"Much that is 'testable' in the Bible is demonstrably false, contradictory or 'miraculous' (as in, has never been observed, goes against science and knowledge as we now have it, and cannot be reproduced)."
Demonstrably false? For instance?
"The error Greg makes - deliberately, I suppose - is in conflating the tested observations and explanations of science, reproducible and non-assumptive, with the faith-based non-empirical works of religious belief."
Non- assumptive? Right. The error you make- ignorantly, I suppose, is to "assume" that only what is material is real. That is why you are so set on defining concepts like evolution and science in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. The a priori rejection of even the possibility of God betrays the fact that you are more interested in defending a system of belief, than you are in finding the truth.
If someone claims to have observed a miracle, then how can you say it has never been observed? Can you prove that it has not? Just another example of your blind faith in naturalism.
"The bible does NOT count as its own proof."
Proof? Perhaps not, but it is a truth claim, and dismissing it out of hand, because you don't want to be morally responsible to God, speaks more about you, than you would probably prefer. |
