The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Jan Ardena]

If everything needs a cause, there can't be an uncaused cause and you've defined God out of existence.

Why can't the original cause (God) be uncaused? You seem to slip that in as though it is a given, let alone make any sense.

If anything doesn't need a cause, there's no logical need for a God.

Why?

Your concept is too wishy-washy to be of any use.

By your responses, it's hardly surprising you see it that way.
I think you're covertly trying to prove that God does not exist. Are you?

But you're the one who's being evasive. You seem to be either unwilling or unable to discuss the topic honestly.

How so?

Been there, done that.

Then why do ask what pure spirit is, or if we can communicate with a non material being?

So how would I distinguish between the Bible and Animal Farm?

When you were looking at the scriptures, could you make the distinction?

How do you expect anybody to use a methodology that they have no idea of?

You've read scriptures. Are you telling me you still have no idea?

All you're saying is that you have to believe before you can believe. That's circular nonsense.

Now you're resorting to lying?
You're not interested in God.

jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

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.

You know that that is not what I was speaking to.

Thanks for showing that you do not really believe the bible.

Regards
DL

 

[Waiter_2001]

Amazing! Jan Ardena has summed the attributes of the atheist perfectly: they do not WANT God to exist.

 

[Daecon]

Amazing! Jan Ardena has summed the attributes of the atheist perfectly: they do not WANT God to exist.

Do you not want Shiva to exist? Or Odin? Zeus, Ra, or any of the hundreds of others?

 

[Waiter_2001]

Not me, Atheists! I want gods' existences.

 

[Daecon]

Not me, Atheists! I want gods' existences.

Why?

 

[spidergoat]

Not me, Atheists! I want gods' existences.

You want to be dominated by a capricious guy with bronze age values who cares more about your penis than slavery? WTF?

 

[Sarkus]

Amazing! Jan Ardena has summed the attributes of the atheist perfectly: they do not WANT God to exist.

That's certainly what Jan likes to think of atheists: "There's no good reason for them not to believe, therefore it's simply a case of them not wanting to, and wanting God to not exist! There! That explains all their criticisms and all I need to do is say that their criticism stems from this and I will be correct and their criticism deemed invalid!"

Unfortunately Jan's view doesn't really apply to many atheists at all, at least not those I know. Most would love God to exist. They would dearly love other things such as an afterlife as well. But atheists - at least, I think, the majority of those on this site - simply do not see any convincing reason. Desire is not in itself a convincing reason - most would see that as an appeal to emotion.

That you see Jan's comment as somehow enlightening, though, I find quite revealing.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

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.

The bible is quite a long document. Sure, it talks a lot about God, but it also talks a lot about matters of historical fact - or are they myths? It seems to me that it is quite possible to discuss whether the bible is factually accurate in a historical sense, or a scientific sense, or in many other senses, without having regard to whether God exists.

Even if God does exist, it does not automatically follow that the bible must then be infallible or totally correct in all matters.

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

You should be more careful about assuming that your favorite scriptures all tell the Truth just because you believe in God.

What methods could nature use to bring forth a universe?

I remember somebody suggesting something called the Big Bang...

 

[sideshowbob]

Why can't the original cause (God) be uncaused?

You're the one who claims everything needs a cause. If that's true, so does God.

I think you're covertly trying to prove that God does not exist. Are you?

No more than I'm trying to prove that flying pigs don't exist.

Then why do ask what pure spirit is, or if we can communicate with a non material being?

Because nobody has an answer. If there is an answer, just tell us what it is.

So how would I distinguish between the Bible and Animal Farm?

When you were looking at the scriptures, could you make the distinction?

No. That's why I'm asking - and this is another example of you being evasive. Just answer the question: How would I distinguish between the Bible and Animal Farm?

You're not interested in God.

I'm as interested in God as I am in flying pigs. If you were interested in discussing God, you'd give a straight answer.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're the one who claims everything needs a cause. If that's true, so does God.

Why does God need a cause?

No more than I'm trying to prove that flying pigs don't exist.

So you are.

Because nobody has an answer. If there is an answer, just tell us what it is.

I thought you said you read scriptures.

No. That's why I'm asking - and this is another example of you being evasive. Just answer the question: How would I distinguish between the Bible and Animal Farm?

How am I being evasive. I pointed you in a direction, and you failed to distinguish.
Not my problem.

I'm as interested in God as I am in flying pigs. If you were interested in discussing God, you'd give a straight answer.

Then go seek flying pigs. At least if they exist you will be able to observe them.
Let me know how you get on.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The bible is quite a long document. Sure, it talks a lot about God, but it also talks a lot about matters of historical fact - or are they myths? It seems to me that it is quite possible to discuss whether the bible is factually accurate in a historical sense, or a scientific sense, or in many other senses, without having regard to whether God exists.

Even if God does exist, it does not automatically follow that the bible must then be infallible or totally correct in all matters.

So why is this thread in the Religion forum?

You should be more careful about assuming that your favorite scriptures all tell the Truth just because you believe in God.

Irrelevant.

I remember somebody suggesting something called the Big Bang...

Can you cite any explosion that methodologically brings laws life into being?
Good luck with that?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Why does God need a cause?

God is by definition complex. Where else do complex things arise spontaneously? Simply things, however, do not have that same problem.

 

[James R]

So why is this thread in the Religion forum?

Last time I checked, the bible was a religious text.

Which forum do you think the thread should be in?

Can you cite any explosion that methodologically brings laws life into being?

I already did. The Big Bang. It was a rather unusual explosion.

But then, the universe coming into being is a rather singular event.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God is by definition complex. Where else do complex things arise spontaneously? Simply things, however, do not have that same problem.

God is by definition ONE. How is that complex?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

God is by definition ONE. How is that complex?

jan.

Are you fucking serious? You say he contains the imagination necessary for creating the universe, meaning he planned out all the various galaxies and solar systems, created every kind of plant and animal, balanced the physical forces, invented morality, passes judgements... none of which would be possible if god were something simple, like a particle.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Last time I checked, the bible was a religious text.

Last time I checked you said, It seems to me that it is quite possible to discuss whether the bible is factually accurate in a historical sense, or a scientific sense, or in many other senses, without having regard to whether God exists.

Which forum do you think the thread should be in?

Erm... a science, or history one.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you fucking serious? You say he contains the imagination necessary for creating the universe, meaning he planned out all the various galaxies and solar systems, created every kind of plant and animal, balanced the physical forces, invented morality, passes judgements... none of which would be possible if god were something simple, like a particle.

Who said God was a particle?
So what if He causes the material world, it doesn't mean He is complex. Why couldn't He be very simple?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

If God were simple, like a particle, it wouldn't be God. It would be considered a non-sentient physical phenomenon. That's what I mean when I said a First Cause isn't necessarily a God.

For God's sake, he has a mind! Are you saying that you, created in His image, aren't complex?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God were simple, like a particle, it wouldn't be God. It would be considered a non-sentient physical phenomenon. That's what I mean when I said a First Cause isn't necessarily a God.

For God's sake, he has a mind! Are you saying that you, created in His image, aren't complex?

How complex is sounding the universe into existence?

jan.