Disprove Scriptural inspiration

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

The two 2 Timothy 3:16 passages only differed in that one spot, so it stands to reason that the different combination of words mean the same thing in that instance.

Why would any Xian care what it says - it wasn't written by Paul. It is a forgery written in the middle of the 2nd century.

 

[Walter Wayne]

The First Post of Walter to Sparklecat

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

1 Corinthians starts "Paul, ..., unto the church of God which is at Corinth, ..."

2 Timothy starts "Paul, ..., To Timothy, ..."

At the time Paul wrote this these letters they were not scripture. Paul's letters are later including in scripture and suddenly they become self referential. The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Walt

 

[sparklecat]

Ah, I see. They weren't Scripture then, but they became Scripture later. So Scripture includes things not of God, but merely written by man then.

 

[frisian]

EXCELLENT IDEA! Wow! That would make school so much easier, wouldn't it?

Why do things fall down? Gravity? NO! Elves with magic wands make things fall down! Why does fire burn? Chemical combustion? NO, it's those dang Elves again! Where does the sun go at night? The Elves hide it! Why do airplanes fly? Nothing to do with aerodynamics - we just ask for special dispensation from the Elves to not point their gravity wand at us!

Next time you fly on an airplane, make sure you make an offering to the Elves, or they may get angry and let you drop!

The reason why you don't seek supernatural causes first is because there is a whole laundry list of supernatural causes to pick from, most of which are mutually exclusive. I chose Elves, you might choose God. Someone else might choose invisible pink unicorns. We could all make our premise very hard (or even impossible) to disprove. However, each of us could offer our own special proof. (Joe Schmoe didn't make an offering to the Airplane Elf, and his plane crashed! SEE? PROOF!)

But along comes someone with a rational explanation, and offers the means to test that explanation. Testing it results in confirmation that his explanation is correct.

This is the beginning of science. This is where we eventually end up in the long run. So why not start there first?

Or just make an offering to the Airplane Elf. He accepts Paypal. I'll be glad to take the offering on his behalf.

School?

I wasn't aware I was in the Science area of the boards.

Why only be interested in explanations that work for the majority and are the simplest?

 

[frisian]

If Charles Tart's story doesnt get it across as to why supernatural explanations are useless, I'll make the reasoning a little more clear...

To put it bluntly, the supernatural explanation effectively explains nothing.

There is nothing that would suggest anything can occur outside of "natural explanation". There is nothing supernatural that is said to exist which is demonstratably or verifiably true in a scientific environment (scientific enviroments are favored for bias-free accuracy). While there is no evidence against the existence of the supernatural (I honestly have no idea how to go about finding empirical evidence - much less proof- to demonstrate the non-existence of anything), dont fool yourself into believing "hey, it could be possible".

That is why the premise for an explanation must be rational.

It explains nothing because it can't apply to all beings?

So take out as many variables as one can be aware of, come to a conclusion, and cease to think.

What does this have to do with science?

Who said we are trying to accomplish the same thing?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

One is able to reason without knowing 100% of the details. You have heard of inference, right?

Certainly, I am not that impressed with inference though.

 

[Yahweh]

It explains nothing because it can't apply to all beings?

I'm not sure where I implied that, but that is not the point I was trying to get across.

If it helps at all, ask yourself any question, then say outloud "Obviously, pixies!". First, is your answer the correct answer (does it have valid proof to support it)? Second, are you satisfied with the answer? Third, is the "pixie" explanation the only way to describe and answer the question?

Supernatural explanations do not work because there is no situation that has ever occurred that was legitimately supernatural in origin. (Keep in mind, there are such things as "rational" explanations which are not correct... for instance, aliens are not supernatural, but that doesnt make the accuracy - much less credibility - of using "aliens stole my car keys, thats why I cant find them" any more valid...)

Who said we are trying to accomplish the same thing?

If you claim the bible is devinely inspired, I claim it is not, I would think both of us would be trying to establish which claim is true.

 

[frisian]

I'm not sure where I implied that, but that is not the point I was trying to get across.

If it helps at all, ask yourself any question, then say outloud "Obviously, pixies!". First, is your answer the correct answer (does it have valid proof to support it)? Second, are you satisfied with the answer? Third, is the "pixie" explanation the only way to describe and answer the question?

Supernatural explanations do not work because there is no situation that has ever occurred that was legitimately supernatural in origin. (Keep in mind, there are such things as "rational" explanations which are not correct... for instance, aliens are not supernatural, but that doesnt make the accuracy - much less credibility - of using "aliens stole my car keys, thats why I cant find them" any more valid...)


