Freethought & Rationalism Archive

simon kole · 06-23-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

5) the justice of man's responsibility for his actions when, by God's operation within man's disposition (e.g., Pharoah), man voluntarily does as God determines.

This is the one that I have a problem with.

For starters, God would be the one that gives man his disposition in the first place. Second, why should a man receive retributive punishment when he is actually doing the will of God?

I hear you loud and clear on that one. And so did Paul (Ro 9:17-21), as you already know.
This will be a part of my presentation on logical inconsistency.

Quote:

In other words, God hates sin, but He needs someone like Pharaoh to sin to further His plans, so He gives Pharaoh a disposition that insures that Pharaoh willingly wants to sin, so that God can be glorified in punishing Pharaoh and his army.

Jaybees · 06-23-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Therefore nothing that is said from it is any more than noise without outside observational corroboration.

But that's the whole point. The bible is true, therefore no outside corroboration is needed.

As simon has said, over and over again, if you can't corroborate what's in the bible, then it's up to god--if he wants to--to corroborate it.

For example:

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. "

Now you and I know that the sun didn't stand still. But the bible can't be wrong. So the sun stood still. All we need is to have god corroborate that fact.

Jarhyn · 06-23-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Therefore nothing that is said from it is any more than noise without outside observational corroboration.

But that's the whole point. The bible is true, therefore no outside corroboration is needed.

As simon has said, over and over again, if you can't corroborate what's in the bible, then it's up to god--if he wants to--to corroborate it.

For example:

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. "

Now you and I know that the sun didn't stand still. But the bible can't be wrong. So the sun stood still. All we need is to have god corroborate that fact.

What is more the point though is that the bible says things things about history, and the universe has direct evidence about history, and according to the bible both are the work of god. Any such discrepancy would require god to have produced a lie in the universe, which the bible says god cannot and does not do. It leads to a direct logical contradiction in the bible. A lie is a lie regardless of if it was told using miracles or otherwise.

It's not addressing Joshua's miracle at all, either, it's addressing genesis 1.

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

My take on this, and I think it's "consistent" with simon's beliefs, is that god can do anything, ANYTHING, ANYTHING.

She can violate natural laws, logical rules, anything that humans can think of as well as anything that human beings can't think of.

What you and I see as a logical inconsistency in the bible simply reflects our limited vision, You and I can't see that god can make a rock so heavy that she can't lift it but also lift it.

Omnipotence is a handy quality to have.

It's not a matter of onmipotence.

See my post #35 on this thread @ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6836009 .

So you agree that natural laws can be violated at will by god. Is that correct?

God can act outside (above) the natural laws which he ordained.

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

More important than any inconsistency within the bible (which YECers and literalists will always hand-wave away) are the inconsistencies of the bible with what according to them is the direct work of his hands, "creation" itself. Math and Logic and physics are properties of the universe itself; when the bible contradicts those things, I can only marvel at why anyone would pick the indirect work over the direct work as the authority.

Operating outside his laws of nature is likewise "direct" work.

Because you either seem to be avoiding it, or incapable of understanding it, The below addresses such a "logical" inconsistency of the bible; The bible makes statements, and the statements cannot logically be true.

Show where they are logically inconsistent with other texts in the Bible.
My parameters of examination for contradiction are within the Bible only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Likewise, you cannot inescapably conclusively prove that the Bible is not true, nor that God does not exist.

The bible clearly states that there was a global flood, people lived to be hundreds of years old, and that earth and heaven were created in 6 days. It states clearly that the earth and water existed before light and stars existed, that the earth existed before the sun, and that there were plants and an earth before the sun ever existed.

The bible also clearly states that god created the heavens and the earth.

There are disputes as to the lineages described in the bible, and the length of time that those represent and whether they represent families or individuals, but as the bible states it, people lived to be very old, and the history of the earth isn't any more than 10k years old

In the Bible, there are statements that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, that they wandered the desert for 40 years, that they migrated across a sea to escape the Egyptian army and that the Pharoh's army was drowned in this sea.

So, If the bible is the the revealed truth of god (that is that it is true AS A UNIT), then both the bible AND the universe are the direct work of the hand of god.

But there is a problem here, because the bible ALSO says that god does not lie in Numbers 23:19, and that god keeps his promises, and that god acts exactly as he speaks (which in fact contradicts previous statements made by you that the will and mind of god are two different things).

Two different things as in two different "entities," or a secret and a revealed will, which are the same, but
only part of the first is revealed.

Quote:

Now through observation of the universe, the direct work of the hand of god, we see that this conflicts with the account laid down in genesis. Light existed 9 billion years before the earth, and AT LEAST a few billion years before the EXISTENCE of water. The stars were there about 8 billion years before the earth, our earth and sun formed at the SAME TIME from the remains of another star that exploded, and our moon formed between 3.5 billion years and 4 billion years ago. Also through direct observation of the universe, we can see that life didn't start up until about 3 billion years ago. So through direct observation we can ascertain that the order of things happening was: light, sun, earth, moon, atmosphere (and dry land), cloud water, liquid water, life (plants, animals, and things that are neither, and not described AT ALL in the bible), and humans come at the very end. From this direct observation, death existed BEFORE humans ever walked the earth.

Further, there is no evidence of a global flood EVER having occurred. We have a pretty continuous history of floods and geological events on earth garnered from direct observation and NOWHERE is there a global flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.

