The biblical conundrum

[dogtowner]

Would you be prepared to condemn hebrew law?

why would I ? even the most observant jews have gotten over all the stoning and other mayhem.

 

[Dr.Who]

Since the quote from Francis Bacon was posted there has been ample evidence of it's truth right here on this thread.

 

[cashmcall]

Examples of archaeological evidence for this assertion.

What moral concepts and what are these influences?


Again I have to ask you justify this in some way.


Certainly it has impact but so does taking a cricket bat one's skull, this says nothing of the supposed beneficial influences of the text.

Despite contradicting accounts of singular historical events contained within the text?

So where is this evidence?

You can’t prove there is no God – and I can’t prove that there is, apart from using the Bible, which you assumes is not reliable.
Trying to prove God apart from the Bible puts you in the position of putting God on trial. On trial is the question of whether God exists and if so, does He tell the truth?

You are the prosecutor, the skeptic is the jury and God is the defendant. You are already undone. There is a verse that tells us TO answer a fool according to his folly “lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

So which is it? It is a fool’s errand for a believer to attempt to prove creation to an unbeliever because accepting creation requires accepting a Creator first. You can’t get there from the opposite direction. But what you can do is demonstrate the absurdity of the Big Bang’s position: a Singularity -- that cannot be God! -- caused space to expand from a pinpoint into the vastness of the universe, for no particular reason.And during the course of this random expansion, a biological computer operating system -- one infinitely more sophisticated than the most sophisticated computer systems ever devised by man -- programmed itself with all the information necessary from birth to death and then somehow installed itself in every living thing.

The fool -- that says in his heart, “there is no God” -- is only capable of saying that because first, the “Singularity” programmed him with the capability for higher thought.
My dog’s pretty smart, but she doesn’t have the programming necessary for existential thought. But she has DNA. (So does an amoeba.)

Apart from the Bible, the existence of God cannot be ‘proved’ and trying to prove what is impossible to prove would make me as big a fool as the person i'm talking to.

Consider, for a moment, the task you are undertaking when you try. You are attempting to debate with somebody that believes that, in the beginning, nobody created nothing,which then became everything -- and for no apparent reason.

 

[cashmcall]

Would you be prepared to condemn hebrew law?

Why should he?Why should he have to? tia

 

[cashmcall]

when we hear an opponent using words like "reasonable" and "evidence" the first thing I have to address is: What do you mean by that? Too often the test becomes.. "It's your job to persuade me!" No, I have no such responsibility. Each human being is accountable to truth, and if an opponent has an irrational core, it can be helpful to expose that, but I can't change it.
To avoid falling into circular reasoning of Christauins so-called "extraordinary" claims only require ordinary evidence. If a man claims he has a perpetual motion machine, then use the same test as for any other mechanical claim. If an experiment claims to have found life on Mars, then evaluate it on the same grounds as any other experiment. And if it is claimed that a man rose from the dead, then think about what kind of evidence would be reasonable to confirm that, given that time and place — or be honest with yourself and admit that you are unpersuadable on that point, and politely disqualify yourself from the debate.

 

[Richard Savage]

It was Francis Bacon who was in no small part responsible for the King James Bible. Few know of Bacon’s connection with The King James Version of the Bible; which was a revision of the English translations by committees of scholars appointed by Bacon, and revised by him while serving as Solicitor General to the royal court. Bacon was the greatest intellect of his time. Besides his contribution to the revision of the English Bible stands his works on science, philosophy, history, law and literature. There is even considerable scholarship that would attribute the works of Shakespeare to his hand. The language of these works is a form of literary expression that Francis Bacon invented and perfected in his Essays that were written (and revised) contemporaneous in time, and which express his ideas in his unmistakable writing style throughout. While the authorship of Shakespeare is subject to dispute, one can say with confidence that The King James Version of the Bible is one of the great works of English literature because Francis Bacon made it so.

 

[Apathy]

You can’t prove there is no God – and I can’t prove that there is, apart from using the Bible, which you assumes is not reliable.

