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 03:47:12 GMT

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:

>In article <C17y16.Jt6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>>	One of human's greatest assets is the ability to see a group
>>	seemingly random, unpredictable data points, and distingush
>>	a pattern from this chaos. Humans can GENERALIZE. This means
>>	they can infer from interelated facts. Humans can see a pattern
>>	and project it into the future. 
>[deleted]
>>	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.

>As promised, no flames, but some legitimate questions:

>Assuming some Biblical statements are provably true, do you think that
>the *majority* of the Bible is provably true?  (If 99% of the
>statements, or even 51% are provably true, then it is more convincing
>for the rest than if only 10% are provably true.)

It is my belief that approximately 50% can and/or has been proven true.
Of course this depends on the way you define 50%. If every verse is con-
sidered a seperate fact then I definitely say 50%. With another significant
percentage deemed "probable" (only 3 independent sources to back up the 
verse as opposed to 10, for example). If you think of each concept as a
fact then I say closer to 40%. Another important point to remember is that
a lot of the Bible is inter-related. That means that if one statement can be
proven, it automatically proves 10 others, etc. Either way, I will go on the
record as saying that at least 35% of the Bible has been proven true. I
will say off the record that 65% percent has been proven true. (I differ
only because different definitions of % yield different results and I don't
want to cut myself short on argument room :-) )


>If this reasoning can be applied to the Bible, why can it not be
>applied to some other books as well, that contradict the Bible?  For
>example, the Koran states, I believe, that Jesus was a prophet, but
>not the son of God, which is in direct contradiction with the Bible.

The Koran also states some things that have been contradicted by physical
evidence. This isn't such a big deal, but the Koran shcolars can't give
any (not even an unreasonable one) as to why these contradictions exist.
Therefore I claim that the Koran is faulty, has been shown to be so, and
generalizing from this we can assume it has more than just the few mistakes
we have been able to show.

>Don't Biblical statements have to be rather loosely interpreted in
>order to be proven true?  If so, mustn't the Biblical description of
>God be loosely interpreted?  (For example, some people say that God
>exists only as a powerful symbol of goodness or love.)  This gets back
>to my question about how you define God.

I have to (reluctantly) agree to an extent. Many of the statements made in
the Bible are symbolic. Another problem is mistranslation. One example is the
passage about killing. (Thou shalt not kill). This was a mistranlation
due to the times in which the translation was made. The correct translation
is Thou shalt not murder, which means something significantly different.
Yet another problem is the fact that God had to revel the Bible to a man,
to be read by man. How does God explain to Moses the concept of Evolution,
DNA, one billion years, etc. And if he does, how do the people understand?
God would have to revel to everyone everywhere all the knowledge necessary.
It just can't be. It makes logical sence for the Bible to require translation
based on the knowledge of the individual. How can God write a book that never
goes out of date? How can he create a work that will relate to a group of
nomads in tents in the middle of the desert, and a group of people 5000
years later, typing news articles in a language that hasn't been created yet,
on boxes called computers? The only way the make the Bible timeless was to 
make parts of it symbolic and parts of it tranlatable. It makes logical
sence for it to be this way, and it adds to the argument rather than taking
away from it.


-- 
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.philosophy.objectivism