Board index ‹ God

[jimwalton]

Thanks for letting me explain. I'm not having it both ways. Polytheistic cultures consider the objects they are worshipping as deities; they consider them to be gods, hence the label "polytheism." In the Bible, since you are debating a Christian, these so-called deities are shown to be false, fictional, non-existent, fabrications, hence they don't count. What polytheistic cultures claim to be deities (polytheism) are nothing but imposters (they don't count). I'm not trying to have it both ways, instead I'm explaining why the disconnect.

[J Lord]

> Nor would I agree that memories are just a physical process.

What other way could there be to have memories other than through a physical brain?

> This is not necessarily so. For instance, suppose God appeared to me. Just suppose. Is He detectable by any scientific equipment?

Yes, if he is impacting your physical brain in some way then it would detectable in theory. If he is not impacting your brain in any way, then I don't think it would be possible to say that God appeared to you.

> You'd be able to measure the earthquake, but would it be possible to scientifically measure the spirit world's contribution and impact?

You could, in theory, have a complete and 100% accurate model of the earth's tectonic plates, the magma, etc. Then you would be able to tell whether an outside force was exerted on the earth or whether it was just the physical processes in the earth.

[jimwalton]

> What other way could there be to have memories other than through a physical brain?

You missed my nuance and my point. I don't agree that memories are **just** a physical process. By that I mean that of course the only way to have memories is through a physical brain, but memories are more than just that and they cannot be totally explained as being governed solely by the laws of neurobiology.

> Yes, if he is impacting your physical brain in some way then it would detectable in theory.

Yes, an MRI could detect certain parts of the brain lighting up, but there would certainly be no scientific evidence that I was indeed (for the sake of the illustration) seeing God.

> You could, in theory, have a complete and 100% accurate model of the earth's tectonic plates, the magma, etc. Then you would be able to tell whether an outside force was exerted on the earth or whether it was just the physical processes in the earth.

I don't agree with this at all. You must be familiar with "The Butterfly Effect," and that the number of causal mechanisms are so plentiful and complex that it's absolutely impossible to trace them all backward or forward with success. No matter how many computer models and algorithms we generate, we will never be able to 100% predict the weather, because the number of variables is so close to infinite that it's unprocessable. So also with tectonic plates. The theory you propose is unrealistic and unattainable. There are simply too many variables to create the scenario you propose.

I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. The capabilities you ascribe to science and technology, and your belief in it, are simply out of this world.

[One fish Bluefish]

Ok, so rather than go through my replies, and this not being productive at all, can you give some reasons to believe in god then? My mind is open, I never thought I would end up thinking like an atheist.

[jimwalton]

Sure. The first is causality. We know that the universe had a beginning (at least according to scientists and the Big Bang theory). Something had to have caused it to go Bang. Nothing spontaneous just self-generates. If you have nothing, you always have nothing unless something else enters the picture. Since time didn't exist before the big bang, the cause is timeless. Since it would take a powerful cause to make what we now see, the cause is powerful. Since we now have information (and science gives us no examples of informational data coming from anything other than previous informational data), the cause had information (intelligence?). Since we are personal beings, and impersonal causes must have first causes, and only personal causes are capable of being first causes, the cause must have been personal. Therefore the cause must have been eternal, personal, intelligent and powerful.

Second, there is just an argument about being. If God doesn't exist, his existence is therefore logically impossible. It's a big zero. If God does exist, then it's necessary that He does (if we define him as God). Therefore, God's existence is either impossible or necessary. And we know that the existence of God isn't impossible, so it must be necessary.

Third, purpose. We as humans don't know anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn't purposefully designed: tables, washing machines, windows, yo-yos. There are many parts of the universe that exhibit purpose—not just various parts, but even the universe as a whole. Scientists are always asking "Why," and it's a good question. Therefore it's logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design. Everything else we know that exhibits those characteristics was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?

