Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor
The evidence that best lends itself to abstraction is based in an understanding of the area of applied mathematics known as "probability and statistics."

Thanks for the reply. There are many, many problems with Mr. Sherman's book, the execution of his idea, ELS, and "holy book codes" themselves. (For example, there is a "Koran code" that purports to do exactly what you claim for the Bible: proof its validity through the detection of coding.)

But, even putting that aside, improbability is not proof of the existence of a God, but of improbability. The computation of a statistic includes many, many variables, many of which are assumed. But more to the point, even something that is exceedingly unlikely (even to the order of 1 in 1x10^100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) CAN occur without the existence of a God.

But thank you for your reply. I don't think "Bible codes" fits the bill of "non-documentary evidence", but I respect your right to hold that opinion.

What about the other questions? (Let me repeat them:)

Second, what non-documentary evidence do you have that, if there is a God, that it is Yahweh/Jehovah and not, for example, Vishnu or Oden?

Third, what evidence do you have that the Muslim interpretation of things, in which the Koran was given to the Jews and Christians who then perverted it into the current forms of those religions, is false (assuming that you do, in fact, believe it to be false)?

Fourth, on your believe in the Bible; if the Bible said something that you knew, from non-biblical sources, for an absolute fact was not true, would you believe the Bible? For example, if the Bible said "all cats reproduce by laying eggs out of which kittens hatch," would you believe cats lay eggs or would you conclude that the text is wrong and believe what you know to be the truth?


58 posted on 09/22/2005 11:03:53 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: WildHorseCrash
For example, there is a "Koran code" that purports to do exactly what you claim for the Bible

That is a blatant falsehood. Sherman's project has debunked all claims re the koran after laborious research. Since you obviously have not read the book (your comments prove that) your rejection is totally subjective. No science evident.

64 posted on 09/22/2005 1:06:37 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson