The biblical conundrum

[Apathy]

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.

Anecdotal experience is not evidence Dr. Who for the very same reasons that it is not convincing.

Evidence- The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
It is not a body of facts Dr. that is the first problem and secondly it does not indicate the truth of the claim to anyone by your own admission.

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

No it is a matter of semantics and Im not going to play that game.

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?

No Doctor by definition the supernatural is beyond observation hence the assertion of a supernatural deity who takes a particular interest in what we do with our naughty bits cannot be falsified objectively. It can be shown to be a laughably absurd idea but it cannot be shown to be an idea that is objectively false.

 

[dogtowner]

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?


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?

its an exercise in self gratification to pluck ancient events for judgements as it changes nothing and pertains to me and now in no way. As you suggest studying the past is useful in gaining insight of the history and how it shaped where we are now.

I'm not going to presume to understand God's will. If it makes you feel good to do so, have at it. Living in ther here and now is what I do and all I can impact.

 

[Apathy]

its an exercise in self gratification to pluck ancient events for judgements as it changes nothing and pertains to me and now in no way. As you suggest studying the past is useful in gaining insight of the history and how it shaped where we are now.

Except these events do effect you well maybe not the events themselves but the principles behind them. You believe these are the acts of your god and you follow the teachings of this god along with many others.. To say that biblical law has no influence is disingenuous unless you will admit that you do not believe that it is the inspired word of god.

I'm not going to presume to understand God's will. If it makes you feel good to do so, have at it. Living in ther here and now is what I do and all I can impact.

Except you do claim to understand his/her/its will every time you make a gnostic claim about him/her/it.. You cannot have it both ways either god and his/her/its will is unknowable (in which case why do you bother posting about him/her/it?) or he/she/it is knowable(in which case he/she/it is open for criticism.)

 

[dogtowner]

Except these events do effect you well maybe not the events themselves but the principles behind them. You believe these are the acts of your god and you follow the teachings of this god along with many others.. To say that biblical law has no influence is disingenuous unless you will admit that you do not believe that it is the inspired word of god.

I believe I already pointed out that I'm subject to the new covenant that Christ offers, the old one was comleted by Him through His sacrifice. If you want to pursue this line then you need to do it with Jews.

Except you do claim to understand his/her/its will every time you make a gnostic claim about him/her/it.. You cannot have it both ways either god and his/her/its will is unknowable (in which case why do you bother posting about him/her/it?) or he/she/it is knowable(in which case he/she/it is open for criticism.)

I understand what has been revealed to me, that is not the same as understanding God's plan in it's entirety.

Einstein knew a lot in his areas of science but he would tell you that he didn't know everything about it.

 

[Dr.Who]

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?


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?

More and better fact checking is still called for. The very conclusion you draw is threatened by the errors of fact.

 

[Dr.Who]

Anecdotal experience is not evidence Dr. Who for the very same reasons that it is not convincing.

Evidence- The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
It is not a body of facts Dr. that is the first problem and secondly it does not indicate the truth of the claim to anyone by your own admission.

An anecdote is not the same as a subjective observation.

And yes subjective observations are a part of science and are evidence.

The only difference between my observation that there is a God and Newton's onbservation that falling objects fall at a certain rate of speed is that his subjective observation can be repeated often enough to be witnssed by everyone and called objective. Rare events are no less evident simply because we cannot repeat them easily. None of us living today have seen certain comets that pass only every few hundred years. That does not mean that the observations of those who did see the comets are anecdotes.

No Doctor by definition the supernatural is beyond observation hence the assertion of a supernatural deity who takes a particular interest in what we do with our naughty bits cannot be falsified objectively. It can be shown to be a laughably absurd idea but it cannot be shown to be an idea that is objectively false.

WE cannot see the air but we can hear the hiss of objects as they pass through the air. Likewise we cannot observe the supernatureal but we can observe its effects when it interacts with the natural world. If God and the supernatural never became a part of the natural world we would know nothing of God. So yes I agree that we cannot go into the supernatural world on a regular basis and make observations and therefore cannot falisfy God in that way. But the statement that the existence of a God that interacts with the natural worl can be falsified by observing all of nature is still true.

 

[Apathy]

I believe I already pointed out that I'm subject to the new covenant that Christ offers, the old one was comleted by Him through His sacrifice. If you want to pursue this line then you need to do it with Jews.

