Ok let's take a different line of thought for a bit. Let's talk about not just proving the bible is historically accurate, but let's look at proving that a person who claims he is god is (or isn't) actually god. Let's say a person who claimed he was god appeared in a room full of the world's preeminent scientists, who had all of the best and most advanced scientific equipment on hand and of course these scientists knew how to use it. This person then submits himself to be examined in every way by the scientists. How would the scientists go about proving or disproving that this person was or wasn't God or god? Which branch of science would hold the answer to unlocking the true identity of this person? After hours and days of examination, maybe the scientists would say, well if you are god, prove it by performing a miracle, because in spite of all the tests we have performed, we certainly can't show one way or other that you have omnipotence or omniscience as you claim. So the person performs a miracle, turning the water in the water cooler into something else such as wine. So the scientists spend days analyzing the wine, taking samples, theorizing on how it turned into wine. The scientists then come to the conclusion that they needed a sample before the test to prove that the water in the water cooler wasn't in fact wine originally instead of water, so they tell the person that they need advanced notice of what miracle will be performed, so he says he will turn the wine back to water for his next miracle. The scientists take samples and then give the ok. The wine turns back to water (including the samples) and the scientists are left to argue a multitude of theories including mass delusion. Let's say some of the scientists believe that a miracle was in fact performed: at what point would science be able to say that the person was in fact omnipotent or omniscient? How many miracles would this person have to perform to definitively prove that he was omnipotent? How many factual questions would this person have to answer correctly to prove that he was omniscient? What if the answers to factual questions given by the person were all correct but some of them contradicted what science knew as fact? What if the person refused to perform any miracles or answer any factual questions? Could science by itself come to the conclusion that this man was in fact omnipotent and omniscient? The point I'm trying to make is that the only way science would be able to come to the conclusion that a person actually has supernatural powers is for that person to demonstrate those powers over and over and over again until the scientists become convinced that this must be the case. It is very likely that after hundreds of miracles and years of observation the majority of respected scientists remain skeptical and are unable to come to the conclusion that the person in question has omnipotence and omniscience. My editorial: Science of itself is poorly equipped to determine the question of god because the only thing science can determine is what the person decides to demonstrate. If the person chooses not to satisfy the scientists curiosity then science has no way of determining that the person they are examining is what he claims to be even when he is in fact what he claims to be. I would say if you really want to find out about god, look not to science but look to god for answers as he is the only one capable of providing those answers.
Cheer up Aphie, ElCubano, Darkhorse, T-Bolt, et al! The cavalry has indeed arrived! Let's drive the heathens into the sea! __________________ "Let loose the dogs of war!" Gluteus Maximus
Excellent approach. Capable how??? This makes no sense. I would say that if you really want the highest probability of knowing the truth, look to science. It has the best track record. The lowest probability? I would say religion. It gets debunked more and more every year and is not based on anything factual. peace axeman
Cavalry? All I have seen so far is Kermit the frog riding a poodle. Still waiting for a strong argument from ANY theist on ET. I think the atheists shot gun trigger fingers are exhausted from shooting down weak theist arguments. PULL!! axeman
Do you really understand what omnipotence and omniscience means?. Do you really think that anything would need any testing on a demonstration of omnipotence or omniscience power? You wouldn't NEED to test if either could be presented to you. A "miracle" isn't omnipotent. jeeeesh goldemarm, you are cluthching at straws. I really think you would jump to believe anything or anyone that had the word god in it or on it.
Hehehe.... yeah Stu, If I were god, and this little group of scientists came to me asking for proof I wouldnt be messing around with water to wine and little baby miracles like that. In a split second I would take them to 1000 other galaxies and show them the universe. Make the whole universe disappear, except for them and me. Then show them their entire past lives like a movie in their minds in 1 second. After leaving them there stunned and confused, I dont think they would even bother with their experiments. LOL. They would assume they had gone mad and wonder what other scientists would think of them. The MOMENT they thought of this, I would make said scientists APPEAR before their very eyes, and take them through the same mind blowing journey. It wouldnt take them very long to believe. I would ask them to make any completely INSANELY impossible request, and I would deliver it in a moment. In fact, you could make every RESPECTED scientist and atheist on earth appear in one spot and put them ALL through your mind blowing EXAMPLE of your power. There would be NO doubters left. But nooooooooooo...this little god must hide from science for some reason peace axeman
You give a trick question. I understand the word omnipotence means roughly all powerful, and the word omniscience means all knowing. But I concede that I really don't know what it means to be all powerful or all knowing, and furthermore would assert that neither does anyone who is not omnipotent or omniscient. How would you propose that an omnipotent/omniscient person display his power and knowledge so that we could understand what that meant? If we were shown all power and all knowledge, how could we comprehend and endure it? Are you sure you want to make that argument stu, because by doing so you concede that not only is science utterly incapable of coming to the truth about god, but it is also irrelovent to the process? Science can neither measure nor comprehend omniscience and omnipotence. Why rely upon science, which has no capacity to confirm or deny truth regarding these matters? It makes no logical sense. If as you state, nothing "would need any testing" then you concede that science is irrelovent to the process of knowing an omnipotent/omniscient god. So why rely upon science to give us knowledge it is incapable of providing or which is unnecessary by your own admission?
I say that science is not capable of comprehending, measuring or recognizing omniscience or omnipotence. Science can measure observations and draw conclusions based on that observation but no matter how many observations are made it will never be able to definitively conclude that a person is all powerful or all knowing. Furthermore, as stu concludes, science is irrelovent to the process of understanding the true nature of god. Thus it is illogical to rely on science when it is incapable of reaching the truth concerning god.