Hallam Willis said:
you believe like all scholars that the historicity of the bible is good, whether you choose to believe in the miracles etc. that is a different story. But to say you don't believe the bible is historical is like me saying I don't think the Roman empire existed.
That is not exactly what Biblical scholars believe. Although some elements in the Bible seem to have some connection to history, many parts of it do not. One cannot depend on the entire Bible to be an accurate representation of history. For example in Genesis:
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So, space is made of water? This was a common belief at the time, but we know it's wrong.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
We now know that the material that made our Solar system originally came from stars, and yet God is said to have made stars after the Earth, and the land, and the plants...
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
We now know that the oceans preceeded the plants and animals, so that's wrong. Genesis mentions a couple of rivers, but only ones near the Middle East, and it fails to mention the Amazon, which of course, they didn't know about. I could go on, but I think I proved my point.
Hallam Willis said:
The fact that you are having this discussion proves that's true to me.
spidergoat said:
"A statement of your belief, not a logical deduction from the facts."
Hallam Willis said:
-Nothing wrong with giving my own personal basis for argument so everyone knows who I am and where I am coming from, just being helpful.
But you phrased it as a logical deduction. The fact that we are having this discussion proves that existence is a wonderous creation and not a simple act of chance? How? I could also say it's a wonderous creation, there just wasn't any creator. It was also chance.
Spidergoat said:
Because the idea is appealing to some people.
Hallam Willis said:
-Whats appealing the idea of God, or discussing him?
The fact that monotheistic religions have not dissappeared means that the belief has appeal, however irrational it might be. It is not proof or even indication of truth. In fact, there is a statistical correlation between prosperity, education, and disbelief.
Spidergoat said:
That's honesty, not dishonesty. I don't believe that Aliens have landed on Earth, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Hallam Willis said:
-Dawkins was being honest there. But what about when he tells people God DOESN'T exist, and that he believes God DOESN'T exist, he is not being completely truthful, because he doesn't actually believe 100% God doesn't exist. That is not representing the facts truthfully.
This is where you misunderstand the terminology. A scientific fact is one that is shown to be true
beyond a reasonable doubt. 100% proof is not a reasonable benchmark in most areas of science. That is why people mistakenly think that calling evolution "just a theory" somehow discredits it. His (and my) belief is not like religious faith. If evidence contradicts the belief, the belief may be altered or abandoned. We leave open the possibility that we could be proven wrong, but we haven't yet, and it seem unlikely that we ever will. Dawkins is not misleading anyone when he says God doesn't exist, just like science is not misleading anyone when it says that aquired characteristics are not inherited. All scientists would admit their knowledge cannot be 100% reliable (with some exceptions), but a slightly lesser degree of certainty is good enough. The state of knowledge so far points to an unmistakable conclusion, there is no God. In the same way, until there is evidence to the contrary, I could say, there is no Loch Ness Monster.
spidergoat said:
No, it means that some definitions of God are still theoretically possible, although unnecessary to explain the facts.
Hallam Willis said:
-Right, but I'm not trying to explain the facts, just explaining my reasons for his existence despite not "physically" showing himself to us.
You gave:
1. The idea that the bible is historically accurate about some things, and thus must be accurate about all things.
2. The idea that believers exist, therefore the belief must be accurate
3. The idea that being open to the possibility that God exists means that atheists are denying something they know to be true "in their hearts".
4. The idea that just because God or his effects cannot be observed doesn't mean he doesn't exist
5. The idea that subjective personal experience is evidence of God
6. The idea (argument from consensus or popularity) that millions of believers cannot be wrong
spidergoat said:
No, there are other reasons why he is non-existent. Before the idea of God was popular, people believed in other, equally silly things.
Hallam Willis said:
-When did the idea of God become popular?
Monotheism started with Zoroastrianism and later Judaism. But those aren't the only religions. There are as many as there are cultures on this planet!
spidergoat said:
Many of smartest people in the world were also atheists. In the past, little or nothing was known about the cell, or DNA, or evolution, so it wasn't as ridiculous to believe in God. But today we know better.
Hallam Willis said:
- Agreed that many smart people are atheists. For the last part I quote you "No, it means that some definitions of God are still theoretically possible"
Such as a God that set things in motion, but takes no interest in our personal lives. Deism and Pantheism are still possible, but the Abrahamic God cannot exist for several reasons. Even a Deist God would have been destroyed with the creation, and so is not around to be worshipped.
Hallam Willis said:
What exactly do you know better?
We can now refute the argument from complexity. The idea that life is too complex to have come about through natural means. Evolution by natural selection explains this quite elegantly, and nothing in modern biology makes sense without it. We have only come to an understanding of our place in the universe in the last 100 years or less! We can now see that we are not central to it, but only an inhabitant of a typical solar system in the midst of a vastness of stars in the galaxy in the midst of a vastness of space filled with galaxies for as far as we can see (18 billion light-years). Surely God would have made his home for humans more accessible? Evolutionary theory also explains much of human behavior, from sex to warfare to religion itself.
You can explain why life works, and how it works, you understand the mechanisms. You don't understand alot of things though, such as how the brain really works
This is the God of the Gaps argument. The gaps are closing every day, but the brain will be the next battleground. I suggest that studies involving electrical stimulation of the brain prove it's physical nature, and there are computer models that have successfully simulated a portion of mouse brain.
Hallam Willis said:
, or how the universe became what it is,
On the contrary, there are several plausible naturalistic explanations for the universe. Until one can show that God or the supernatural exists, then naturalistic explanations must prevail.
Hallam Willis said:
or where the singularity came from.
There was no singularity, quantum physics shows this. Steven Hawking, who proposed the singularity, withdrew that explanation later on, but few Creationists have caught on to the latest news in this area.
Hallam Willis said:
I have no problems with what science has and can do, but you have made a jump from not knowing to knowing, and automatically assume that rules out a creator. Why?
Assuming the Abrahamic God, which is more well defined than some others, we can test the assumptions. Does anything in the universe need to break natural laws to work? No. The universe looks just as it should if no God created it. Nothing is fine-tuned for life. The universal constants, Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, and relativity, all derive from symmetry, or point-of-view invariance. Life itself does not look designed but looks as it should if it gradually emerged from previous simpler forms.
We can also show how the arguments in favor of a God cannot be supported. There have been studies on prayer, which show no reliable effect. There is the problem of evil (if God doesn't stop evil, he is not good). God could stop natural disasters (because he is omnipotent) that kill innocent people, but he does not (meaning he is not omnibenevolent). If there is a personal God, he must interact with the physical world, and this interaction could be observed. Anything that can be observed can be studied by the methods of science.
The more we know about the universe, the less of a role there is for a God in it's creation and administration.
I have answered your question before. And i see that this time i do not even need to quote the scriptures to answer your question.. You have posted it yourself. Even though you posted a questionable translation: