method even if it might turn out to be wrong, rather than make a random choice?*

Since my example showed a method that was 100% reliable and repeatable, your choice ends up being between 100% wrong vs. a random choice.

*I agree it isn't definitely proven, but nothing in science is. Absolute proof is impossible, and science does not strive for that.*

OK, we agree that absolute proof via the sci met is impossible, but we pretty much agreed on that at the start.
My question is whether anything is proven by the scientific method.

I'll posit an unknown method called the xyz method for determining knowledge, with the understanding that xyz is substantially different in an unspecified way from the sci met such that there is no possibility of agreement between the two unless both methods uncover the truth.

Therefore, when the sci met and xyz agree then a person could reasonably assume that the truth has been uncovered concerning some aspect of reality.

If they disagree, then it is still unknown which is correct.

I could posit a third method called abc which always uncovers the truth, but since the truth is not known in advance, one would not know that abc is uncovering the truth.

Thus, if one notes that the sci met and xyz agree then one should notice that abc also agrees.

If the sci met and xyz disagree, then abc may agree with whichever is true, or it may disagree with both.

At this time, only the scientific method is in use, so basically one has no idea at all whether the consistency among various scientific findings are indicative of something or whether the cosmic equivalent of a stopped clock is being uncovered.

*I might also point out that Creation is not definitively proven, either.*

By scientific standards, no.
However, by at least one other method, it is, since here we are.

*The problem is that God seems to tell different people different things. There's no general agreement on what God says. Whereas, anybody can go out and check what science says for themself (in principle). Science is reproducible.*

Aside from the fact that almost all errors are reproducible too, what God says isn't a matter of consensus.
Since the sci met relies heavily on consensus, it is relatively obvious that the sci met cannot produce truth, only the latest opinion of what the truth is thought to be.

*Thankyou. I shall. *

OK, but I'm still curious as to why you would bet your life on something which you have admitted is an unreliable method of analyzing reality.

*I might also point out that Creation is not definitively proven, either.*

By scientific standards, no.
However, by at least one other method, it is, since here we are.

I'm curious, what is this other method? Us being here does not prove that a supreme being created us, it just proves that we exist.

tony1,

<i>However, in saying that, you do see the need to have a method at least as reliable as the scientific method in order to verify the sci met.</i>

It would be nice if your abc method existed. Then we'd just dial up absolute truth every time and we could throw science away. Unfortunately, ours is a world where perfect knowledge is impossible. In its own arena, science is the best way we have of obtaining reliable knowledge. There are things it doesn't concern itself with. For example, the existence of God is not a scientific question, so science is not necessarily the most reliable method for ascertaining the existence or otherwise of God.

<i>Now, the problem is that the other method may appear to be less reliable, while actually being more reliable.</i>

That is possible, but unlikely. Science is an interconnected mesh of many complementary observations, experiments and theories. Frankly, it is far too consistent to be completely wrong. And no other method of obtaining knowledge has come close to giving us what science has given us, in terms of technology and the ability to predict natural phenomena.

<i>It is only with prior knowledge of how lotteries work, that one would not throw out a winning ticket.</i>

Perhaps, but that knowledge would have to come from somewhere. There is no oracle of Truth.

<i>How would one be able to tell if one is in a lottery-type situation relative to reality, using only the scientific method?</i>

The only test one can make is to compare many different facets of the knowledge one has and look for discrepancies between what one thinks one knows and how the world actually looks. That's what scientists do every day.

<i>Faith means believing. Thus, the scientific method is just as much a religion as religion is.</i>

No. Everything about science can be questioned. The source of scientific knowledge is bottom up, not top down. Science does not start with a theory and then go looking only for evidence which supports it, discarding inconvenient facts along the way. In fact, it often tries to prove its own assumptions wrong to the best of its ability. It is self-correcting.

<i>In actual fact, nothing about a stopped clock works, but there is the appearance of working twice a day.</i>

Science works much more often than twice a day.

<i>Since my example showed a method that was 100% reliable and repeatable, your choice ends up being between 100% wrong vs. a random choice.</i>

I'm sorry, I missed that. In your example, what was the method which gave the 100% correct answer? I re-read your post and couldn't see any such method.

