Religion And Science <--See what I did there?

[j]

It's apparent, then, why this thread died. I'm disappointed.

[Gan]

Yeah, unfortunate.
People refuse to be objective.

Then again this is the age old reason why debates get no where, just end in a heated mess.
There's an incredibly low chance of a debate changing someone's mind if they are blind to all but what they believe.

[GMG Kurt]

Obviously the Bible itself doesn't count, because a single account can't corroborate itself (naturally that extends to you, too).

wow you are a good debater

anyways! The bible is not one reference its an anthology of 66 books. Therefor making it a viable resource. If you count Gan bible references, I'll assume he's given you 15 bible-only links that you "shrugged off" and "danced around"
                       ^oh snap^                      ^double snap^
http://bibleresources.bible.com/afacts.php

There is only one flaw to my previous rebuttal. How reliable, and noteworthy are the bibles books?
     They've been checked multiple times. They only were added to the bible only if they were inspired by God, or the holy spirit, and coincided with the Torah, because those were put in the ark of the covenant by moses himself with the entire jewish race as his proof of validity. Since then They've been checked and re-checked by historians, who share you're views of it being invalid. There's even a show about it on either the discovery channel or the history channel. (Sadly I don't know what it's called so I can't cite that.) When archeologists checked the books of the bible they all found archeological evidence (third link.)

saying the bible isn't a viable resource is like we saying all scientists work is bogus, because we have no proof of their lab reports being accurate.

That is actually what happened with global warming. They released incomplete reports and everyone started flipping out. Until someone actually looked farther into it and found out it was just a shifting climate.

http://bible.org/article/how-many-books-are-bible
http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html
http://www.creatingfutures.net/archaelogical.html

[GMG Kurt]

Yeah, unfortunate.
People refuse to be objective.

Then again this is the age old reason why debates get no where, just end in a heated mess.
There's an incredibly low chance of a debate changing someone's mind if they are blind to all but what they believe.

that is a good point. And sadly it's true.

[Silverwind]

We had an awesome sermon a few weeks back on Christian rationality. Totally worth a listen if you have a spare 20 minutes: http://www.cliftonparish.org.uk/sermons/?sermon_id=129

[Telstar5]

People refuse to be objective.

Ayn Rand will tell you that Christianity is for communists.

I will be objective for you: facts are facts, proved by man's reasoning mind. I cannot reason with eyewitness accounts, that doesn't make any sense. I could tell you that tonight I saw a politician urinate on a flagpole - I could tell you which street he did it on, what time it was, what it meant for him to do so etc. Basically, going back to the napkin - if I were writing in the bible that it happened all those years ago, you'd be inclined to believe it actually happened - when really, I might have just been making it up.

However, I can reason with science. How would a lump of silicon become a microprocessor without the application of knowledge to make it happen? Where does that knowledge come from? Certainly not god. It comes from his or her own mind, from his or her own observations.

I'm still bewildered why anyone even gives credit to the idea that there might be scientific evidence that might back up the bible.

Example: fossils. Explain why they are here. The answer should be a simple "they died and were preserved in the rock by volcanoes billions of years ago"

[GMG Kurt]

I'm still bewildered why anyone even gives credit to the idea that there might be scientific evidence that might back up the bible.

Not scientific evidence. Historical evidence. It was in one of my previous points.The bible contains these stories yes, but there are also other sources that backup too. Saying the bible isn't reliable because its eyewitnesses is like saying History books aren't reliable because the Its mostly eyewitness. There may be other things like evidence in a newspaper, but the newspaper is as reliable as St. Peter's book.

P.S. I do agree though there is no scientific evidence to back up the bible, and the church agrees. With those sort of matters the 'devils advocate' (I'm not making this up) challenges miracles with science. If he can't find a way to prove it scientifically then its a miracle!

P.P.S. nice too see you after silence for so long

[Silverwind]

I cannot reason with eyewitness accounts, that doesn't make any sense.

Come now Tel, it's not that silly to believe in something someone claims to have seen, especially if they took the trouble to write a book about it and made every possible effort to tell people about it against fierce opposition and without the slightest personal gain. Many early church Christians died horrible deaths preaching the gospel. The risk (and frequent realisation) of death didn't stop them, so it's only reasonable to assume that they were a trustworthy bunch, as in they certainly believed the message they preached and thought it was worth preaching.

I'm still bewildered why anyone even gives credit to the idea that there might be scientific evidence that might back up the bible.

I'm afraid I know next to nothing about carbon dating whatnots and modern science flim-flam, as "scientific proof" is something I've yet to develop a longing for since becoming a Christian - I've always found it somewhat easy to rely in the accuracy and divine authority of the Bible. I would however entirely disagree with Kurt's opinion that there is no scientific proof to back up biblical claims; surely if something is true it can be proved, and things will reflect its truth.

Anyways, here are a few helpful links if you are seriously interested in whether there is a God or not, rather than just wanting to debate:
Logical argument for the existence of God
Teleological argument for the existence of God
Moral argument for the existence of God
Cosmological argument for the existence of God
Transcendental argument for the existence of God