Board index ‹ God

[TrakeM]

"By the way, I never said the Bible was not a reliable record. What I said was that it communicated the scientific worldview appropriate to the people addressed. It addressed them in the context of their understanding, accommodating their perspective. That doesn't make it unreliable, but within a particular cultural context."
So god wrote what the people who wrote him thought was true but isn't? That's incredibly damning to the idea that god wrote the bible. If god wrote the bible, wouldn't you expect that what it says would be true rather than just being what the people at the time thought was true? If man wrote the bible, you'd expect that it would just state the views that were common at that time, not actually accurate scientific information. Clearly, the evidence fits with the idea that the bible is not the word of god. This shows pretty conclusively that the most rational reasonable conclusion is that the bible was just written by primitive man. After all, the scientific ideas in it are wrong in exactly the same way that primitive man would have written them and not the way an all knowing god would know them to be.

Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim. So far you've presented poor arguments usually involving the assumption that your god exists. The fine tuning argument is a poor argument. It starts by saying that the universe is fine tuned for life. First of all, there aren't really 42 separate constants. The constants have interdependence. Second, we don't know what the universe would be like if you changed those constants. Third, we don't have a very good definition of life if you want to apply it outside of this universe. Fourth, and BY FAR most importantly, even if your assumptions were correct you haven't shown that the reason for the constants being what it is is your god. You just shown that you have an explanation and then just asserted that your explanation is the right one. Your explanation isn't falsifiable. Your explanation can be used to explain anything, and therefore doesn't really explain anything in a meaningful way. After all, no matter what you want to explain, you can just say "god did it" no matter what it is. The existence of reason just has the same problem. You have an explanation (god) and you just assert that this explanation is the correct explanation. I'm sorry, but that's not how science works. You don't just say well, I have an explanation so I'll just say that this explanation is the right one. That's not how logic works either.

Atheism is not the claim that there definitely isn't a god. It is the lack of belief in any gods. You claim that there is a god. I don't believe you. It is up to you to show that your claim is correct. So far, your arguments have been VERY flawed and generally just posit your god as an explanation and then just say that this explanation is the correct one without showing that it definitely is.

[jimwalton]

> So god wrote what the people who wrote him thought was true but isn't? That's incredibly damning to the idea that god wrote the bible.

Suppose God wrote something to us, but it was in science that is 2,000 years to our future. "Notice the jibharts there among the colospheres. The alterrationography simply subjugates the vuslinicers. Don't you agree?" What would it say to you, or what would it mean? Absolutely nothing. Unless it's in language we can understand, with concepts familiar to us, His communication would go in the trash as gibberish. Accommodation from the speaker to the audience is necessary to communication.

If God were to actually successfully and meaningfully to us, He would have to speak in language, terms, and concepts that conformed to our capabilities, our worldview, and our language. That's the only way communication works.

[jimwalton]

> So god wrote what the people who wrote him thought was true but isn't? That's incredibly damning to the idea that god wrote the bible.

Suppose God wrote something to us, but it was in science that is 2,000 years to our future. "Notice the jibharts there among the colospheres. The alterrationography simply subjugates the vuslinicers. Don't you agree?" What would it say to you, or what would it mean? Absolutely nothing. Unless it's in language we can understand, with concepts familiar to us, His communication would go in the trash as gibberish. Accommodation from the speaker to the audience is necessary to communication.

If God were to actually successfully and meaningfully to us, He would have to speak in language, terms, and concepts that conformed to our capabilities, our worldview, and our language. That's the only way communication works.

[TrakeM]

Given that the bible is completely wrong on everything that we can test, is it wise to trust it on things that aren't testable?

In what was is the bible not what we would expect if it was just written by primitive man? It contains the concepts we'd expect. It contains the inaccuracies we'd expect. It contains the sense of morality we'd expect. You've already signed onto ideas of morality that few today would consider just. Are you sure you want to say that your code of morality is universal? If god instilled this sense of morality, why would he make it to where so many of us look at the morality that you're pushing and say it's horrible? After all, stoning someone for adultery is something that most people would declare horribly immoral in all cases and at all times.