I cannot prove that a god does not exist however the burden of proof as always is on the claimant. You claim their is desert god that is greatly involved with our lives and takes particular objection to what we do while naked and Im asking you to logically, historically, or empirically back it up. Also using the bible to prove the claims contained withing the bible is fallacious. (circular reasoning)

Trying to prove God apart from the Bible puts you in the position of putting God on trial. On trial is the question of whether God exists and if so, does He tell the truth?

Yeah let us put god on trial, let us look at the philosophical, scientific, and archaeological evidence for the existence of this deity. Let us see if the belief in god is justified, give me the reason for the hope you have.

You are the prosecutor, the skeptic is the jury and God is the defendant. You are already undone. There is a verse that tells us TO answer a fool according to his folly “lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

I think the metaphor is coming unhinged at this point... I am not making the gnostic claim that god does not exist, I am saying that I do not have sufficient reason to justify the belief.

So which is it? It is a fool’s errand for a believer to attempt to prove creation to an unbeliever because accepting creation requires accepting a Creator first. You can’t get there from the opposite direction. But what you can do is demonstrate the absurdity of the Big Bang’s position: a Singularity -- that cannot be God! -- caused space to expand from a pinpoint into the vastness of the universe, for no particular reason.And during the course of this random expansion, a biological computer operating system -- one infinitely more sophisticated than the most sophisticated computer systems ever devised by man -- programmed itself with all the information necessary from birth to death and then somehow installed itself in every living thing.

The problem with calling it a creation is that it is begging the question, which I believe you recognised in the text above. The Big Bang theory is not a theory of absolute origins that is likely knowledge that will never be completely known to us. Biological computer operating system? Im afraid that when you employ the use of metaphors without context further explanation is requires to portray the meaning.

The fool -- that says in his heart, “there is no God” -- is only capable of saying that because first, the “Singularity” programmed him with the capability for higher thought.

Program? You are begging the question again you are assuming that it was in fact programmed.

My dog’s pretty smart, but she doesn’t have the programming necessary for existential thought. But she has DNA. (So does an amoeba.)

Evolutionary biology explains the formation of consciousness. Perhaps you should seek answers for these questions instead of assuming that god is the only explanation. We know a great deal about the structure, function, and origins of the brain.

Apart from the Bible, the existence of God cannot be ‘proved’ and trying to prove what is impossible to prove would make me as big a fool as the person i'm talking to.

You have been using ad hominem attack throughout the post (yet another fallacy) and I find it interesting that a moderator would condone this attempt to disrupt civility by liking the post. Also I wont go as far that the existence of god cannot be proved Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, and many like him have attempted to present logical proofs for the existence of god outside of the bible. However I will tell you that using the bible to justify the claims of the bible is not proof of anything.

Consider, for a moment, the task you are undertaking when you try. You are attempting to debate with somebody that believes that, in the beginning, nobody created nothing,which then became everything -- and for no apparent reason.

I am not saying this at all, I am merely saying I do not see the justification for your belief... This is a strawman.

 

[Apathy]

why would I ? even the most observant jews have gotten over all the stoning and other mayhem.

Why would you? It is morally repugnant behaviour that is why.

The only reason Jews are no longer killing witches(also historically a christian practice) and other nonsense is that the secular world will not tolerate it.

 

[dogtowner]

Why would you? It is morally repugnant behaviour that is why.

by current standards yes but we're talking ancient history.

The only reason Jews are no longer killing witches(also historically a christian practice) and other nonsense is that the secular world will not tolerate it.

not stopping the muslims. the jews have chosen to stop.

 

[Apathy]

by current standards yes but we're talking ancient history.

Wrong is wrong no matter the date on the damned calender... This is something I think an eternal being would pick up.

not stopping the muslims. the jews have chosen to stop.

You mean the muslim theocracies? They have the power to do that within their states, they rejected western secularism. Jews however politically hold little to no power their moderation has been forced, however if you find yourself dressed 'immodestly' in the wrong Jewish community you may forget they have been modernised.

http://forward.com/articles/150939/us-warns-tourists-to-dress-modestly-in-israel/

 

[dogtowner]

Wrong is wrong no matter the date on the damned calender... This is something I think an eternal being would pick up.

given the public health impacts back in the day, the Law was pretty handy at maintaining the Chosen People.

