The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Jan Ardena]

I'm looking for what you define as God - and it isn't there.

What makes you thing you have to look in the universe to find God in the same way one would look for flying pigs? I know I didn't give you that idea.

It has been explained to you that your logic is wrong: you can't have an uncaused cause and insist that everything must have a cause. You yourself have essentially defined your own "god" out of existence.

You can if the original cause is not caused. You agree with that. Right?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan ; does not life NEED matériel objects in order to manifest?

That's what being alive is.
Adam's body was dead then God breathed life into it, and it became a living soul.
The life force is different from the body because it is spiritual by nature (aspect of God)

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As shown in post #268, while you may not have stated it explicitly, it logically concludes from what you have said.

Quit being a douche Sarkus. If you think it logically concludes from what I said, and I disagree,
show how it is so, instead of making baseless accusations.

Either way, you're showing yourself up to be far from the person you seem to want to portray.

What person would that be.

If something can not be then either it doesn't need to be or it doesn't exist.

More douchery.
So humans can't fly by flapping their arms, because we choose not to, or flying by flapping appendages does not exit?

You claim/believe God exists so can not and does not are equivalent. So quit your semantic bullcrap.

Are you on the verge of a nervous breakdown, or something Sarkus, because this type of nonsensical reasoning is uncharacteristic of you.

Sheesh, you really don't even read up on arguments you make, do you. Special pleading is one of the main criticisms of the cosmological argument. Sticking your head in the sand about it wont help.

Who is criticising it, and why should their criticism be taken seriously?

You need to do more than simply say I'm wrong to demonstrate their falseness, Jan. And to be able to demonstrate they're false you do actually need a grasp of what the accusation actually means. You don't appear to.

I have demonstrated them Sarkus. Go back through my post's (this time without being irrational), they're there.
You need to stop being emotional, and focus.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Quit being a douche Sarkus. If you think it logically concludes from what I said, and I disagree,
show how it is so, instead of making baseless accusations.

I already have done, Jan. You just choose to ignore it. Or understand it.
But to repeat post #268:
"Deacon: What does being immaterial have to do with not coming into being?
You: It means God is spiritual, rather than material.
Ergo you are saying that which is material comes into being."

To explain it in more detail:
Daecon's question, by asking what links being immaterial with not coming into being effectively asks what is it that separates being immaterial with things that do come into being.
You then answered by saying that God is spiritual rather than material.
Your answer thus separates God as immaterial from things which come into being - i.e. material.
Thus you are claiming that material comes into being.

It's not rocket science, Jan. Just simple logic.
What don't you follow, as clearly you're going to disagree.

What person would that be.

You try to portray yourself as intelligent and enlightened. You come across as neither.

More douchery.
So humans can't fly by flapping their arms, because we choose not to, or flying by flapping appendages does not exit?

Eh? Is this how you interpreted that comment? Please explain how you got from what I said to this nonsense of a question as it bears little relation to what I said.
To clarify: If something can not be (i.e. if something is impossible) then either that thing does not need to be (i.e. is not necessary - and I'm assuming you do know what necessary means) or that thing does not exist.
In the case of humans not being able to fly by flapping their arms... this is something that is not necessary.

Are you on the verge of a nervous breakdown, or something Sarkus, because this type of nonsensical reasoning is uncharacteristic of you.

Nonsensical? You're struggling with that? Seriously?
Ah, more diversion and obfuscation from you, Jan... pull the discussion into the gutter until the original issue is lost. Very good.

Who is criticising it, and why should their criticism be taken seriously?

I'll let you read up on the various philosophers who have done, to name Kant, Russell, Hume among the many. And why should their criticism be taken seriously? Because they generally have reasonably well thought-out arguments, much like those proponents of the CA who should be taken seriously. But unlike you.

I have demonstrated them Sarkus. Go back through my post's (this time without being irrational), they're there.

I've re-read your posts, Jan.
Where have you demonstrated the falseness of any of those accusations? At best all you have said is, as stated, a version of "you're wrong". But please do feel free to point out just 1 post where you have done so. This thread is only 15 pages long, so not many posts to go through.

You need to stop being emotional, and focus.

And you need to stop evading, obfuscating, raising strawmen, and generally bringing attempts to call your claims and arguments out down into the mire from which all hope of getting anywhere is quickly lost. But that's what you want, isn't it. You raise an issue that someone disagrees with and eventually you have covered the discussion with so much detritus that the point being criticised is forgotten.

