If Science can be defined by what you can exclude and so can religion, will this

A

Annsan_In_Him

New member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Points
1
example help clear confusion? And can you provide more examples?

Prof Karl Popper said this. His favourite example was: If you believe that all swans are white and you write a scientific law that says so but then you see a black swan in Australia, your theory is blown apart. It doesn't matter how many white swans you keep counting, one black swan means your theory is history.

In religion, Christianity, Islam and Judaism depend on historical data. The apostle Paul used this argument about Jesus, "If Christ has not been raised, then our faith is in vain." Paul's faith could easily have been shown to be false if the embalmed body of Jesus had been produced.

This is NOT about the ABSENCE of proof. It's about proof that something is wrong. So can anyone prove that Jesus was not resurrected, for example? If not, why do otherwise rational, scientific-type people on here keep ridiculing Christians for their belief that Jesus was reesurrected? After all, there were over 500 eye witnesses to the risen Christ!
 
And I say there were ten million witnesses to the defeat of your god at the hands of the Mighty Unicorn.
See? You're wrong.
 
"I can foresee a world united again, a world where man will not be divided by religion. Religion will be 'scientifically' explained and we will see that there is only one so called 'God' , which is nothing but a power within each one of us. Man will see his folly." ~Unknown~
 
the white swan thing is correct, if you make a hypothesis about something, test it, and it fails you go back and fix it, and retest it.

christianity isn't based on historical data, it's based on faith that these people writing it, were working under the influence of an invisible man, telling them the truth.

using the bible to prove the bible is a waste of time, and worthless to any thinker on the planet. if i wrote the bible is a lie, would that make it true? why not, it's wrote down, and right below it is says it's the truth, so it must be, because it says it is. do you see the flaw in your thinking?

i didn't not claim that jesus resurrected, i did not claim that Jesus existed. i said i don't believe he did either thing. so it's not up to me, it's not up to the innocent man to prove his innocent, it's up to the prosecuter to prove he's guilty.
 
though you forget if you read it properly he didnt look like himself to those who saw him they then said it was him the body had already been stolen, and people of the time were extremely superstition.

i cant believe i was acting like it was real facts when its a proven fact the NT was originally a fictional play and nothing more

the bible by its very nature of contradicting itself is an unreliable "source" show real historical records and not the usual debunked ones either.
 
You should probably do a little more research on Karl Popper, you've completely missed the point.

However, it is possible for people to write things that aren't true.

A billion people saw me lift the moon last night. See how easy that was?
 
If Jesus never existed, we would have the same amount of proof in the form of a body as we do now. What's noteworthy is that although 500 people (I'll just take your word on that number) supposedly witnessed the resurrection, there are no stories, oral traditions or written, aside from the Bible which says it happened.

Along those lines, the earth quaked and the dead rose from their graves, walking the streets, visiting relatives, according to the Bible, yet nothing but the Bible mentions it. It seems that if people rose from their graves that would be quite the talk of the town. Yet, nothing on the matter whatsoever. No family stories about great granddad catching a nooner 10 years after he died, no mention of the zombie apocalypse in history, nor, more importantly, how the Romans ans Jews survived the zombies.

In this case, the absence of evidence which should be there is compelling.
 
"Scientific law"? Never heard of such a thing. "Scientific theory" is INTENDED to be tested and re-tested. If a flaw is found and the theory falls apart, then a new one is developed.

In other words: your argument fails.

This Popper guy must have been popping something he shouldn't have.
 
There were millions of humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits witnessing the destruction of the One Ring and the fall of Sauron. That surely makes it all true...

And if you dispute that, I dare you to produce Sauron, alive and well!
 
so believe anything until it's proven wrong, looks like I'll be joining every religion and believe every myth I hear now...

Just because one professor says something does not mean the entire scientific community agrees with that statement. In science if you want to get something recognized by the rest of the community as true you must first demonstrate that it is true and allow other scientists to test it as well. Nothing is assumed true because it has yet to be proven false.
 
500 eyewitnesses? Okay, where's the proof for that? Other than...well, the Bible, which contradicts itself multiple times.
 
If you want to prove that the God of the Bible is wrong, all you have to do is kill all the Jews. Just that one little thing. If the Jews disappear and the world goes on just as before, I will be the first one to say "okay, the Bible is wrong." Lots of people have tried to kill them in the past 6000 years. You can't claim they have had any special protection from other humans. Just a little covenant Abraham made with God. As far as I'm concerned, with a record like that, it's everybody else who has to prove the Bible wrong; any further demands look suspiciously like ostrich-style denial.
 
Back
Top