<i>My question is whether anything is proven by the scientific method.</i>

I'd say no, but many things are as close to being proven as is possible with ANY method of human knowledge. The only real proofs are in mathematics, which is the only truly deductive science.

<i>At this time, only the scientific method is in use, so basically one has no idea at all whether the consistency among various scientific findings are indicative of something or whether the cosmic equivalent of a stopped clock is being uncovered.</i>

I disagree. Unless the universe is exquisitely constructed to be deceptive, science simply cannot be as wrong as you seem to be saying it might be. Einstein once said the Lord is subtle, but not malicious, and I tend to agree with him.

<i>by at least one other method, [Creation] is [proven], since here we are.</i>

I could say exactly the same about evolution. Here we are, <i>ergo</i> evolution is true. Neither statement stands up to scrutiny on its own. In fact, this is an example of affirming the consequent, which you were so keen to dismiss as bad logic before.

<i>Aside from the fact that almost all errors are reproducible too, what God says isn't a matter of consensus.</i>

Let's assume for a moment that God has indeed given his One True Message to the world. In that case your statement would be true. But even given that fact, different people seem to interpret the Message in different ways, and you have to agree there is no consensus about its meaning. We then have a problem of discerning the True Message from all the other alternatives offered by different people. How can we do that? By gut feeling? By phoning God personally? Suppose that you KNOW the One True Message, by whatever means. How are you going to convince people that your message is the one they should listen to over all others? Can you make an argument better than "Listen to me. I'm speaking the truth. How can you know? You just have to take my word for it! I've talked to God." Anybody can say that - even if they don't have the One True Message.

What science does is to say: "Don't take my word for it. Doubt me. Go and check what I say about nature for yourself. Try to prove me wrong." Perhaps that makes science just one more voice in the crowd. Perhaps science does not, in fact, have the One True Message. So what's the difference between it and a religion? The answer is that questioning is encouraged. Science does not dogmatically assert "I have the truth so you'd better listen up!" Science says "Try to do better. Question what you believe. Improve your understanding all the time, until you discover the One True Message (which you don't have yet)." Compare religion, which says "The One True Message is blah blah blah and you'd better believe it or you'll go to Hell."

<i>Since the sci met relies heavily on consensus, it is relatively obvious that the sci met cannot produce truth, only the latest opinion of what the truth is thought to be.</i>

Yes, and importantly, that opinion can change as we learn more. Compare religion, which is stuck at the state of knowledge we had when your religious-text-of-choice was written.

<i>OK, but I'm still curious as to why you would bet your life on something which you have admitted is an unreliable method of analyzing reality.</i>

Because there is no better method.

I just wanted to elaborate quickly on James R.'s comment on how science is self-correcting. It is indeed the goal of many scientists to try and disprove any theorum that is brought forth. Only after the theory has withstood any test we can perform to try and disprove it is it considered "fact". Although this fact may change through time, usually it's basic idea is right. For example, the theory of gravity has changed many times since Newton, and indeed modern theory proclaims Newton to have been wrong about the way gravity manifests itself, but the basic idea of gravity (that it pulls objects toward it) has remained the same.

At the same time, the theory has been improved as more data has become available. Each time we revise a theory we get closer and closer to the end result (although as James said we cannot obtain perfect knowlege of the universe, we can come close). The end result would then be a theory (or theories) that can depict the universe itself to the greatest possible accuracy. It's much like a map of the Earth, initially it starts out sketchy, but in time as technology advances we get satellite images and so forth and the detail in the maps increases. The fact that theories change and are regularly questioned doesn't cause destructive effects, but constructive effects.

On a little side note, we did a lab in Chemistry today in which we created esters out of acids and alcohols to produce certain odours (essentially, we made artificial flavoring, the same kind that is used in foods except ours wasn't purified). Aside from the fact that one person pretty much burned off his nose hairs (he sniffed a testube full of boiling alcohol, methanoic acid and sulfuric acid mixed together :rolleyes: ) and that my labcoat smelled like pig guts, it was a very informative lab. I just couldn't imagine replacing that with a Bible study... ;)

*Originally posted by Xelios
I'm curious, what is this other method?*

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
(John 16:13, KJV).