If god were to write us a book today with lots of facts that we haven't discovered yet, he could simply tell us what scientific experiments we'd need to do to reach those discoveries. Your god could have explained the scientific method. He could have done anything he wanted if it was really written by a god. He could have simply designed man good enough to understand such concepts as the big bang and then explain the big bang in the bible. Instead he just decides to put in it only the stuff that the people writing it would have known. I'm sorry, but the facts don't really support this idea that this book is really written by a god. He could have at the very least written that the book contained lots of things that weren't true and that we shouldn't trust it when it comes to trying to discern actual facts. Instead, he writes that it's the inerrant word of god. You know, like a primitive man would have.

We know that a book could have been written that would have explained the scientific method and the big bang because books WERE written that explained all of these things. We humans wrote them! We humans wrote and explained the concepts that you are saying this god couldn't have explained in his book. He couldn't have said that the universe started with a release of energy 14.5 billion years ago? He couldn't have even not put in a story about Adam and Eve that wasn't true. The story of Adam and Eve is the very basis for the fall. We should believe in the fall even though the basis for it is clearly a part of the inaccuracies of the bible? This isn't making much sense to me.

I'm sorry, but the book is what we would expect from a primitive man and you're just trying to make excuses for it's flaws.

Bottom line: Are you trying to look at the evidence and follow the evidence where it leads even if the evidence is against your religion, or will you conclude that your religion is correct even if the evidence says otherwise?

[jimwalton]

> Given that the bible is completely wrong on everything that we can test, is it wise to trust it on things that aren't testable?

For starters, this is patently false. We have evidence in the existence of King Hezekiah, in the tunnel he dug, of the campaign of Sennacherib, of the existence of Jesus, of his crucifixion at the hands of Pilate, of people groups the Bible mentions, of individuals the Bible mentions, of historical events the Bible mentions. It is provably untrue that "the bible is completely wrong on everything we can test."

In response to your next paragraph, I find the Bible vastly different from the cultures surrounding it and the writings that emanate from those cultures. It has profound theological and philosophical thoughts (like the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, for instance). It's not glommed up with the mythological theology of other cultures, but a straightforward examination of the human condition. It contains concepts far more sublime than what I would expect. It doesn't contain inaccuracies, and the morality contained in it is noble.

> If god instilled this sense of morality, why would he make it to where so many of us look at the morality that you're pushing and say it's horrible?

The morality isn't horrible. Adultery is wrong. It's the punishment that has changed, and that's fine. Since we're not in those times and under a theocracy any more, it's appropriate that the punishment change. But the morality hasn't changed. Adultery is still wrong and always will be.

> He could have done anything he wanted if it was really written by a god.

Thank you. That's exactly what he did. He wrote a book for us revealing himself and the human condition. He chose not to write a book about science, but about theology, and that's his prerogative. He made his choice—it was a judgment call—but we get to read what he wanted the book to say, to the exclusion of many things that could have been written in it.

> Bottom line: Are you trying to look at the evidence and follow the evidence where it leads even if the evidence is against your religion, or will you conclude that your religion is correct even if the evidence says otherwise?

We follow the evidence where it leads, even if it's against Christianity. I have yet to come across evidence that's against Christianity. I keep following the evidence where it leads. That's the only position to take if one has intellectual integrity.

[TrakeM]

>Thank you. That's exactly what he did. He wrote a book for us revealing himself and the human condition. He chose not to write a book about science, but about theology, and that's his prerogative. He made his choice—it was a judgment call—but we get to read what he wanted the book to say, to the exclusion of many things that could have been written in it.
How do we know that this is the case? There's also the possibility that it's just the word of primitive man and that's why it's got all the inaccuracies that you'd expect a book written by primitive man to have. The issue here is that you want to excuse all the scientific inaccuracies because it's not a science book or because god might have not wanted to confuse the reader. The issue with this is that if we apply this logic consistently then we excuse all scientific inaccuracies in all holy books that don't claim to be a science book, don't we? I mean, why does this logic not excuse any scientific inaccuracies in the torah, the hadith, book of mormon, talmud or other holy books? We can always argue that maybe god just wanted it to be written that way, no matter what you see in the bible or talmud or whatever other holy text. Why shouldn't we apply this idea to all the holy books?