Fourth, an argument about our consciousness. Genuinely non-physical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions, memories). The explanation for these is either personal or scientific. But no science has yet come close to explaining how the mental can arise from the physical. Therefore the current explanation for nonphysical mental states is personal. And if so, then it is best explained by the existence of a personal supreme, supernatural divine being.

Fifth, morality. It is commonly admitted that there is evil in the world. But if evil exists, so does good (in order for us to know the difference). And if both good and evil exist, there must be some kind of standard by which to define them and measure them. If there is such a standard, that standard had to have come from somewhere. It makes sense that the source of our personal, objective moral standard must also be personal, moral, and objective. God must exist.

Taken together, they form a much stronger argument than the argument from atheism. Those are some of my reasons to believe in God.

[Spiderman]

> It's not that they don't meet my definition of God, but rather that the don't meet the Bible's definition of God... My definition doesn't matter...

i guess since we have that out of the way, we can talk about the bible's definition of "god".

בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם,
בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם;
יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים,
.[אלהים] לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי
כִּי חֵלֶק יְהוָה, עַמּוֹ:
יַעֲקֹב, חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתוֹ.

When Elyon gave nations their homes
And set the divisions of man,
He fixed the boundaries of peoples
In relation to the number of the sons [of god]
For the Yahweh's portion is His people,
Jacob His own allotment. (Deut 32:8-9)

your translation probably says something a little different, but please verify with the dead sea scrolls, 4Q37, plate 172, fragment 10 (https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-359054) that the word there should in fact be "elohim".

this passage puts yahweh, whom you know as "God" with a capital G, as one of the divine council, receiving his inheritance from elyon, the highest god of the canaanite pantheon. this god was probably initially el, which is probably who the ancient israelites mean here. ever extant reference to elyon, though, is baal. baal takes over the divine council, and yahweh has a similar myth:

אֱלֹהִים, נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת-אֵל;
בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט

Elohim stands in El's council,
among the elohim he judges. (Psalm 82)

here, it's used two different ways—to refer to a singular god, yahweh, and also to refer to the other members of el's council, the gods whom he is going to cast down.

by the bible's definitions there are other gods, at least in some texts.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for the comment. Glad to talk about it.

As far as the textual evidence, you are probably aware that the LXX reads "sons of God," in agreement with DSS (both from the same general era), but the Masoretic Text reads "sons of Israel." So there is debate about which text and which meaning to accept.

If we go with LXX & DSS, there is some kind of supervising heavenly being, a kind of guardian angel, so to speak. If we go with the MT, God has ordained a plan whereby the number of nations corresponded to the number of the sons of Israel, an idea somewhat closely connected with Gen. 10. According to this interpretation, the Lord has set Israel apart unto himself from among all the nations, an idea common in the Tanakh, or Old Testament. The nations have their own "gods," who aren't gods at all but are mortal, but they do not have YHWH, who alone is God and there are no others (v. 39).

The LXX and DSS reading, however, is probably to be preferred. It refers to a council of the gods (a common theology in the ancient Near East), in which each of the 70 nations had its own god (Re in Egypt, Marduk in Babylon, etc.), and that YHWH kept Israel for himself. The scribe for the MT was possibly uncomfortable with this theology and changed the text to read "sons of Israel."

The text is still categorical, however, that YHWH is the only real God and the others are imposters, false, and mere mortal inventions. Verse 39 is explicit that YHWH is the only God. Most cultures of the day had religion with a pantheon of gods that ruled the realm of the gods and also the human world. There would typically be a deity who was the designed head of the pantheon, and he most often had a female consort. The first commandment (Ex. 20.3) forbids Israel to think in those terms. YHWH is not the head of a pantheon, nor does He have a consort. There are no other gods. There are no other deities exercising power or competing for jurisdiction and authority.