The other method is to be told the truth.

*Us being here does not prove that a supreme being created us, it just proves that we exist. *

That's a little silly.
It's like saying that the existence of computers doesn't prove the existence of computer makers.

*Originally posted by James R
It would be nice if your abc method existed.*

Actually, it would stink, since I defined it as a method in which you wouldn't know that your findings are true.

*Unfortunately, ours is a world where perfect knowledge is impossible.*

Perfect knowledge IS possible in this world.
It's just that, so far, you have rejected it.

*In its own arena, science is the best way we have of obtaining reliable knowledge.*

Now we're getting somewhere.
What is this arena?
And how do you know that the arena isn't one of total or near-total illusion?

*Frankly, it is far too consistent to be completely wrong.*

Quite a statement!
Back to the lottery example...
With no prior knowledge, one could examine 999,999 tickets in a one million ticket lottery and consistently come to the conclusion that no ticket wins.
One would be wrong.

*And no other method of obtaining knowledge has come close to giving us what science has given us, in terms of technology and the ability to predict natural phenomena.*

Ha ha.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
(John 16:13, KJV).

Nothing in science even comes close to that.

*Perhaps, but that knowledge would have to come from somewhere. There is no oracle of Truth.*

There is, but you reject it.

*The only test one can make is to compare many different facets of the knowledge one has and look for discrepancies between what one thinks one knows and how the world actually looks.*

Again the lottery example.
It looks like no ticket wins, and unless you stumble upon the winning ticket, you would never know.

*Everything about science can be questioned.*

I'm questioning the validity of the scientific method.
So far it looks like you don't understand the question and its actual implications.

*t is self-correcting.*

It is not self-correcting, merely self-consistent.
In the lottery example, there is no correction at all, unless you accidentally stumble upon the winning ticket.
There is nothing inherent to the scientific method that would lead you to even look for a winning ticket.

*Science works much more often than twice a day.*

Does it, or does it merely appear to, like a stopped clock?

*what was the method which gave the 100% correct answer? I re-read your post and couldn't see any such method.*

There wasn't any such method.
There was a method which was 100% reliable and repeatable, but totally wrong.
People often confuse repeatability and consistency with correctness, as you just did.

*Unless the universe is exquisitely constructed to be deceptive, science simply cannot be as wrong as you seem to be saying it might be.*

You are touching upon an interesting point here.
You appear to be assuming that everything is as you observe it to be.
You completely ignore the existence of prestidigitators, conmen and ordinary liars.
Furthermore, since you do not know the mechanism by which any of your observed theories actually operate, you don't actually know to what extent deception plays a role in your knowledge of reality.

As Einstein says, God is not malicious, however, Satan is.

*In fact, this is an example of affirming the consequent, which you were so keen to dismiss as bad logic before.*

It is only bad logic if it isn't true.
If it is true, then it isn't bad logic.

*Can you make an argument better than "Listen to me. I'm speaking the truth. How can you know? You just have to take my word for it! I've talked to God."*

I wouldn't need to.
Those who want to know, will know.

*Compare religion, which says "The One True Message is blah blah blah and you'd better believe it or you'll go to Hell."*

Interesting concept, since many religions say exactly that, but not Christianity.

*Yes, and importantly, that opinion can change as we learn more. Compare religion, which is stuck at the state of knowledge we had when your religious-text-of-choice was written.*

Well, isn't that just a trifle obvious?
If the state of knowledge is complete, what further change would be needed exactly?
Compare that with science, where no one knows anything because everything is changing more rapidly than anyone can keep up with, or would want to, since the information is always incorrect.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Only after the theory has withstood any test we can perform to try and disprove it is it considered "fact".*

So, I'm supposed to rely on what some guy has tried to disprove and failed?
What assurance would I have that any of the testers knew what they were doing, and that any of the tests were valid?
How would I know if any of the tests gave positive results, or if all of the tests merely eliminated negative results, or if all of the tests merely gave false negatives or false positives?

*the basic idea of gravity (that it pulls objects toward it) has remained the same.*

I hate to tell you this, but people knew that much before science was invented.
No one ever though they'd just float off the earth.