Well, heck, you're almost there with this thread as well.

 

[spidergoat]

Such as?

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

That's interesting to know.

jan.

 

[pluto2]

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.

Well according to quantum mechanics not everything needs a cause. Take radioactive decay for example. We can't know for certain when a particular nuclei will decay. Quantum mechanics can calculate the probability of decay, but it cannot tell when a given atom will decay.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/radioactive-decay-is-random.384130/

Also quantum field theory, the Standard model of particle physics (the Standard model is also a quantum field theory) and string theory/M-theory can explain how the universe could have popped into existence from nothing without the need to involve a creator.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing

 

[sideshowbob]

How are you looking for it?

The same way I look for flying pigs. How are YOU looking for God? What methodology are you using that allows you to find what others can't find?

I'm explaining to you that only everything that begins to exist has a cause. God by His very nature can not have been caused, because He Does not begin to exist.

That's not an "explanation"; it's an empty assertion. You might as well assert that flying pigs aren't subject to the laws of thermodynamics because the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to flying pigs.

 

[sideshowbob]

What makes you thing you have to look in the universe to find God in the same way one would look for flying pigs? I know I didn't give you that idea.

You didn't need to give me the idea; it ought to be blindingly obvious. The way you look for one thing in reality is the same way you look for something else in reality. If you use different methodology, how can you be sure of consistent results?

You can if the original cause is not caused. You agree with that. Right?

Of course not. If everything has to have a cause, there can not BE an uncaused original cause. And if anything CAN be uncaused, it doesn't have to be "God". It could be a Big Bang or something else.

 

[Daecon]

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

jan.

That's what the entire discussion is about.

You've hijacked this thread to make it all about how you know the nature of God (like you always do).

 

[spinner981]

Why are you treating a collection of religious stories as if they're a science and history textbook?

Why do you think some writings are inherently more correct than others? Just because they align with your worldviews or biases?

No we don't.

Explain how the origin of all natural things could be natural in and of itself.

Because something is written in a book is never reason enough to believe it. Anyone can write anything in a book. How do you know it's not just fiction with a few historical elements?

To be fair, we are taught our entire lives to learn 'facts' by reading them in books. In a history book? Must be a fact. In a science book? Must be a fact. I simply find the method of determining the truthiness of books by simply picking and choosing the parts that you deem 'true' a bit silly.

We know that cause and effect seem to rule some portions of our present universe on a macro level. How do you know that applies to all situations throughout time? At one point, we can extrapolate that the universe was small enough for quantum effects to dominate, and cause and effect don't seem to apply there in the same way.

You're basically then opening up the floodgates to any 'possibility' of existence within our universe, to claim that are observations are limited and that something completely different and inconsistent with our observations may exist within our universe. This is similar to the multiverse theory, where effectively supernatural things (ie: things that do not function under the rules and laws of our natural universe) are said to be able to happen within our universe because of our ignorance of their possible non-existence within our universe.

That's a fallacy, nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. It is not the default position when natural explanations fail. And besides, there are several plausible (but as yet unproved) explanations for the origin of the universe.

How is non-natural not the default position when natural explanations fail? No current theory explains the ultimate origins of the universe, either claiming to explain the penultimate origin (ie: the big bang) or how the universe might be eternal (ie: the big bounce), both of which are problematic for different reasons.

You can define a fictional entity any way you wish, the fact remains that there is no evidence for a god.

I believe there is evidence for God. Most often I look to the life of Christ, the Bible and fine-tuning. Many atheists just say "No, those aren't good enough." and therefore reject them as evidence because of the circular reasoning that God isn't real, therefore no evidence for God exists. They practically demand significant supernatural experiences with God, like God appearing in their living rooms and showing them the entire history of the universe, as the only acceptable 'evidence for God'. Even then, some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, claim they still wouldn't be convinced because that would probably have just been a hallucination.

No, all texts should be deemed untrustworthy in telling history. History never depends on just one source, especially if it wasn't even written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred. And yes, I do have a problem with magical stories being taken as fact. It tends to undermine the credibility of the text.

History always depends on only one source, and that is the truth. Whether else will you learn the truth of history from? That original happening might be written down once or twice, and then copied into later history books simply because they were in older history books. Claiming that something is more true now because there are more history books that say it is true is similar to saying that the Bible is somehow more true just because there are many versions of the bible (ie: KJV, NIV, NLT, etc.) or because it has been saying the same things for decades that continue on into the next writings of the Bible.

