Then God is nothing.God is NOT a thing.
(drops microphone)
Then God is nothing.God is NOT a thing.
Justification, reasoning, that which sets out the thought process behind the claim.Firstly, what do you mean by explanation?
I didn't say you haven't given a definition, I said that you haven't given an explanation, and said that a definition is not an explanation.Secondly if as you say I have not given a definition, how do you know I have set God aside?
I didn't say you haven't given a definition, I said that you haven't given an explanation, and said that a definition is not an explanation.
You have set God aside through your definition, not through explanation.
The definition may be true, but to show it is true you need to provide justification, not just assertion. Asserting the truth of the definition (or of the existence of that which is defined) simply because that is the definition, is begging the question. Asserting the veracity of an exception without justification is special pleading.If I don't give an explanation to your satisfaction, does it mean the definition isn't true?
The definition may be true, but to show it is true you need to provide justification, not just assertion. Asserting the truth of the definition (or of the existence of that which is defined) simply because that is the definition, is begging the question. Asserting the veracity of an exception without justification is special pleading.
Because you make God the exception to your own rule (that everything has a cause). It's a logical fallacy that renders the argument invalid.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.
Because you make God the exception to your own rule (that everything has a cause). It's a logical fallacy that renders the argument invalid.
On the contrary, Jan: I know you are special pleading, hence the accusation. That you merely hand-wave it away with claims that I'm somehow falsely accusing you and doing so on purpose is what doesn't advance the discussion.You just accusing me of special pleading, when you know I'm not, does nothing to advance the discussion.
That's it, Jan, throw your toys out of your pram. Evade the issues yet again. It is your forte after all.If you think it is possible that God's transcendence could be true, then you are wasting, not only mine, but you're own time, if you are indeed searching for truth, by positing philosophical mumbo jumbo. There's is time for it, but it's not in this particular discussion.
Seriously, you wouldn't know circular reasoning if you threw it and it hit you on the back of the head!I don't make God the exception. God, by definition, isn't the same as everything else.
If you don't accept the definition, that's not my problem. But I'm not begging the question.
Doesn't work that way. If there is an exception for God, then there can be an exception to the rule of cause and effect for the Big Bang too, since it also isn't the same as everything else.I don't make God the exception. God, by definition, isn't the same as everything else.
If you don't accept the definition, that's not my problem. But I'm not begging the question.
jan.
Because Science is the evidence-based study of the natural world and history is the evidence-based study of the past. Religion, on the other hand, contains (among other things) unverifiable stories, parables, fictional accounts of the past, and on on. Myth consists of unverifiable stories, fictional accounts of the past, etc. moreso than it contains evidence-based studies of the natural world or the past.Why do you?James R said:On the whole, I think that discussion of myth is better suited to the Religion forum than to a Science or History forum.
I am happy to concede that God could exist (it's a possibility that we can't rule out). Personally, I would never claim to know that God does not exist. There is some evidence that people put forward for God's existence, but I think it is very weak. I am not persuaded by any evidence that I have come across or had presented to me. I am always open to people who wish to put an argument that God exists. Right now, I know of no such argument that convinces me.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.
The bible is a lengthy document. It doesn't just contain a few stories. It's not all about one thing. There's poetry in there. There are various bits of advice on how one ought to live (some of it conflicting). There's quite a lot of telling people what they should and shouldn't do. There are a lot of cautionary tales that are supposed to scare people into believing in God, lest they suffer his wrath. There are many contradictions. There's some historical information that can be extracted.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.
What do you mean by "ordinary"?So what is the purpose of it being in the Religion forum, as you have reduced it to an ordinary book.
Do you think that the human being twiddling the knob somehow determines the specifics of the patterns that form on the plate? Please explain how this occurs.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.
What you have there is an assertion, not an explanation.EveryTHING has a cause.
God is NOT a thing.
This will be the last time I explain.
Dust bunnies form under my bed on the same basic principle. But my wife thinks it's a devil, not a deity, behind them.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.
If you knew the difference, you should be able to tell us. It seems pretty obvious that you don't know the difference either.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.
So you're a Hindu? Since the topic is about the Bible, how do your Hindu beliefs mesh with Judeo-Christian beliefs?Chapter 4, Verse 9
One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.
Chapter 4, Verse 10
Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purifled by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
If you knew the difference, you should be able to tell us. It seems pretty obvious that you don't know the difference either.
So you're a Hindu? Since the topic is about the Bible, how do your Hindu beliefs mesh with Judeo-Christian beliefs?
Because Science is the evidence-based study of the natural world and history is the evidence-based study of the past. Religion, on the other hand, contains (among other things) unverifiable stories, parables, fictional accounts of the past, and on on. Myth consists of unverifiable stories, fictional accounts of the past, etc. moreso than it contains evidence-based studies of the natural world or the past.
It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Lots of threads on this forum could arguably fit into more than one subforum. If you want to argue that a thread titled "The bible, Myth or Reality" would be better located in a subforum other than Religion, go right ahead and make your case.
I am happy to concede that God could exist (it's a possibility that we can't rule out). Personally, I would never claim to know that God does not exist. There is some evidence that people put forward for God's existence, but I think it is very weak. I am not persuaded by any evidence that I have come across or had presented to me. I am always open to people who wish to put an argument that God exists. Right now, I know of no such argument that convinces me.
The bible is a lengthy document. It doesn't just contain a few stories. It's not all about one thing. There's poetry in there. There are various bits of advice on how one ought to live (some of it conflicting). There's quite a lot of telling people what they should and shouldn't do. There are a lot of cautionary tales that are supposed to scare people into believing in God, lest they suffer his wrath. There are many contradictions. There's some historical information that can be extracted.
Do you think that the human being twiddling the knob somehow determines the specifics of the patterns that form on the plate? Please explain how this occurs.
You could have just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and saved us both a lot of time.If you're okay with that, so am I.It seems pretty obvious that you don't know the difference either.
You quoted Hindu scriptures. The topic is the Bible. If there were Bible scriptures to back your case, why wouldn't you quote them?I'm a hindu?
Jan thinks they are all more or less the same. In fact thinks all religions are monotheistic and their differences irrelevant. Talk about delusional.So you're a Hindu? Since the topic is about the Bible, how do your Hindu beliefs mesh with Judeo-Christian beliefs?
You could have just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and saved us both a lot of time.
You quoted Hindu scriptures. The topic is the Bible. If there were Bible scriptures to back your case, why wouldn't you quote them?