Not very. And it's natural not supernatural.
The Bible. Myth or Reality?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
The title of the thread is "The Bible, Myth or Reality?". On the whole, I think that discussion of myth is better suited to the Religion forum than to a Science or History forum. And we're talking about the bible which, as I noted, is primarily a text about God - a religious text.
Hey. Is that a video that shows matter organising itself?
Yes!
Why do you?
So from your perspective (and most other on here) God either does not exist, or to give it a little for credibility, there is no evidence or argument which shows that God exists, or even could exist. I take it that the biggest cause for the Bible to be labelled as myth, as you have done, is the lack of existence of God . So what is the purpose of it being in the Religion forum, as you have reduced it to an ordinary book.
Let's pretend that there isn't a causal agent turning the frequency knob in order to create different patters, or putting in the raw un-manifested material.
You're right it is a video that shows matter organising itself.
jan.
Delusional religions are still religions.
No? Religions have to be real to exist?
Here's the question again.
So what is the purpose of it being in the Religion forum, as you have reduced it to an ordinary book.
If you can't answer it, don't bother to respond to it.
jan.
All religions are based on ordinary books.
For the umpteenth time, you are the one who claims everything needs a cause, aren't you?
What does me reading scriptures have to do with you answering a question? If you have read the scriptures and you claim the scriptures have the answers, just answer the questions.
If you have read the scriptures and you claim the scriptures have the answers, tell us the answers. All else is evasion.
I have sought flying pigs and found none. I have sought gods and found none. I am asking you to explain how one quest is different from the other and how one result is different from the other.
God isn't a thing.
So tell me why you think God needs to be caused.
I could explain it to you through scripture (the way I basically comprehend it), but as you have, by your own admission, studied scriptures, plus, studied the writings of C. S. Lewis, who explains far better than I could even hope to explain it. It seems I would be just wasting my time.
You have read the scriptures already, and atheists like to boast how they know the scriptures better than theists. So why should I waste my time explain stuff you already reject, or more appropriately,deny. What's in it for me?
Where did you look?
From your perspective there are no differences. From my perspective there are.
That's all.
jan.
That's okay then.
I'll happily concede to that.
Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence (for future reference).
jan.
As I keep pointing out, you are the one who says everything needs a cause. If your logic is correct, then God would need a cause. You can't just arbitrarily define God as "an entity that doesn't need a cause".
That's like saying you could swim the Atlantic Ocean but it would be a waste of your time. The more likely explanation is that you just can't do it.
I make no such claim. However, I will gladly play duelling scriptures with you and let the intelligent members of the forum decide who knows what.
I'm asking what the differences are. Is it your perspective that black and black are different? Or that white and white are different? Why don't you tell us what your perspective is? If you can't, could it be because there is no difference?
EveryTHING has a cause.
God is NOT a thing.
This will be the last time I explain.
No, it's like we both know we have swam the ocean, but you insist on asking me to prove that I have. A waste of my time.
Okay. I'm up for that.
How do you play duelling scriptures?
I've told you what my perspective is.
We have basically looked at the same point of reference, and come to different conclusions.
You seem to think that I'm obligated to answer any question you ask, and you're exempt from answering any question I ask.
jan.
Semantic nonsense and not a small amount of special pleading.
That's not an explanation; it's an empty assertion.
But I don't believe you have swum the ocean and I don't claim that I have. I'm asking you to prove your own claim that you got "the answers" from scripture.
Simple. Quote scriptures to back up what you've been saying. For example, quote scriptures on how to find God.
You keep saying it would be a waste of your time to answer my questions, yet you keep wasting your time repeating that it's a waste of time. If you had any answers, you couldd save a lot of time by just answering the questions.
And if I've failed to answer any of your questions, feel free to repeat them.
According to your presupposition (someone who goes out looking for flying pigs, not mine. God necessarily exists, and He's not a thing.
We both claim to have studied scriptures, so I don't believe you don't know the difference between looking for flying pigs, and God. I believe you are lying.
Sure..
jan.
Because without explanation (and a definition is not an explanation) you have set God aside from everything.
And that will be the last time I explain that to you.
Firstly, what do you mean by explanation?
Secondly if as you say I have not given a definition, how do you know I have set God aside?
jan.