You mean the muslim theocracies? They have the power to do that within their states, they rejected western secularism. Jews however politically hold little to no power their moderation has been forced, however if you find yourself dressed 'immodestly' in the wrong Jewish community you may forget they have been modernised.

http://forward.com/articles/150939/us-warns-tourists-to-dress-modestly-in-israel/

Unacceptable there of course as it is here but muslims here in America commonly continue their brutal religious practices. No government control required.

 

[Dr.Who]

You can’t prove there is no God – and I can’t prove that there is, apart from using the Bible, which you assumes is not reliable.
Trying to prove God apart from the Bible puts you in the position of putting God on trial. On trial is the question of whether God exists and if so, does He tell the truth?

You are the prosecutor, the skeptic is the jury and God is the defendant. You are already undone. There is a verse that tells us TO answer a fool according to his folly “lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

So which is it? It is a fool’s errand for a believer to attempt to prove creation to an unbeliever because accepting creation requires accepting a Creator first. You can’t get there from the opposite direction. But what you can do is demonstrate the absurdity of the Big Bang’s position: a Singularity -- that cannot be God! -- caused space to expand from a pinpoint into the vastness of the universe, for no particular reason.And during the course of this random expansion, a biological computer operating system -- one infinitely more sophisticated than the most sophisticated computer systems ever devised by man -- programmed itself with all the information necessary from birth to death and then somehow installed itself in every living thing.

The fool -- that says in his heart, “there is no God” -- is only capable of saying that because first, the “Singularity” programmed him with the capability for higher thought.
My dog’s pretty smart, but she doesn’t have the programming necessary for existential thought. But she has DNA. (So does an amoeba.)

Apart from the Bible, the existence of God cannot be ‘proved’ and trying to prove what is impossible to prove would make me as big a fool as the person i'm talking to.

Consider, for a moment, the task you are undertaking when you try. You are attempting to debate with somebody that believes that, in the beginning, nobody created nothing,which then became everything -- and for no apparent reason.

the existence of God can most certainly be proved apart from the Bible. Every single person who has ever seen or heard God has all the proof he or she needs. Moses knew there was a God and so do I - apart from the bible. Millions of people claim to have had that personal experience. Their experience is of course subjective and will not convince anyone who has not had that experience - but it is evidence.

The bible says to test all things. The difference between testing something and putting God on trial is no doubt a matter of attitude.

And yes, God can be proven not to exist. All one needs to do is examine every part of the natural and supernatural universe. Easy right?

 

[cashmcall]

the existence of God can most certainly be proved apart from the Bible. Every single person who has ever seen or heard God has all the proof he or she needs. Moses knew there was a God and so do I - apart from the bible. Millions of people claim to have had that personal experience. Their experience is of course subjective and will not convince anyone who has not had that experience - but it is evidence.

The bible says to test all things. The difference between testing something and putting God on trial is no doubt a matter of attitude.

And yes, God can be proven not to exist. All one needs to do is examine every part of the natural and supernatural universe. Easy right?

You sir are preaching to the choir...

 

[Richard Savage]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
- John 1:1 (KJV)
. . .

Without the word "God," God does not exist.

 

[Apathy]

given the public health impacts back in the day, the Law was pretty handy at maintaining the Chosen People.

Are you really going to appeal to consequentialism to defend the barbarity of stoning children, homosexuals, and those convicted of the imaginary crime of witchcraft? You mean to tell me an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator could not think of any other way to protect his people from destruction than to systematically and brutally slaughter the very people he was trying to protect for petty and imaginary crimes?

Morality is objective dogtowner, the moral relativism you are promoting is disturbing. Historical context does not change the nature of the laws it merely gives insight to the origin of the laws.

Let us use an example (you may recognise it if you are well read). A group of people are beheading individuals for breaking the larger end of the egg.

This is a barbaric act regardless of the historical justification.

Does knowing that the context for this taking this action is that the emperor of these people cut his finger after breaking it at the larger end change the nature of the act?

Unacceptable there of course as it is here but muslims here in America commonly continue their brutal religious practices. No government control required.

This is different from other religious fanatics in the united states how? Certainly the fanaticism certainly exists within secular states but it is not even remotely comparable to that of backwards theocratic countries..

Also how does any of this remove you from your ethical responsibility of condemning the barbaric laws of these desert nomads?