From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:18:43 GMT

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:


>[Basically claims that although you can't show everything in the bible
>is true everything you can check is, so why not believe the rest.
>Culminates with this gem...]

(Could we be a little more sarcastic?)

>>	Now look at the Bible again. It is a collection of related state-
>>	ments of fact. Many of the things it relates are true. Many of
>>	it's statements are uncertain. NONE of it has been proven false,
>>	or even approached the point of being legitimately attacked. (If
>>	you have one I'll be glad to fight you over it). So how is this
>>	any different? It isn't. The same thought process and generaliza-
>>	tion techniques that are considered valid and a mark of higher
>>	intelligence in the world can be applied here as well. It makes
>>	logical sence for the Bible to be true.


>Well, this is a really interesting claim, which I can dispatch with
>not one but two arguments.

>First of all, there are statements in the Bible that are demonstrably
>FALSE, such as the indirect implication at one point that PI is equal
>to exactly three, and the apparent claim that the universe is only
>five thousand years old.

The implication that pi=3 is a legitimate evaluation for people who are
trying to count before the wide spread understanding of fractions and
decimal points. Let alone the use of such things.
The Bible is limited by man. As I put in my follow-up to another article
along this line how does God tell moses about DNA, billions of years, etc?
Moses can't understand and neither can the people who will be reading this
new bible. So God can't include those things. I will take the traditional
escape from this argument by saying that that calculation is based on the
first 6 days as lasting 24 hours each. I claim that they weren't. Interesting
that the days progressed in much the same way as evolution says life evolved.
Now if those days are of different lengths then there is no physical evidence
to contradict this. In fact, if you go back to the original text, the words
that are translated as "day" when referring to the period of time before
man are not the same wrods used through-out the rest of th bible to say,
"day" Why is that? It's because the word was mistranslated. When I say the
Bible is true I mean the word of God is true within it. You have to under-
stand all the facts.

>Second, your argument could be used just as easily to demonstrate that
>God doesn't exist, you know. I could simply go out and write up a book
>of thousands of demonstrably correct facts and include in the list the
>assertion "God does not exist", and by your argument I would therefore
>be obligated to disbelieve in God.

This isn't the same thing. The bible is a book of related facts. The entire
Bible is a combination of webs and strands crisscrossing back and forth.
It has been compared to a fragile system of bridge supports, made strong
through unity. Each part realted to every other part in some way. This
is why you get what is known as the Thompson Chain Bible. (Great work for
anyone interested BTW). You can't take parts of it out and have the same
thing. It is too interdependent. The book you speak of has none of these
characteristics. It is the bible's nature to be combined.
It is this nature that lets us generalize about it's truth. The book you
propose is not such a work and an assumption of that kind would be unwar-
rented.

>I could poke other holes as well, but these seem large enough to drive
>trucks through.

Unless I'm mistaken, I have closed said holes. Try again. (Hey, your
letter was flamin'. I get to flame too. :-) )

[Deleted: other flam stuff (I'm burning)]

P.S. The reason this is here is because I also believe in some of the
teachings of Ayn Rand. Thus this discussion is related to this group.
I started it here to see if anyone had an idea about how to apply Rand's
thoughts AGAINST such an argument as mine. (Yes I started this to start
an argument).

P.P.S. Nice bit of flame work. We are in the presence of a master of attack.
I'd appreciate it if you'd attack my arguements calmly and logically as
everyone seems to be able to do. Thanks.

Get a life. Then have a nice one.
:-)


-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism