How do you know God isn't dead?

[smax]

I am not sure if this thread is done. But one last thought on my part. It is funny to me that christians will always question the methodologies and applications of the scientific method, yet they NEVER seem to question the absolute "truth" contained within their bible.

Just because Genesis 5:4 says that Adam lived to be 930 years old, does not mean it is true. Yet, I have to find one christian to question the application and methodology used to derive at proving that Adam lived that long.

Or ever lived for that matter.

[Statler Waldorf]

I am not sure if this thread is done. But one last thought on my part. It is funny to me that christians will always question the methodologies and applications of the scientific method, yet they NEVER seem to question the absolute "truth" contained within their bible.

Just because Genesis 5:4 says that Adam lived to be 930 years old, does not mean it is true. Yet, I have to find one christian to question the application and methodology used to derive at proving that Adam lived that long.

I can answer that for you. The inerrancy of scripture is axiomatic for Christians, so we reason deductively from scripture. When inductive reasoning (which science is founded upon) conflicts with deductive reasoning it’s completely logical to take the side of deduction. More simply put, if you have an infallible source (scripture), and a fallible source (scientific inquiry), and the fallible source disagrees with the infallible source which one is right? The infallible source is of course (nice little rhyme there). Add that with the fact that in a purely natural universe science would be impossible and the Christian really does have a perfectly logical position. A better question would be, “if atheists know science is fallible, then why would they be using science to try and argue that scripture is also fallible when it’s not even possible to do so?”

[pocaracas]

Stat, why do you claim that scripture is infallible?
How do you know that?
What infallible method did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?

Specially, since you know very well that atheists and practitioners of other religions do not ascribe such infallibility to your scripture.

[Statler Waldorf]

Stat, why do you claim that scripture is infallible?

Because it has to be.

How do you know that?

Because denying that truth leads to a view of reality that is logically inconsistent and incoherent.

What infallible method did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?

I didn’t arrive at that conclusion; it’s the starting point that allows me to properly arrive at all other conclusions.

Specially, since you know very well that atheists and practitioners of other religions do not ascribe such infallibility to your scripture.

Indeed they do not, and that is why their views of reality are either logically inconsistent, incoherent, or just plain self-refuting.

[Foxaèr]

Because it has to be.

Try again, this time with something more akin to reason rather than a weak punchline to a joke we already know is Christianity.

Because denying that truth leads to a view of reality that is logically inconsistent and incoherent.

False. Christianity by its very nature is illogical due to the faith it expects from its adherents. Reality maintains its nature without religion to screw it up, because religion screws up the people who believe in it.

[Statler Waldorf]

Try again, this time with something more akin to reason rather than a weak punchline to a joke we already know is Christianity.

Proof through negation is perfectly logical, nice try though.

False. Christianity by its very nature is illogical due to the faith it expects from its adherents. Reality maintains its nature without religion to screw it up, because religion screws up the people who believe in it.

You’re going to have to be more specific because nothing you’ve stated above proves Christianity is illogical.

[Foxaèr]

You’re going to have to be more specific.

Christianity is illogical in its faith. The only way to believe God is real is to have faith. Considering that the very definition of faith is the veritable lack of evidence, one must be out of touch with reality to believe in a being that has nothing to back up its existence except man's imagination.

[pocaracas]

Stat, why do you claim that scripture is infallible?

Because it has to be.

Says you....

dammit, we're getting into another mega post quote thing...
Good thing I'm going on holidays, so I won't reply tomorrow

How do you know that?

Because denying that truth leads to a view of reality that is logically inconsistent and incoherent.

I don't think it does... how is an atheist view of reality "logically inconsistent and incoherent"?
The same for a muslim's?
And, while we're at it, the same for a hindu?
Clearly, you've considered ALL alternatives, when you make such a bold claim.

What infallible method did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?

I didn’t arrive at that conclusion; it’s the starting point that allows me to properly arrive at all other conclusions.

Yoda says: "And that is why you fail."

[sarcasticgeographer]

Statler:

A claim that scripture is infallible is not accurate. Are you telling me that scripture is free from error and that there are not inaccuracies in that book? That "holy" book was written by human authors and yet you claim they are infallible? It would take a lot more than subjective faith to prove that the bible is free of error.

If divinely inspired authors are infallible, then christians must accept the fact that the koran is also infallible. If I am not mistaken, the koran was inspired in part by Muhammad. Yet, I seem to remember christians able to question the koran and not follow its premises.

[Zarith]

Statler:

A claim that scripture is infallible is not accurate. Are you telling me that scripture is free from error and that there are not inaccuracies in that book? That "holy" book was written by human authors and yet you claim they are infallible? It would take a lot more than subjective faith to prove that the bible is free of error.

If divinely inspired authors are infallible, then christians must accept the fact that the koran is also infallible. If I am not mistaken, the koran was inspired in part by Muhammad. Yet, I seem to remember christians able to question the koran and not follow its premises.

The Qur'an according to Muhammad is the literal words of Allah, dictated (verbatim) to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel, and recorded without alteration. This is why a translation of the Qur'an is not really considered the Qur'an.

As far as 'infallible scripture' -- do the many Biblical errors, contradictions, omissions, and interpolations count for nothing here? Or are you (statler) using some other sense of 'infallible' that permits failing?