A book can be used to prove itself. It's complete foolishness to say otherwise.
Is Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" not used to prove that Einstein first formulated the theory?
38 comments
Nope. It could have been written by an entirely different person - doesn't make the theory any less valid, though. You can prove that with logic, maths and a little scientific observation. This is just one reason science is stronger than religion - scientific texts stand or fall when weighed against observable reality and logical analysis, regardless of who wrote them, whereas texts such as the bible stake almost their entire credibility for their unverifiable, intangible assertions on their various authors, who are long dead and thus cannot be examined and proven or disproven. The fact that they repeatedly fail to accurately describe scientific reality doesn't help for their more materialistic assertions either.
No, Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is not used to prove that he was the first to formulate it. The absence of any prior publications of this sort is what would dis prove such an assertion, however, and in the absence of such, it is taken as a first formulation.
Whether first or not, however, the formula, though internally consistent, does not prove itself. It needed validation by experiment and observation -- which have been done with great success, repeatedly.
Now the Bible, on the other hand, is internally IN consistent (so it disproves itself on many counts right there) and has been IN validated by observation and experiment, repeatedly, as well as by basic logic. It really would be hard to imagine it failing any harder.
As has been said, a book can be used to prove itself EXISTANT. Nobody is claiming the Bible doesn't exist. Opening up a Bible does, in fact, prove that there are words inside. Whether are not those words are true, ethical, or intelligent is not something that can the book can prove by itself.
"A book can be used to prove itself. It's complete foolishness to say otherwise."
A source cannot be used to provide evidence of it's own claims. This is extremely basic. If you believe otherwise then I say that I am your god. I know this because I just told you so it's obviously true. Please bow down and worship me now. You have to believe me since a source (me) made the claim and then the same source (me again) agreed with the claim.
See the problem now?
"Is Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" not used to prove that Einstein first formulated the theory?"
That's not quite what you're getting at in the first part of your stupidity, now is it? Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not claim, and then agree with that claim, that Einstein created it. It's a theory that's simply named for Einstein. If you actually read his work I suspect the only time you'll actually see his name mentioned is under the attribution.
I wanted to use this Blackadder quote for soo long; Now I got my chance:
The eyes are open, the mouth moves, but Mr Brain has long since departed, hasn't he, jcr4runner?
A book can be used to prove that the words written in it are precisely equal to the words written in it.
This observation has no bearing on whether the words in the book address reality or make any sense.
To some extent you're actually right, but you misfire completely.
A theory, rule or logical statement (be it written down in a book or not) can be proven by applying itself on itself. It's automatically a tautology.
E.g.
E.g.
We could at some point discover that someone else wrote the paper attributed to Einstein. This would have no effect on the validity of the theory itself.
On the other hand, science could someday prove that the theory was wrong. That would not change the author of the paper.
I still don't get what this has to do with using the Bible to prove the Bible.
It's pretty typical that what's important about the Theory of Relativity is not the validity of the theory itself, but who wrote it.
What did you think? It would suddenly become less true if it turned out someone else wrote it?
Okay, bad example, because if it turns out God didn't write the Bible, it does become less true.
I can... almost see where you're coming from, but you're still wrong.
Say there's a book about evolution (and yes, this example has been chosen especially to annoy fundies) that includes photos of the fossil record showing skulls developing throughout history. Although the book is, in effect, proving its own argument, it is still relying on proof from OUTSIDE the book to do so- the proof is demonstrated, not created.
The bible's 'proof' is entirely internal. It claims to be true, but can't demonstrate any evidence other than its own claims.
So, if you print the same incorrect information in different chapters of the same book, or series of books, that proves the information is correct?
Do you see the inherent stupidity of your statement yet?
Surely jcr sees the distinction between proving that someone wrote something and proving that they were right?
It wasn't the book that proved Einstein's point, it was an observation of the transit of Mercury IIRC...
More the point is that people writing on these same subjects would come to the same conclusions.
Another author writing 'Origin of the Species' would probably cover something about this natural selection and evolution.
So what would happen if someone wrote the bible from start with the same source material? Would it look remotely the same?
I think he means that a book has to be internally consistent.
The babble is not internally consistent, it phails
Lets see,
he says pi=3 and hes stupid and likes spiked dildos up his ass..
“A book can be used to prove itself”
“It's complete foolishness to say otherwise.”
“Is Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" not used to prove that Einstein first formulated the theory?”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