The only reason for doubting the historical reliability of miracles in the Bible is a bias against the existence of miracles, a bias against the supernatural. Critiquing the Bible's truth value not off of history, corroborative writings or the apparent honesty (be it deliberate or not) of the physical writers but off of one's personal belief that the Bible simply isn't true isn't an honest way to determine the truth value of the Bible.

The same way I look for flying pigs. How are YOU looking for God? What methodology are you using that allows you to find what others can't find?

To be fair. Others have claimed to have found God. Millions even. Even former atheists and agnostics.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's what the entire discussion is about.

You've hijacked this thread to make it all about how you know the nature of God (like you always do).

How is, ''how I know God's nature, relevant to a discussion on whether the Bible is myth or reality?''
Surely what I know or don't know sheds no light on whether the Bible is myth or reality, or is likely to change minds.

Also it is of vital importance that we have a proper definition of God, not a secular/atheist one, that we can use as a reference. If you don't believe that God exists, then you will undoubtedly apply any whimsical attribute, you will undoubtedly deny the attributes that all theists accept (hence why they are theist), and effectively derail a thread in which people are seriously participating in.
You effectively have no other business in these threads, than to derail them.

If you don't believe that God exist because there is no evidence. Then the burden is upon you, IMO, to show that you comprehend, and accept the basic definitions and attributes, enough to show that there is no evidence. But like the strong theist, they will undoubtedly deny the attributes that all theists accept, and eventually run the thread into the ground.
If they had bothered to study who and what God is, they would know that the type of methodology in obtaining evidence they seek, is not the same type of evidence one would use in science. It is a classic category error.

God IS never defined as material, He is always defined as spiritual. Of course they are not bound to accept that as a definition, and as such not believe in God. Yet they seek to suppress the whole notion of God, by not accepting anything at all. Theist's don't believe in a material God, and while we can comprehend God through His works, it can never count as evidence to someone who doesn't have that presupposition.

Whether the Bible is myth or reality, obviously depends on ones belief, or acceptance of God.
Don't you think it would be better if we accepted God, as explained in the Bible, rather than not?
Because if we can't, there is no discussion. Just the same old back and forth thing.

There needs to be a respectful understanding of each others positions, and a basic respect for other people. While we can never prove either way, whether the Bible is myth or reality, we can put forward the best arguments we can, but you have to accept the theist position, at least as much as we respect yours.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The same way I look for flying pigs. How are YOU looking for God? What methodology are you using that allows you to find what others can't find?

Then you are committing a category error. God is NOT material. Let's lay some foundation here.

I don't have a methodology for looking for God. It doesn't work like that.

That's not an "explanation"; it's an empty assertion. You might as well assert that flying pigs aren't subject to the laws of thermodynamics because the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to flying pigs.

It is an explanation.
It may be an empty assertion to you, I can't do anything about that.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You didn't need to give me the idea; it ought to be blindingly obvious. The way you look for one thing in reality is the same way you look for something else in reality. If you use different methodology, how can you be sure of consistent results?

So looking for happiness, or satisfaction, is done in exactly the same way one looks for a kebab shop?

Of course not. If everything has to have a cause, there can not BE an uncaused original cause. And if anything CAN be uncaused, it doesn't have to be "God". It could be a Big Bang or something else.

There's nowhere to go from here. Something has to give.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

It stopped being about whether the Bible is myth or reality when you came in and turned it into The Jan Ardena Circle Dance.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It stopped being about whether the Bible is myth or reality when you came in and turned it into The Jan Ardena Circle Dance.

How do you propose we approach, and move forward with this subject matter without a proper definition of God that all theists can agree to.

jan

 

[spidergoat]

To be fair, we are taught our entire lives to learn 'facts' by reading them in books. In a history book? Must be a fact. In a science book? Must be a fact. I simply find the method of determining the truthiness of books by simply picking and choosing the parts that you deem 'true' a bit silly.

You're right. Anything in a book must be true.

You're basically then opening up the floodgates to any 'possibility' of existence within our universe, to claim that are observations are limited and that something completely different and inconsistent with our observations may exist within our universe.

Yes.

How is non-natural not the default position when natural explanations fail?

Because stupidity isn't a valid alternative to ignorance.

No current theory explains the ultimate origins of the universe, either claiming to explain the penultimate origin (ie: the big bang) or how the universe might be eternal (ie: the big bounce), both of which are problematic for different reasons.

