Saturday, November 19, 2011

Sye has said...

     Sye has said that you cannot test the precondition for accuracy for accuracy. With this much, I agree. If there is a precondition for accuracy, you can't test it for accuracy. But the bible, which he claims as such a precondition, can be tested. And it fails. The bible is inaccurate and cannot serve as a precondition for accuracy.
     I should also note that Sye found out that his tricks weren't working. His enormous ego does not allow him to admit failure. He therefore feigned boredom. But, in reality, he took his ball and went home.

1 comment:

Paul Baird said...

In terms of accuracy it is not so much that the Bible is inaccurate but that its accuracy is not self evident.

If the Flood is a true account then that should be self evident from the geology, zoology and archaeology 9to name but a few sciences). It is not simply that the science demonstrates that the Biblical account is wrong, but that the Bible could be wrong in any way at all.

If the Bible is the fount of knowledge that it is claimed to be then it should be possible to use it as a self evident scientific text book whose contents are can be substantiated by everyday experimentation.

The fact that this cannot be the case, as a principle, undermines any claim for authority that any Christian wants to make for the Bible.

Authority in this case is not just something that is asserted, but something that is readily and unequivocally demonstrated. It does not exist, and endlessly repeating the assertion does nothing to improve it.