@MightyCreator 1) I take it that you gave me the banana before you left cause you said " I give one to you then leave." You used the word "then". Am I missing something here?
2)"You say no? But! How do I know?"
Knowledge is a tricky thing. We might be using the phrase "I know" in our every day language but what we really mean is "I believe beyond any reasonable doubt" True and absolute knowledge is impossible. It's the same reason why solopsism can't be disproven and why all the "brain in a vat" topics come about in Philosophy. When discussing in this philosophical context, I'll keep it clear and precise and not use the word "knowledge". There's no absolute knowledge, only beliefs. Some of the beliefs are reasonable, others are unreasonable. Some beliefs come as close to absolute knowledge as we can get, such as 1+1=2.
With that being said, how do we go about determining wether a belief is reasonable or not and to what extent? A belief is achieved through convincing arguements, evidence and trust. A logically sound arguement, in which the conclusion follows from its premises, plus the required evidence to back up the premises is usually enough to believe something. Then it's just a matter of how much room for doubt the evidence at hand leaves. But I also mentioned trust. And by trust I don't mean some sort of abstract blind faith in something. I mean reasonable expectation. For example, I see my brother leaving the house for 3 minutes and when I ask what he did he says "I threw the garbage in the bin outside". I have a reasonable expectation the he's telling the truth cause I've known him for years and he's proven himself honest a lot of times and there's nothing to be gained from lying about it (trust), plus I see no garbage in the house anymore (evidence). If I want even more evidence, I'll go look outside.
Going back to your question, you can have a reasonable expectation that I'm telling the truth about bananas (which I like) cause you trust that there's nothing to be gained by lying about such a trivial thing and most people are brought up with certain values such as honesty (at least when there's no gain in lying). If trust alone isn't enough for you for this case, you can plug a device on me or something and see how my brain reacts when I start eating a banana (evidence). Btw I'm eating one while typing this.
"No, but I can't accept that, it's full of bananas! It's doesn't validate itself with Newtonian physics, medicine or even basic mathematics." That doesn't make much sense or I'm totally missing your point here.
1) "Some events in the Bible are recorded repeatedly" And many of them actually disagree on what actually happened and contradict each other. Some examples are:
Seeing God:
John 1: No man hath seen God at any time.
Exodus 33: The Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
The explanation is quite simple: see 1 Corinthians 2:13
Jesus vs God:
John 10: My Father and I [Jesus] are one.
John 14: My Father is greater than I [Jesus].
Fate of the righteous:
Psalm 92: The righteous shall flourish.
Isaiah 57: The righteous shall perish from the earth.
Last words of Jesus:
Matthew 27: The last words of Christ: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".
Luke 23: The last words of Christ: "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit".
John 19: The last words of Christ: "It is finished".
Two deaths of Judas:
Matthew 27: Judas repents and accepts that Jesus was innocent, attempts to return the money to the priests but ultimately has to simply throw the thirty pieces of silver into the temple, and hangs himself (in an undisclosed location) out of shame. The priests, unable to put the "blood money" in the treasury, use it to buy a potter's field which is used to bury strangers. The field is named for Jesus' blood, because it was bought with the "blood money."
Acts 1: Judas is not said to repent, goes away and buys a field with his "ill-gotten gain," but manages to "fall headlong" in such a way that his body bursts open and his intestines spill out. The field is named for Judas' blood which was spilled on it.
Jehoiachin's Age at Royal Ascension
In the books II Kings and II Chronicles we get two different ages for Jehoiachin when he ascended the throne of Jerusalem.
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.[13]
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.[14]
Ahaziah's Age at Royal Ascension
In the books II Kings and II Chronicles we get two different ages for Ahaziah when he began to reign in Jerusalem.
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.[15]
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.[16]
How many horsemen did David capture?
Between II Samuel and I Chronicles, the number of horsemen David takes changes tenfold.
And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.[17]
And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.[18]
How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
From II Chronicles to I Kings, Solomon experiences a tenfold increase in stalls.
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.[19]
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.[20]
How many animals were on the ark?
See the main article on this topic: Number of each "kind" on Noah's Ark
God can make seven equal two:
Genesis 6:19-20: 2 of each animal [clean or unclean] into the ark. 2 of each kind of bird.
Genesis 7:2-3: Actually, make that 7 of each clean animal into the ark, 7 of each kind of bird, and 2 of each unclean animal.
I don't want to disappoint you but contradicting accounts can come from fallible human authors, but can't come from an all powerful being who doesn't make mistakes and doesn't lie. Such a being would also easily see the flaw in trying to pass this information through historical accounts of fallible humans instead of demostrating any information he has for us in a clear way. It should be a finger snap for him to demonstrate his truth.
2) You claim to be against Christianity but is this based on imagination, experience or principle? Answer carefully because you answer may be the very thing 'you are against'.
None of these things is the core of my lack of belief. I don't need experience or imagination etc. I don't believe cause it's not a reasonable belief. I see no reason to think that the supernatural exists. No evidence to back it up, no convincing arguements will get you there and no trust in a person either, cause it's too much of an extraordinary claim to simply rely upon personal experience. Humans are fallible and prone to misinterpretations. And some ancient accounts certainly don't qualify as reliable testimony or evidence for such a claim. It wouldn't be sufficient evidence even if all the accounts agreed with each other, it would just give some credibility, but let alone now with all the contradicting claims from all around the world and even within the same book!
3) The supernatural is out of the ordinary stuff. The Bible is a collection of supernatural accounts. You cannot dismiss it's records based on (1) it's full of supernatural stuff or (2) it's not a textbook.
The supernatural is not just out of the ordinary, it's something that trancends our natural world and the laws of the universe as we know them. It's the most unbelievable and extraordinary of claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can simply reject the claim in the absence of evidence and convincing arguemts for it. The stories described in the Bible don't even remotely qualify as evidence for the reasons stated above. That doesn't mean I exclude the possibility of it being true. It just means I don't see any good reason to think that it is true.
