Evidence

Morbert

The following is a quote from Jakkass in another thread.

A lot of study based in philosophy, science, theology, archaeology, history etc has suggested that there is quite a strong case to accept that the Biblical record is actually quite accurate. By science in this case, I am not referring to creation science just to get that out of the way, but in terms of the fine tuning that took place at the beginning of the universe, and into cosmology and other things. Infact that would link in to philosophy in the sense of more modern arguments of cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence.

This is really the only issue, regarding the theism-atheism debate, that I am interested in.

Science is a good place to start: You cannot point to a scientific theory or model, such as the standard model, and say that it supports the idea that God exists without explicitly stating how and why the model supports the idea that God exists. Jakkass's statements on fine tuning and cosmology, for example, are wrong on at least three counts. There is no evidence that fine tuning 'took place' at the big bang, there is no justification for claiming that the standard model can be fine tuned at all, and there is nothing in cosmology that points to God. We do not have a theory of quantum gravity, and therefore we cannot claim the standard model is complete. Conflating rigorous scientific inquiry with ambiguous teleological arguments is not a productive path to evidence.

Historical evidence is the other type of evidence mentioned by Jakkass. I have to ask for explicit studies into the claims, regarding the divinity of Jesus, made by the authors of the Bible. We can take it from there.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

The following is a quote from Jakkass in another thread.



This is really the only issue, regarding the theism-atheism debate, that I am interested in.

Science is a good place to start: You cannot point to a scientific theory or model, such as the standard model, and say that it supports the idea that God exists without explicitly stating how and why the model supports the idea that God exists. Jakkass's statements on fine tuning and cosmology, for example, are wrong on at least three counts. There is no evidence that fine tuning 'took place' at the big bang, there is no justification for claiming that the standard model can be fine tuned at all, and there is nothing in cosmology that points to God. We do not have a theory of quantum gravity, and therefore we cannot claim the standard model is complete. Conflating rigorous scientific inquiry with ambiguous teleological arguments is not a productive path to evidence.

Historical evidence is the other type of evidence mentioned by Jakkass. I have to ask for explicit studies into the claims, regarding the divinity of Jesus, made by the authors of the Bible. We can take it from there.

Sorry, I'm a bit dim today. Are you simply making a statement? Or is there a question in there?

Tim_Murphy

A lot of study based in philosophy, science, theology, archaeology, history etc has suggested that there is quite a strong case to accept that the Biblical record is actually quite accurate.

There is certainly no scientific evidence that the biblical record is accurate. What archaelogical and historical evidence is there that the biblical record is accurate?

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

There is certainly no scientific evidence that the biblical record is accurate. What archaelogical and historical evidence is there that the biblical record is accurate?

Here's a few to get you started (cut & pasted from various sources, both Christian and non-Christian).

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

The inscription on the Moabite Stone provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

Now, of course this does not prove that everything in the Bible is accurate. That would, by definition, be impossible to prove. But it does demonstrate, as any competent historian will agree, that many events in the Bible that were once thought to have no corroborating evidence have been shown to be historically accurate.

Fanny Cradock

Surely there is a distinction between historical and scientific evidence? While having some limited use, I don't believe science is an appropriate tool for judging the fundamental veracity of the bible. Maybe I'm alone in this?

philologos

By my use of science, I meant evidence through implication. Such as the huge improbability of the planets in the universe, and the chemicals being in the correct way to give an environment which is suitable for sustaining life, as just one stage, before we consider life coming from non-life abiogenesis.

Although Fanny Craddock, it appears that although I explained in the next paragraph of the post that was quoted by the OP, that I didn't mean evidence as proof, I meant evidence as implication, which would suggest God's existence being very likely, although not absolutely certain. This is the means by which I generally argue for God.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

By my use of science, I meant evidence through implication. Such as the huge improbability of the planets in the universe, and the chemicals being in the correct way to give an environment which is suitable for sustaining life, as just one stage, before we consider life coming from non-life abiogenesis.

Although Fanny Craddock, it appears that although I explained in the next paragraph of the post that was quoted by the OP, that I didn't mean evidence as proof, I meant evidence as implication, which would suggest God's existence being very likely, although not absolutely certain. This is the means by which I generally argue for God.

But scientific theories aren't about proofs either. They are about inferences. Scientists never deal with proofs or theorems because science is inductive, while other forms of reasoning (like mathematics) are largely deductive. So when I say science does not support the idea that God exists, I mean you cannot infer the existence of God from scientific evidence, which is contrary to your claim that you can infer God's existence from scientific evidence.

And you're misusing probability. A scientists says the probability of an electron behaving in a specific way is slim, they are referring to very specific probability densities - functions that tell us the probability of an event happening - that have been constructed from observations, but when you say that the planets are 'improbable' you're not drawing from any scientific evidence at all. In order to say that planet earth is 'improbable', in the sense that God should be invoked to explain its existence, you would need to know, specifically, the values of variables in the drake equation. But that kind of data just isn't there.