Notes ...?!
Their master and teacher Cris and Tiassa are the most brainwashed peeps I know
Um ... huh?
Nevermind.
Setting methods to test for truth. What untestable things atheists must believe...
This comes from the website above, the capsule for their article, "General Introduction for Non-Believers". The phrase "Setting methods to test for truth" is important to note here. Shall we explore those methods?
-
I think that skepticism is good, even for a Christian, since there are many "Christian" ideas floating around that are either false or non-biblical. An excellent article on Christian skepticism can be found at John Cassidy's site.
-
In reality, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved absolutely. In fact, I cannot prove that you exist.
-
I propose using the same standard that we use in science - the 95% confidence interval. If you set no standard for evidence, the tendency is to raise the standard for proof as the amount of evidence increases. The standard I propose is a 95% certainty that God exists (and a 5% certainty that He doesn't exist).
Interesting ....
-
Not everything in the Bible is testable. The miracles of Jesus were reported by eyewitnesses, but the witnesses themselves are now dead. Non-believing witnesses also reported these miracles. Jews who did not believe Jesus was Messiah stated that they believed that His miracles were done by the powers of the devil (note that they did not deny that the miracles occurred).1 Therefore, I propose eliminating miracles from the body of evidence. Even if they seem unlikely (which is the definition of a miracle) this fact cannot be used to discredit belief. God, by definition is supernatural, so it would not be surprising that He is capable of performing supernatural miracles.
A-ha! So if we
cancel out those things that are difficult or impossible to support ...? It seems to make the examination easier if you're pushing for a god-related result. Should we, then, presume divine miracles?
-
Therefore, one should examine how a religious work (such as the Bible in the case of Christianity) describes the creation and determine whether this description is accurate (using the proposed 95% level mentioned above).
This works, but not for such an examination as this. When examining the philosophical content for integrity, one can employ this method. But if we consider, for instance, the numbers used to describe Biblical creation (sevens, for instance), there appears to be no specific methodology in employing numbers as mythical representations. "Forty years" in the desert is an interesting number, as forty has significance; but what of one-thousand (for one has asserted the truth of Genesis on the basis of a thousand-year figure, i.e. Adam's death) or seven or three?
Furthermore, I would ask, since the author at the website mentions "creation", which Biblical creation story to use? The first or the second? Or is this something we should--like the miracles--remove from the equation?
-
In contrast, the God of the Bible had no father, but is eternal, existing in at least two dimensions of time.
Wow. Okay. The linked page off that will require some reading, but suffice to say the assertion is theoretical at best. So far, the stack of presuppositions is getting thick.
And that's all the time I have. I hope this has been a reasonable start for people. In the meantime, when I have more time that is, I shall give it another perusal and see what else comes up.
Enjoy,
Tiassa