If you claim the bible is devinely inspired, I claim it is not, I would think both of us would be trying to establish which claim is true.

Why would I answer pixies to every question? Is someone inferring that God is the answer to every question? Who does that?

Define valid proof.

What goes into being satisfied with an answer?

I didn't claim anything I don't believe.

Certainly without the presupposition that there is a God is necessary to say the Bible is inspired. That was inferred in the OP.

So what is with all the science analogies? Are we building a plane?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Certainly, I am not that impressed with inference though.

Why are you not that impressed with inference though?

 

[Yahweh]

Why would I answer pixies to every question? Is someone inferring that God is the answer to every question? Who does that?

I was describing how using a supernatural premise to describe or explain things really fails to accomplish anything.

Define valid proof.

In terms of proof derived from physical evidence:

A logically connected series of scientifically acceptable (preferably material) evidences establish a definite conclusion.

(Technical enough?)

What goes into being satisfied with an answer?

I didn't claim anything I don't believe.

Oops! I got the impression you were trying to establish that the bible is in fact devinely inspired. (I'm still not entirely clear...)

So what is with all the science analogies? Are we building a plane?

The science analogies are perfectly valid, they get the point across.

 

[Walter Wayne]

A logically connected series of scientifically acceptable (preferably material) evidences establish a definite conclusion.

I find the term "definite" perhaps stifling, since it kind of doesn't help with conductive arguments. Perhaps a more than likely conclusion, or most probable conclusion.

Walt

 

[calladus]

Why only be interested in explanations that work for the majority and are the simplest?

Your kidding, right? What makes you think that a scientific solution is simple? It may be mathematically elegant, and fit Occam's razor, but it can be counter- intuitive, which is not something that is simple to teach.

Simple solutions are not always correct (especially in quantum physics).

 

[calladus]

Why would I answer pixies to every question? Is someone inferring that God is the answer to every question? Who does that?

Define valid proof.

What goes into being satisfied with an answer?

I didn't claim anything I don't believe.

Certainly without the presupposition that there is a God is necessary to say the Bible is inspired. That was inferred in the OP.

So what is with all the science analogies? Are we building a plane?

frisian, in this thread all you have done is question.

Since this is the first time I've seen you, I'm really curious. Just what is it that you do believe? From your questions I take it you are not impressed with science. I would like to know if that is true, and if so, what you would replace science with?

Give me something besides questions - you're starting to sound like a Eliza program

 

[sparklecat]

frisian, in this thread all you have done is question.

lol... he's known for doing so

Though occasionally he can come out with some good thoughts

 

[Yahweh]

I find the term "definite" perhaps stifling, since it kind of doesn't help with conductive arguments. Perhaps a more than likely conclusion, or most probable conclusion.

Walt

I agree.

Unless someone can find a more appropriate defintion, I keep my definition of "valid proof" at:

A logically connected series of scientifically acceptable (preferably material) evidences establish a most likely conclusion.

(I would have made the edit in the original post, but unfortunately I cant make edits 6 hours after posting.)

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

..., I keep my definition of "valid proof"

The again:

• Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.

As found in my favorire site on Proof

 

[frisian]

frisian, in this thread all you have done is question.

Since this is the first time I've seen you, I'm really curious. Just what is it that you do believe? From your questions I take it you are not impressed with science. I would like to know if that is true, and if so, what you would replace science with?

Give me something besides questions - you're starting to sound like a Eliza program

Well I don't have everything figured out yet, I could give a list of many things I am uncertain about.

It seemed you knew something, thus I questioned to get answers.

Beliefs are similiar to opinions, no? They are quite relative and subjective.

I believe the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series some time.

Where has that gotten us?

I am not impressed with science in relation to attempting to understand something that could be supernatural. Use the natural to understand or predict the supernatural? Sorry, not following that thinking yet.

I am not replacing or suggesting replacing anything? Science, I believe, serves its purpose well in some instances and for certain areas of accomplishment.

 

[frisian]

Your kidding, right? What makes you think that a scientific solution is simple? It may be mathematically elegant, and fit Occam's razor, but it can be counter- intuitive, which is not something that is simple to teach.

Simple solutions are not always correct (especially in quantum physics).

I never mentioned that a scientific solution is simple.

As far as Ockham's Razor, for pratical purposes it works well. Still not following how it reaches conclusions in regards to discussions revolving around supernatural entities.

Ah, we agree for now in terms of simple solutions are not always correct. Then why do some quit thinking or pursuing in relation to supernatural entities?

 

[frisian]

The again:

• Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.

As found in my favorire site on Proof

Precisely.

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Why are you not that impressed with inference though?

It is incomplete.