> We follow the evidence where it leads, even if it's against Christianity. I have yet to come across evidence that's against Christianity. I keep following the evidence where it leads. That's the only position to take if one has intellectual integrity.
I'm glad to hear that. Isn't that rather against the idea of faith though? I mean, following the evidence wherever it leads tends to go against most people's idea of what it means to have faith. If you want to count faith as evidence because the bible says so, then you're starting off assuming the bible is true. Additionally, you'd have to apply it equally to all faiths and declare that faith is valid evidence for the talmud or other holy texts as pretty much all religions claim faith. One of the big reasons I'm not a christian is because of the glorification of faith. I see faith as, AT BEST, a necessary evil, not something to glorify and aspire to.

note: whether or not it's a necessary evil depends of how exactly you define faith. If you define it as a starting assumption that you are willing to re-evaluate based on evidence then it's a necessary evil, not something to be glorified. If it's something that you must believe no matter what, then it's just an evil. I am not in principle against the idea of there being a god, but I am in principle against the concept of faith. It is at it's core the most anti-science thing I can think of. After all, what is the scientific method if not the idea that you only believe that something is true if there is evidence to support it?

[jimwalton]

> I mean, following the evidence wherever it leads tends to go against most people's idea of what it means to have faith.

Faith, according to the Bible, can be defined in various ways:

- Faith is “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” This is the commonplace use of the word apart from any religious significance, such as when a person has faith in a chair to support his weight or has faith in his employee to do a job well.
- Faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” This is the definition unbelievers often use to ridicule believers, insisting that they, unlike religious people, trust only in that which is demonstrable.
- Faith is “belief in, trust in, and loyalty to God.” This is an explicitly religious definition, in many ways similar to the theological definition of faith as involving knowledge, assent, and trust. Faith here is pictured as going beyond belief in certain facts to include commitment to and dependence on God.
- Faith is “a system of religious beliefs.” This is what is meant when one speaks of “the Protestant faith” or “the Jewish faith.” What is largely in view here is a set of doctrines. The Bible uses the word in this way in passages such as Jude 3.

I use faith, as I believe Hebrews 11.1 does, in the first sense. Here's my explanation:

Jesus never said faith is blind, and the Bible doesn't imply that faith is blind. In the Bible, faith is evidentiary. I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You’ve sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That’s faith, and it was a conscious choice.

Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith. Because 10,000 times you’ve turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn’t open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.

We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.

You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "dumping on a random doorstep" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before he expect him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on. The whole Bible is God revealing himself to us all—and I mean actually, not through some exercise of faith.

My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.

I would contend that faith is never blind. As you can see, I don't argue that faith is anti-evidence, or even counter-evidence. I don't count faith as evidence "because the Bible says so," nor do I start off assuming the Bible is true. Evidence is first, faith follows the evidence where it leads.

[TrakeM]

> Faith is “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” This is the commonplace use of the word apart from any religious significance, such as when a person has faith in a chair to support his weight or has faith in his employee to do a job well.

You use some examples here such as chairs working doors working. We can see chairs. We can see doors. We can test them. Lots of them. It seems to me that these aren't analogous to your god. We can't see your god nor can we test your god in any objective way like we can with a door or a chair. I don't think these things are even close to analogous.

> My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.

I don't consider the bible to be credible at all. It gets many things wrong, including the creation story. I would thing that if there is a god that created the universe, why wouldn't he know and explain correctly how the universe came to be? At LEAST get the idea of evolution right? I mean, surely he could have mentioned that we share a common ancestor with the modern day great apes. Sure, you can say that it's not a science book, but then if you use that logic, shouldn't you apply it to the other religious books? Shouldn't you not consider mohommad going to the moon on a winged horse as really wrong since the quaran isn't a science book and besides maybe god decided to just put it in there even if it's not really accurate? I think it's important to be consistent in your logic.

