The debate "The Bible doesn't have any evidence that support it's claims." was started by
March 11, 2017, 9:26 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 1 argument, qeteut13 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Pugsly, historybuff, Maxshe88, ProfDoke, makson, ZiraShadow and 10 visitors agree.
neveralone, blue_rayy, Nisarga, human, theshadow0, M3phisto, Brayden24, qeteut13, EthanTReilly and 5 visitors disagree.
Noah's flood has to be a fictional narrative because there is conclusive evidence that the world was not covered by water. Species existing in places like Australia and North America long predate the flood. Genetic records show that there was not a bottleneck to 2 individuals for each species, especially considering that is not a viable population.
I have no problem with the story of a local flood and a family surviving on a boat, but if there had been a world covering flood as written in the Bible, there would be evidence.
we base our calendar on the birth and date of jesus. not history. I have seen very few history books that even mention jesus.
how do we know it's fictional narrative? Fact and faith are the things that we have to go off of the Bible with. Everything in the Bible cannot be proven or disprove. But we base all of history around the birth and death of Jesus Christ, then he must not be fictional right?
why could Noahs Ark not have happened, goatf***er?
and the story of Noah's ark was probably based on a real flood in the middle East. just because there are kernels of historical fact mixed into a fictional narrative does not mean it is supported by evidence.
I believe that the entire Bible is true, however for arguments sake, just to prove that at least portions of it must be factual: biblical accounts are used in public school textbooks. Certain things that are spoken about in the Old Testament had been proven to be true according to archaeologists and historians and thus have been placed in the textbooks we use to teach our generations.
oh look, goatf***er thinks he has a brain! lmao, that entire "philosophy" is not even a philosophy, its a simple fact that your goatf***ing mind cant understand because it is filled with thoughts of goats!
also thereal has understandably confused evidence with proof. similar words that are nonetheless different. it's not surprising an underdeveloped brain incapable of abstract thought (14 years old tops) can't see the difference.
proof is a final and definitive result. it may come from a collection of many pieces of evidence, or perhaps one really strong one. final proof does not exist in science as any and all proposals are at all times open to questioning. however, the evidence is very real. outside of philosophical musings regarding the validity of existence, which is once again, the world of a priori philosophers, much like God and religion have nothing to do with science.
if I may interject. thereal appears to have a very nihilistic and subjective philosophy (I'm being generous here in assuming it isn't just trolling).
the only thing we know with certainty is that we individually exist. the old quote "I think therefore I am" you have thoughts therefore you have direct proof of the existence of your mind. everything, everyone else, may be a complex computer program that can easily change with a patch, or just stimulations of our brain sitting in a jar in a completely different reality. nothing besides your personal existence may not exist.
that philosophy is a real view that some do hold... however that is not science, has nothing to do with science. it is just philosophy. science deals with what it can find in an experiment. empirical evidence. musings regarding what may or may not be beyond the veil. whether a brain in a jar or a divine god, is not what science deals with.
you don't know what the words evidence or proof means do you? this is why scientists have a scientific method. they absolutely do work with evidence that is "100% real".
you only have the most tenuous understanding ?of what science is don't you?
Well done for playing yourself again, noob.
Not really, any scientist worth his salt would tell you that there is no way to tell whether the "evidence" that we see is 100% real. It could all be completely fake because there is no way to prove otherwise. Hence it requires faith.
"Nothing has evidence, everything requires faith."
I think every scientist, lawyer, teacher, and pretty well anyone with any education would disagree with you.
Nothing has evidence, everything requires faith.
true-ish. we care but we do this on faith.
religion isn't based on evidence. so while there isn't anything to substantiate the claims of the Bible, to the people who believe in it, that doesn't matter.