There are several imperfect theories. They are all preferable (being naturalistic) to throwing your hands in the air and declaring everything to be the result of a magic man.

Most often I look to the life of Christ, the Bible and fine-tuning.

Is your experience of Christ anything more than as an element in a book? Because I'm not sure he's not just a fictional character. We can discuss fine-tuning as evidence for God, which I feel is a fallacy, but that might be more appropriate in a separate thread. I ask you this, if I could show that fine-tuning is a fallacious argument, would you then disbelieve in God?

Many atheists just say "No, those aren't good enough." and therefore reject them as evidence because of the circular reasoning that God isn't real, therefore no evidence for God exists.

No, that's incorrect. No primary assumptions on the existence or non-existence of God are required for any atheist argument that I know of. It's just that a story in a book isn't evidence. Apparently you don't believe in the existence of fiction.

Whether else will you learn the truth of history from?

How do you distinguish fact from fiction?

The only reason for doubting the historical reliability of miracles in the Bible is a bias against the existence of miracles, a bias against the supernatural.

No shit. It's your premise to prove.

 

[spinner981]

You're right. Anything in a book must be true.

That's not what I am saying. But what you are saying is that anything in a book that you personally deem true must be true, and anything you deem false must be false.

Yes.

Yet you have a problem with the existence of God? Though you deem our 'universe' capable of producing something that is, for all intents and purposes, God?

Because stupidity isn't a valid alternative to ignorance.

So, if natural explanations fail, then believing anything beyond those failing natural explanations is stupidity? Why is that exactly?

There are several imperfect theories. They are all preferable (being naturalistic) to throwing your hands in the air and declaring everything to be the result of a magic man.

Personally I find it more reasonable to conclude that something exists outside of our 'naturalist' bubble, rather than trying to bend and contort the rules and laws of nature to somehow allow the existence of an infinite universe or a natural origin of said natural universe.

Is your experience of Christ anything more than as an element in a book? Because I'm not sure he's not just a fictional character. We can discuss fine-tuning as evidence for God, which I feel is a fallacy, but that might be more appropriate in a separate thread. I ask you this, if I could show that fine-tuning is a fallacious argument, would you then disbelieve in God?

Fallacious how? Anthropic principle? The idea that since we are observing our current reality, that therefore it must have an explanation, and since the only explanation you personally accept would be naturalism, therefore naturalism is true?

No, that's incorrect. No primary assumptions on the existence or non-existence of God are required for any atheist argument that I know of. It's just that a story in a book isn't evidence. Apparently you don't believe in the existence of fiction.

Calling something 'fictional' as the primary argument of its incorrectness is exactly what a bias against the supernatural is. You are basically saying that it's wrong because it's wrong.

How do you distinguish fact from fiction?

I distinguish that which I believe from that which I don't believe, just like every other human being ever.

No shit. It's your premise to prove.

I'm not the one claiming it's false because it's miraculous. I am saying that I believe them to be true. If you want to make a definitive claim that they aren't real, then let's hear your reasoning, to try and convince me to believe otherwise. The only claim I make is that I believe the Bible, and all it would take to 'prove' that is for me to say I do indeed believe it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Explain how the origin of all natural things could be natural in and of itself.

Why couldn't it?
YOU are the one that made the flat claim "We know that the cause of the natural universe couldn't be natural".
1) We don't KNOW, and
2) What supports the idea that the natural universe doesn't/ couldn't arise from natural causes?

History always depends on only one source

Right.
That explains why there are so many conflicting stories about what happened in history, doesn't it?

The only reason for doubting the historical reliability of miracles in the Bible is a bias against the existence of miracles, a bias against the supernatural.

Well those reasons and the fact that it makes some simply ridiculous claims.

 

[spinner981]

Why couldn't it?
YOU are the one that made the flat claim "We know that the cause of the natural universe couldn't be natural".
1) We don't KNOW, and
2) What supports the idea that the natural universe doesn't/ couldn't arise from natural causes?

If all natural things are contained within the natural universe, and the origin of said natural universe was what caused all natural things to come into existence, then the origin could not have been natural, or else it would have had to 'cause' itself.

Right.
That explains why there are so many conflicting stories about what happened in history, doesn't it?

Well if it's not true history, then it's not history is it?

Well those reasons and the fact that it makes some simply ridiculous claims.

Whether or not a claim is ridiculous is entirely up to the interpreter. It would be an appeal to ridicule to claim that the 'ridiculousness' of a claim makes it false or less true.