The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Daecon said:
But you're unwilling to entertain the idea that no religion is true? That nothing can convince you that magical sky fairies are false?
Click to expand...
I am willing to admit that nothing has convinced me so far that God isn't real. It might have something to do with 99% of anti-God arguments either ignoring the actual doctrine of Christianity or deliberately phrasing Bible passages to sound contradictory with another (ie: "One book says there was one angel, but the other says there were two! Which is it! It's a contradiction!" except the actual passages say there was an angel and then there were two angels, which aren't contradictory to each other), and even if the Bible were to be found to have a contradiction (which so far is not the case), it still would not wholly refute the existence of God.

Also, as a bit of a corruption of a common atheist quote: "Were all religious. Some of us just take it one god shorter."
 
Jan Ardena:

Jan Ardena said:
What is the point of committing oneself to any of these things?
Click to expand...
The point for me is that I care about what is real and what isn't. I prefer to live in the real world rather than in a world with fantasy elements that I believe are real. You may well have a different view.

Jan Ardena said:
I can't really argue against that with you, because no matter what I say it always comes back to this. Your opinion of me.
You obviously do not comprehend how it is that someone can believe in God.
Click to expand...
You forget that I used to believe in God. This is true regardless of how many times you claim I never "really" believed, in the "proper" way like you do.

So you use your own experience (reading, state education etc...) to conclude that it is simply nonsense. That I believe in God because I read somewhere.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that the only reason you believe in God is your love of your scriptures. No doubt you also have a gut feeling that God exists. Perhaps you believe that God communicates with you on a personal level, too. You avoided answering that question when I asked you directly.

I don't mean this in a bad way JamesR, as I like your persona, and always have. But you are quite arrogant.
It's either your way (or the way you follow), or no way. You are not prepared to even try and comprehend what theism is really all about. That is the reason why you cannot tell whether or not I am sincere.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking anybody to follow my way. Go ahead and believe what you like. But realise that it's not a reasonable belief. I believe you have admitted that your belief does not rest on anything that might be recognised as objective evidence of God's existence.

Jan Ardena said:
Why would God have to be caused?
Click to expand...
The argument you are making goes like this:

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Therefore there must be a first cause - the Supreme Cause of All Causes.
3. The Supreme Cause is God.

Possibly, point 3 is not an additional point, because you might argue that "God" is simply a shorthand term for the Supreme Cause of All Causes in point 2. If point 3 is not just a renaming of point 2, then it is vulnerable to attack on the grounds that the Cause of All Causes may not be God (as defined separately from the three points listed).

Points 1 and 2 are also vulnerable: point 1 on the grounds that not everything has a cause, and point 2 on the grounds that there may be no first cause.
 
Daecon said:
You mean contradictions like the ones found here at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html ?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's very easy to list some mass of 'contradictions' that someone else has put together without doing any actual work yourself, or even checking to see if they are even contradictions in the first place. Let's talk about each one individually, I don't really have the time to write out some detailed explanation as to why God didn't create all the animals twice because of Genesis 2:19. Let's also clarify the difference between a contradiction (assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial) and a discrepancy (an instance of difference or inconsistency) such as one passage saying "An angel" and another passage saying "Two angels". Point to one and we can talk about that one.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I have a good definition of flying pigs, that being a pig that can fly.
Click to expand...
But your definition of God is a lot more slippery. Now you're adding that He isn't an effect. Every time there's an objection, you add another patch to your ad hoc "definition".
 
sideshowbob said:
But your definition of God is a lot more slippery. Now you're adding that He isn't an effect. Every time there's an objection, you add another patch to your ad hoc "definition"
Click to expand...

This is a summation of your objections.

sideshowbob said:
For the same reason you don't believe in flying pigs: there are no gods in this particular section of the universe.
Click to expand...

sideshowbob said:
I've seen part of the universe (about as much as you have, I suppose) and there's no sign of any god in it.
Click to expand...

I'm unable to add anything to the objections in this discussion.
To think that you could find God, in this universe, like you could find pigs or flying pigs, if God existed. Is to not fully comprehend who and what God is, regardless of belief. The essential reason both you and I, do, or do not, believe God exist, is more or less the same.
So your definition should include that reason.
Simply stating that you cannot find God in this part of the universe, gives no indication of what it is you're looking, and how you will know when you find it. Should it actually exist.

jan.
 
spinner981 said:
What are you implying? That I must believe in those things because my reason for not believing in them is insufficient to you personally? I can give reasons, but you can easily just say they don't matter. I can say "Jesus performed miracles, died on the cross and rose again." and you can say that doesn't matter because other alleged religious prophets did 'the same thing'. I can provide links showing that these prophets and Jesus were actually very different, and recite the common knowledge that Jesus is practically the most historically corroborated person in history, while many other religious figures (ie: horus, mithras, etc.) don't really have a solid foundation for their real existence. I can use the minimum facts argument, to take the minimal facts revolving around Jesus's death on the cross, and infer from them the conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead. But that won't stop you from saying "But I don't believe those 'minimal facts'" or "That doesn't prove anything.". If you are expecting me to provide you with reasoning that you, most likely a devout atheist, could refer to to be convinced of that which you have sworn not to believe, then you aren't going to get such an answer. I've been through this many times, every time the same responses. People don't care that I have reasons, all they care about is hearing my reasons so they can disagree with them and call me illogical.
Click to expand...
It's very nice you have reasons. My question is why give the Bible any credibility? If your reasons don't matter for a good reason, then why continue to hold them?
 
spinner981 said:
The topic of an infinite universe comes up, but isn't any more supported by science (or even less so) than God.
Click to expand...
The difference is scientists don't have any faith such a hypothesis without evidence. Your argument is the classic god of the gaps. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean the default position is that it must be due to some form of magic.
 
spinner981 said:
The Bible contains historical events that align with modern knowledge of history, as well as cities known to have existed in those times (some of which not being discovered by archaeology until much much later, hundreds of years after the Bible was canonized and spread across the globe to become the most 'popular' book in the world).
Click to expand...
So do the fictional works of Stephen King.
 
That still doesn't explain why you think God didn't come into being.

If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top