Let's say that a random man comes to me and preaches his faith. He says that his religious book was sent down to Earth 3000 years ago and revealed to a man called 'X'.
I ask him for proof about his religion...
He shows me that this book, which was supposedly revealed 3000 years ago, contains scientific knowledge which was not known to the people of that time and was only discovered until now.
Such as: Big Bang, Cure for various human diseases, knowledge of the space, stuff related to quantum theory
Now, there is no natural explanation to this stuff. Nor can I say that "We surely will find a logical natural explanation for this in the future", because that seems impossible.
There is no logical natural explanation for all this, hence I have to believe that this was revealed by a supernatural entity of some sort
So, well, now one claim has been proven true.
BUT.....
this book makes another claim:
it talks about some myths and legends and talks about some warrior-like figures and describes them..
it says that these people were actual humans on Earth but had some sort of connections with God and God gave them superpowers such as teleportation and flying on dragons.
Well, now accepting all this is an essential part of the faith.
However, there is no historical proof about the existence of these people nor is there any proof about the claim that they did miracles
I raise this point to the preacher and he says, "Look, this book contains scientific miracles. Isn't that enough proof that everything in this book is true?".
Read his dialogue again.. Has he made a logical fallacy?
Even though the book got one thing right and has some few undeniable miracles, we still can't use these specific miracles as a basis for saying that the ENTIRE book is correct?
Yes, the miracles are undeniable, but how can we merely use just these things as proof for the claims about the stories about the warrior-like figures and the claim of them supposedly being given superpowers?
Am I wrong here?.. Are my conclusions correct? Do I have a valid reason to be skeptical about the faith.
Except for that, I have another question. In a real world context, we have many religions. I don't think they have fulfilled their burden of proof and some of them have inconsistencies, however, can I merely use these inconsistencies to say that the books of these scriptures are not from god? Is there a possibility that these scriptures might actually have been revealed by something supernatural and that God actually lied when he said that the scripture doesnt contain any inconsistencies but still he is the original entity who revealed the books and purposefully inserted contradictions in his book?
