7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + +
→Neutrality
There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:The problem is that quite a few people do not consider the Bible a reliable source. In e.g. the New Testament, the Gospels are written by anonymous people decades after the death of Jesus, and the origine of the Old Testament and the rest of the Tanakh remains unknown. If we do, however, regard the Bible as a historical source, even then, it can't be used as decisive proof of anything. Even modern sources can't, because you will have to consider their reliability. And then what about all the other sources contradicting it? What about e.g. the Qur'an? It is actually a much more reliable source since we know its author to be the creator of the religion, Muhammed. Or what about the Iliad? Do those texts also prove their respective religions and the existence of their gods? Or should we have to be a little more critical when reading sources than to consider the words of the Bible decisive proof?--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==