The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Dywyddyr]

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.

Ah, you're using your own peculiar definition of universe. Got it.

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

So what you're saying is: since we don't know the truth about much of what happened in the past there's no such thing as history?

Whether or not a claim is ridiculous is entirely up to the interpreter.

Except where a claim can be shown to be ridiculous.

It would be an appeal to ridicule to claim that the 'ridiculousness' of a claim makes it false or less true.

On the other hand, being able to show that a claim is false can mean it's ridiculous.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena has been putting a version of what is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument to try to prove that God exists. This is a philosophical argument that attempts to avoid some of the pitfalls of the traditional (Thomas Aquinas) version of the Cosmological Argument, but it fails for similar reasons.

The debate in this thread about the existence or non-existence of God is off-topic for the current thread, which is supposed to be about the truth or otherwise of the Bible.

Therefore, I have started a separate thread to discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This can be found here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/kalam-cosmological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.154797/

 

[Jan Ardena]

The debate in this thread about the existence or non-existence of God is off-topic for the current thread, which is supposed to be about the truth or otherwise of the Bible.

How can we debate the topic at hand without addressing the issue of God?
You're just going to end up with the same old same old. We've been here long enough to know that.
If God exists, the Bible is reality because it proclaims this knowledge. If God doesn't exist then Bible is mythology because the Bible proclaims the opposite as knowledge.

So why quibble over evidences when the real question, Does God Exist, is always going to be the subject that determine our conclusions?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What supports the idea that the natural universe doesn't/ couldn't arise from natural causes?

What methods could nature use to bring forth a universe?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

What methods could nature use to bring forth a universe.

Given that Man is part of nature:
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
to give just 3.

 

[Greatest I am]

Could you name some in regard to moral question ..

Just about any book on philosophy and justice.

Look up substitutionary atonement for instance and you will see that it is considered unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty yet Christianity is based on it.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I understand what you are saying, but what good is literature if it cannot be read literally? Any Scripture that claims Truth, but must be read with a grain of salt is not worth the paper its written on.
.

I agree with your last.

To your first.
Do you read comics literally?

They are literature.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The philosophy for change should be the Golden rule " don't do to other what you would not like to be done to you "

I agree but Christianity and Islam only give that rule lip service.

Some are trying to have them walk their talk.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I believe the Bible is truth

Do you believe that snakes and donkeys spoke human?

Regards
DL

 

[Waiter_2001]

I do not, but that is my opinion. They can speak to each other though: body language. There are many languages in nature allowing animals to speak to others of the same species.

 

[Greatest I am]

Why do people still teach the ideas of Darwin, since Darwin didn't mention genetics in any of his writings. We now know genetics is an underlying cause of many of things in life and evolution? That was a huge oversight on his part. Darwin's book did not even do a solid statistical analysis of his data? If anyone presented their life science data that same way, it would never be published.

The reason we still teach about the ideas of Darwin is because he played a key role in the history of biological thinking. He helped to lay the foundation for modern thinking. When we learn about the present, in the context of the past; Darwin, we can better anticipate the future; two point allow us to draw a line.

The same is true of the bible. Like Darwin it may not be up to date to the ideas and protocol of modern times, but it still provides a foundation by which many of the ideas of the present appeared and can be extrapolated to the future.

Those who wish to rewrite the past, are trying to create a trick line to the future; the future they wish it to be. Those who don't learn from real history, end up repeating the mistakes of the past, and waste everyone's time reaching the real future.

There is almost nothing historic in the bible. Please see this link.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Then you are committing a category error. God is NOT material.

You can't just create a category out of thin air.

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

You asked why I don't believe in God. The answer is: because there is no methodology for confirming his existence.

 

[sideshowbob]

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

Yes.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes.

So you can jump on the bus, and go look for happiness and/or love?
Good luck with that.

jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

The bible is composed of 3 books Torah . Prophets and literature .. The Torah have some Hebrew history .

Now tell me which is unreliable ?

If any of the written tradition was reliable then the Jewish oral tradition would not be able to override it, --- and it does.

That is the Jewish tradition.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

So you can jump on the bus, and go look for happiness and/or love?
Good luck with that.

jan.

How would you do it? By navel-contemplating?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You can't just create a category out of thin air.

You're effectively saying God does not exist.
There's not much I can respond to that.

You asked why I don't believe in God. The answer is: because there is no methodology for confirming his existence.

You mean there exists not methodology, or you haven't tried every methodology?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

You're effectively saying God does not exist.

I'm saying that there's no reason to think gods or flying pigs exist unless there's some way of detecting them.

You mean there exists not methodology, or you haven't tried every methodology?

jan.

I'm asking you what the methodology is. If there is any, I'm happy to try it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm saying that there's no reason to think gods or flying pigs exist unless there's some way of detecting them.

The fact that you think they can be detected like pigs, or flying pigs, shows that either you don't anything about the subject, you are presupposing a concept of God that is not actually believed in, or the subject of any God-conscious religious group or organisation. That fact that you doggedly stick to this ideal, in-spite of the nature of the subject being explained to you over and over again. Tells me that you don't want God to exist. That's up to you.

I'm asking you what the methodology is. If there is any, I'm happy to try it.

What methodologies have you used thus far? Just so I don't use them.

jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

Challenge authority . Jesus said " Give to Cesar what is to Cesar and give to God what is to God " He teaches us to be obedient to the authority ( government ) is there something wrong to that ?, Love thy fellow man as yourself , do you find some thing bad to humanity ? Teaching be respectful to your parents . That is an old teaching over 3000 years ago for the primitive society . Should that not be applied for our present generation ?

Rather selective my friend.

Care to really discuss the morality of what Jesus taught?

Like no divorce for women while it is ok for men?

There are a number of poor moral advice from Jesus.

Regards
DL