Biblical law is biblical law Christ made it quite clear that he was not to create a new legal system...

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:17

Why is the perfect word of god so hard to defend?

I understand what has been revealed to me, that is not the same as understanding God's plan in it's entirety.

I criticised the gnostic claims that were made about god... You cannot declare it unknowable you are attempting to play both sides of the fence.

Einstein knew a lot in his areas of science but he would tell you that he didn't know everything about it.

No one would, but Einstein also wouldn't declare his claims unknowable when he did not feel like defending the claim..

Student: 'Can you explain relativity to me?'

Einstein: 'Sorry it is beyond mere human understanding.'

What an obvious dodge.

 

[Apathy]

More and better fact checking is still called for. The very conclusion you draw is threatened by the errors of fact.

Point out the supposed factual errors and I will address them.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Apathy]

An anecdote is not the same as a subjective observation.

And yes subjective observations are a part of science and are evidence.

Define your terms, I will not get into a semantics war because we are using different definitions.

The only difference between my observation that there is a God and Newton's onbservation that falling objects fall at a certain rate of speed is that his subjective observation can be repeated often enough to be witnssed by everyone and called objective.

Tell me do you have mathematical equation to describe god? Has it been repeatedly tested and observed within the scientific community?

I take issue with how you used objective define what you mean by objective.

Rare events are no less evident simply because we cannot repeat them easily. None of us living today have seen certain comets that pass only every few hundred years. That does not mean that the observations of those who did see the comets are anecdotes.

Walk into a psychiatric care centre and you will find someone who has observed Napoleon are we to call up the news paper? What shall we do with the Elvis sightings? Bigfoot sightings?

The burden of proof lies soley on the claimant we require a standard of evidence for justifying a claim these experiences do not meet the standard... Can you separate the claim that Napoleon has come back from the great beyond from this "feeling of god" you have. If not I sincerely wonder why the claims of dead French military leaders returning to earth are not the centre of discourse among academic circles.

WE cannot see the air but we can hear the hiss of objects as they pass through the air. Likewise we cannot observe the supernatureal but we can observe its effects when it interacts with the natural world.

Just because we cannot see the air does not mean it is not observable, I will bet you my life that if we place in a room that no longer contains air you will notice something is missing. Poor comparison.

If God and the supernatural never became a part of the natural world we would know nothing of God. So yes I agree that we cannot go into the supernatural world on a regular basis and make observations and therefore cannot falisfy God in that way.

Do you have any evidence to support this interaction or is it just a 'feeling'...

But the statement that the existence of a God that interacts with the natural worl can be falsified by observing all of nature is still true.

Shifting the goal posts and the burden of proof... I said god not "god that interacts with the natural world"...

 

[dogtowner]

Biblical law is biblical law Christ made it quite clear that he was not to create a new legal system...

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:17

Why is the perfect word of god so hard to defend?

thanks for finding that. if you read the second sentence you have made my point.

I criticised the gnostic claims that were made about god... You cannot declare it unknowable you are attempting to play both sides of the fence.


No one would, but Einstein also wouldn't declare his claims unknowable when he did not feel like defending the claim..

Student: 'Can you explain relativity to me?'

Einstein: 'Sorry it is beyond mere human understanding.'

What an obvious dodge.

blah blah blah

 

[Dr.Who]

Why is the perfect word of god so hard to defend?

.

It isn't. Millions of people including myself who have spend many hours examining it closely find it to be quite defensible.

Meanwhile a handful of people write books and start websites tryiung to show it to be ridiculous. One of those books prompted me to take a new look at it when as an atheist I read an atheist book and found it to be so blatantly baised and illogical that I figured if the best complaints they could come up with were so horribly unsound then I should look at it [Christianity] again.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why is the perfect word of god so hard to defend?

It is not at all hard to defend as it makes perfect sense.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why is the perfect word of god so hard to defend?
.

It is not at all hard to defend as it makes perfect sense.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why is the perfect word of god so hard to defend?
.

It is not at all hard to defend as it makes perfect sense.

 

[Dr.Who]

Point out the supposed factual errors and I will address them.

Put up or shut up.

I have found no evidence either in search engines or on skeptic sites that children below the age of accountability (as opposed to grown children) were ever stoned.