*although as James said we cannot obtain perfect knowlege of the universe, we can come close*

Actually, all you can say at this point is that you might think that you are close.
After all, the builders of the Titanic thought they had achieved the unsinkable.
Ooops.

*we did a lab in Chemistry today in which we created esters out of acids and alcohols to produce certain odours
...
I just couldn't imagine replacing that with a Bible study*

I've done both.
The Bible study has the stink beat by a mile.
Mind you, I thought exactly the same way as you when I was cranking out esters.
Now, I know that the end result is that you live longer with the Bible study than you ever could with chem labs.

That's a little silly.
It's like saying that the existence of computers doesn't prove the existence of computer makers.

Well does it? No, it only proves they exist. To prove they are manufactured by someone you would have to tour Microsoft's manufacturing plant.

So, I'm supposed to rely on what some guy has tried to disprove and failed?

No you rely on several people who have tried to disprove it and failed. But if you don't believe them, you are welcome to try it yourself, and if you do disprove it, and the results are repeatable, you may even earn yourself some recognition. It's not like religion, where everyone believes the words of a handful of people who wrote a book 2000 years ago.

I hate to tell you this, but people knew that much before science was invented.
No one ever though they'd just float off the earth.

The moment someone thinks about why they are not floating off the Earth, they are thinking science. Science was not simply "invented" overnight.

Actually, all you can say at this point is that you might think that you are close.

I don't think we are close at all. We still have a lot left to explain.

Now, I know that the end result is that you live longer with the Bible study than you ever could with chem labs.

Yes, some people are happy believing such things, I am not.

More fuzzy thinking and attempts to step around points, tony1.

<i>Perfect knowledge IS possible in this world. It's just that, so far, you have rejected it.</i>

I asked how I can tell that you have the direct line to God, rather than somebody else. You don't seem to be able to answer that. You haven't convinced me that your Truth is better than anybody else's Truth. Perhaps it is you who has rejected the prefect knowledge (if it exists). You don't even consider the possibility.

<i>What is this arena [of science]</i>

I've already touched on that. It depends on repeatable, objectively verifiable observations. It depends on falsifiability. And other things.

<i>And how do you know that the arena isn't one of total or near-total illusion?</i>

How do you know your God is not a near or total illusion?

<i>Back to the lottery example...</i>

I've already dealt with that.

I said: <i>There is no oracle of Truth.</i>

You said: <i>There is, but you reject it.</i>

This is sidestepping the questions I asked in my previous post.

<i>I'm questioning the validity of the scientific method.</i>

And I have responded. Looks like you haven't understood, to me.

<i>People often confuse repeatability and consistency with correctness, as you just did.</i>

By what other criteria are we supposed to judge correctness?

<i>You appear to be assuming that everything is as you observe it to be. You completely ignore the existence of prestidigitators, conmen and ordinary liars.</i>

The only possible liar in terms of natural laws would have to be a supernatural entity. Science does not concern itself with supernatural entities. They are outside its arena. As long as the supernatural entities are consistent in their actions, science can accommodate their actions in the natural world without needing to ascertain their nature (if any). And - surprise! - nature <i>is</i> consistent.

<i>Furthermore, since you do not know the mechanism by which any of your observed theories actually operate, you don't actually know to what extent deception plays a role in your knowledge of reality.</i>

You don't know any "mechanisms" either, so this comment applies equally to your God.

<i>It is only bad logic if it isn't true. If it is true, then it isn't bad logic.</i>

I shall remember this the next time you comment on somebody's logic. It seems like bad logic to me, but if that's the way you want to play... You really are a fuzzy thinker. Your reasoning processes shift and change at a whim, to suit whatever random thought is crossing your mind at the time. It's very convenient. It means you can never be pinned down on anything. Unfortunately for you, it also means that your arguments lack any substance, and this rapidly becomes apparent to every intelligent reader.

<i>Those who want to know, will know.</i>

Through supernatural means, I suppose. Well, suppose I tell you I just <i>know</i> science is right. That puts me in the same position you are in with your claims of God. Where do we go from there?

<i>If the state of knowledge is complete, what further change would be needed exactly?</i>

The bible is not a complete record of all knowledge, tony1. It's easy to see that.