> ever extant reference to elyon, though, is baal. baal takes over the divine council

In Canaanite literature, 'El Elyon is a way of referring to the chief Canaanite god, El. Both elements ('el and 'elyon) also occur as names of specific deities in Ugaritic and Phoenician/Aramaic inscriptions. In Israelite literature, however, 'El Elyon is an epithet for YHWH. Here, as in Genesis 10, YHWH is dividing the disobedient nations among 70 subordinate, created beings as punishment for their rebellion against the Him. (Notice that Israel is not listed among the 70.) The nations have their own "gods," who are mortal, but they don't have the true God, YHWH.

> Psalm 82

John Walton writes (Old Testament Theology for Christians, p. 39): In the Tahakh, the OT, the divine council is portrayed as a structural reality of YHWH’s administration of the cosmos. It is YHWH's assembly, but with some significant modifications to the picture we find elsewhere in the ancient Near East (ANE). The council is composed of the "sons of God" (just like Job 1), and the sons of God are equated to the host of heaven in a manner just like the sons of god in the ANE (the divine powers were associated with the celestial realm). In the OT council, however, while the sons of God can be cantankerous or rebellious, they are always held in check with a tight rein (here in Psalm 82). YHWH gives them assignments (Dt. 32.8, as just mentioned) and solicits them for their ideas (1 Ki. 22.19-22). He engages with them and counsels with them (Gn. 1.26; 3.22; 11.7; Isa. 6.8), though He doesn't need them (Isa. 40.12-14). But the major difference between the Bible and the ANE is that none of the sons of God in the council are on an equal par with YHWH (Ps. 89.6-8; Dt. 32.39), nor do they carry their own divine authority. Whatever authority they have has been delegated to them (not distributed to them) by YHWH.

[Spiderman]

> The only verses that are usually used to speak of such things is Isaiah 14.12-15—verses about the king of Tyre. But these verses are about the king of Tyre, not about Satan.

Michael Heiser suggests an underlying older myth, in which a seraph is cast down, as the basis for the taunts against the king of babylon in isaiah and the prince of tyre in ezekiel, and the "demythologized" serpent in genesis 3. the adversary was probably grafted onto that myth at a later date, because the oldest texts where he appears, he is a direct servant of yahweh and a member of his council, and those texts are pretty late. the oldest source where the word appears, it's a verb, and the person doing the satan-ing is the angel of yahweh, a stand in for yahweh himself.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I'm sure that's Michael's suggestion, but two things come to mind: (1) there is no justification in the text for such an interpretation, and (2) hardly anyone agrees with him. When we consider Isaiah's flow, themes, and context, there is little or nothing to support Heiser's theory. The serpent in Genesis 3 is never in the OT associated with Satan, Lucifer, or any king. Lacking any support for such an idea anywhere in the OT, including these texts in Isaiah, we would be hard pressed to sustain Heiser's suggestion.

[J Lord]

> they cannot be totally explained as being governed solely by the laws of neurobiology.

What else can explain them besides neurobiology?

> Yes, an MRI could detect certain parts of the brain lighting up, but there would certainly be no scientific evidence that I was indeed (for the sake of the illustration) seeing God.

Yes, given our current level of technology and understanding of the brain we couldn't find such evidence. But if we had complete knowledge of every particle in the brain and what it is doing we would be able to detect if a supernatural force was altering the brain to cause a vision.

> No matter how many computer models and algorithms we generate, we will never be able to 100% predict the weather, because the number of variables is so close to infinite that it's unprocessable.

Once again, this is a practical limit imposed by our current technological capabilities. I acknowledge no such technology exists, but given the technology I describe it would be easy to detect if something supernatural caused an earthquake. My point is not that we can currently detect all possible forms of supernatural intervention in the world. The point is that if God intervenes supernaturally with the physical world it would be theoretically detectable. So appealing to the fact that we don't have the technology to do so in certain cases does not refute the point.

> I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

You don't need any faith to be an atheist, you just need to remain unconvinced by any arguments that any gods exist.