So many of the other religious books include passages where the god of that book sends magical beings to people to explain things to them or where the belief of characters in the book is based on things they've seen. So, shouldn't you believe in those religions too? The book of mormon is full of this kind of stuff. Your bible may say that someone saw someone come back from the dead and that's why they believed or that they saw someone healed and that's why they believed, but these kinds of things are found in other holy books too. Have you seen someone miraculously healed? I'm sorry, but I don't think "the bible says that people saw miracles and then based on what they saw came to believe" counts as evidence. If it does, why not count it for the other religions? Nor do I think that "the bible shows some people that had a reason to believe then believing" counts as evidence.

[jimwalton]

> It gets many things wrong, including the creation story.

It's interesting to me that you can be certain of this. By the way, my take on the creation story is that it is an account of function creation, not of material creation: telling us why all was created and the function and role the various pieces of creation were intended to fulfill: light and dark function in alternating sequences to give us time; the earth functions to bring forth vegetation for survival; the sun, moon, and stars function to give us the times and seasons; humanity functions to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and rule over it—to name a few. So, if this is what Genesis 1-2 are about (which is what I believe), how can you tell me this is distinctly wrong. The Bible doesn't tell us how the material world came to be, except that God created it; what the Bible tells us is how the cosmos functions. Are you telling me you can prove this is wrong? The Bible doesn't tell us what process God used to create, or how long those processes took. In other words, I believe in evolution, but not scientific naturalism (no God involved).

> I think it's important to be consistent in your logic.

I agree, and I am stubbornly so.

> So many of the other religious books include passages where the god of that book sends magical beings to people to explain things to them

Because many books say such things doesn't mean that every account of such is spurious. Some may be true and others not. Instead of throwing out all such as nonsense, we are wiser to discern which have credence and which are mythological or legendary.

[TrakeM]

> It's interesting to me that you can be certain of this.
I don't need to know everything about gravity or other forces to know that there wasn't an Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden.

>By the way, my take on the creation story is that it is an account of function creation
Isn't the function something that we can't objectively falsify. It seems that all of the things you consider to be important are the things that aren't falsifiable and the things that you say aren't important are the things that are falsifiable.

>So, if this is what Genesis 1-2 are about (which is what I believe), how can you tell me this is distinctly wrong.
No matter what it said was the purpose, you can't prove that it was wrong. These kinds of claims aren't falsifiable. You are just referencing claims that can't be checked. You have claims that don't make any verifiable, falsifiable predictions.

>The Bible doesn't tell us what process God used to create, or how long those processes took.
6 days. BTW, that part is wrong. It didn't take 6 days. Naturally, you can claim that this isn't important because it's not a science book or that part wasn't supposed to be taken literally but then shouldn't you do the same for the other holy books? As I've said before, every holy book that has ever been written or will ever be written appears to be concordant with science under your standard.

>I agree, and I am stubbornly so.
Does that mean that you consider all holy books to be concordant with science since they, just like your Bible, aren't science books and besides maybe god just decided to say those things so that people would better understand what he was saying?

>Because many books say such things doesn't mean that every account of such is spurious. Some may be true and others not. Instead of throwing out all such as nonsense, we are wiser to discern which have credence and which are mythological or legendary.
I see no good reason to think that the Bible's account is any less mythological or legendary than that of the Quaran, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Tripitakas, Guru Granth Sahib, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Torah etc. Why should I consider it evidence that the bible that there are these kinds of passages but not do the same for the other holy books? You listed people in the bible believing only after they saw evidence as a reason why your holy book is concordant with science. Shouldn't it also be evidence that the other books are concordant with science since they have the same thing in them? I'm just trying to evaluate the other holy books by the same standard that you use to evaluate the bible and I'm finding that your standard seems to indicate that all holy books are concordant with science.