Further, we have found no evidence that a million Jewish people wandered the desert for 40 years. We have tracked pretty much every nomadic groups wanderings via archeological evidence, but there is no such evidence of a million Jews. We track this by looking at what people cast off, lose, or otherwise leave behind. We have not found any evidence of an Egyptian army under the red sea, sea of reeds, or any other middle eastern body of water between Egypt and Canaan.

There are plenty of videos on youtube, wikipedia resources, and scholarly articles that will fill you in on the details of HOW we know the order of events through direct observation of the universe, but these are the conclusions we can draw.

Observation of the universe and the Bible give conflicting timelines for the earth. So ONE of these time lines must be inaccurate. I can independently verify, re-calculate, re-observe any of the things that lead to the observational result.

So either the universe has been altered by God so that it conflicts with the Bible (which would make it a lie), or the historical events portrayed by the bible are not in fact historical (which would make it a lie). Either the Universe or the Bible MUST contain a lie (fabrication, untruth, call it what you will). As the Bible says that the Universe is the direct work of God and that the Bible is the revealed word of god, and because one of those two NECESSARILY CONTAINS A LIE, then the bible ABSOLUTELY MUST BE WRONG about God not lying.

Edit: Also, the bible claims god is omnipotent, and that god could not leave the universe without it ceasing to exist ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. This would mean that god is not in fact omnipotent, and it contradicts itself in saying god is both omnipotent and not omnipotent.

You misunderstand my purview.

Neither you nor I can inescapably conclusively prove, nor disprove, the Bible is true.
I examine texts of the Bible for true textual contradictions within the Bible itself; i.e., does
one text actually refute another.

My purview is what can be factually established from the texts regarding true internal contradictions between the texts.
My purview is not contradictions of the text with what is external to the Bible.

See post #63 @ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6837529.

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

But the Bible as a whole cannot inescapably conclusively be proven either to be true or untrue.

Please refer to my post directly above your own. Apparently you missed the post where I proved conclusively that it is NOT true as a unit.

The Bible's truth is not my purview. Its truth can neither be conclusively proven, nor disproven.
So I don't attempt to do it.

I simply address perceived internal contradtictions within its texts.
I do not address any perceived contradictions between its texts and anything external to it.

schriverja · 06-24-2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Please refer to my post directly above your own. Apparently you missed the post where I proved conclusively that it is NOT true as a unit.

The Bible's truth is not my purview. Its truth can neither be conclusively proven, nor disproven.
So I don't engage to do it.

I simply address perceived internal contradtictions within its texts.
I do not address any perceived contradictions between its texts and anything external to it.

Where you are going wrong is the fact that the claim of divine authorship of the Bible can be disproven. If the account of creation doesn't line up with the evidence available it is disproven. If the Bible makes geocentric or flat-earth claims it is disproven. If there are failed prophecies (like Mark 13:30) it is disproven. If there are internal inconsistencies*, the Bible is disproven. If it is evident that the stories were cobbled together and respun from earlier, pagan sources, the Bible is disproven.

*I realize that creative mental gymnastics can be made, including speculating text between the lines, to reconcile most inconsistencies but then the onus is on the gymnast to explain why a divine author would create such a muddled text, requiring such gymnastics in the first place.

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

<snip>

I believe the Bible is true, even if I can't explain how it's true. I didn't write it, so I am not responsible for what it says.

<snip>

You did not write the Bible, this much is true. But if you are presupposing its truth to justify its use in an argument, you are responsible for defending its trustworthiness.

Otherwise you are just preaching.

Wrong.

I examine internal contradictions within the texts themselves.
That does not require a presumption of the Bible's truth.
That requires only internal examination of its language for consistency.

The same can be done for Harry Potter, to see if the books are consistent.
Whether the books are true or not is irrelevant to the examination.

There is a whole thread for this specific subject.
If addressing internal contradictions within the Bible itself is "preaching," then the thread itself presumes "preaching."

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Quote:

By center of the universe, I mean

--existing for our own purposes, rather than for another's, who is the center of the universe,

--calling our own shots, rather than another being in control of them, who is the center of the universe,

--determining for ourselves what is moral, what is right and wrong, rather than they being legislated by another moral authority, who is the center of the universe,

--determining for ourselves what is just, rather than it being determined by another moral authority,
who is the center of the universe.

This is all interesting in light of the oft-sited xtian argument that "god did not want
robots". Clearly, what many xtians believe is that god wants people who behave
exactly how we wants all of the time (i.e. just like a robot would), but has the
theoretical possibility of not doing so.

I wrote a post a week or so ago about how the male ego desires in a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend
a person who could choose anyone, but chose them, and could leave at any time, but
never will. The projection of this attitude onto god is pretty obvious.

Except, the NT says a man's choice for a mate doesn't look the same as the way God does it (1Co 1:26-29).

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Bullshit.

Your responses assume that:

- The Bible is a coherent whole written by a single author,
- The Bible is true, and
- The Bible is the word of God.

Every single response you have made is predicated on these three assumptions. If you did not assume these things, you would not reply as you do.

The basis of my responses is what the Bible says.

The Bible presents itself as true.

My purpose is to give what the Bible says in its own terms.
I suspect Sheshbazzar could do a fair job of that even though he doesn't believe the Bible.
It's not about faith in the Bible, it's about knowledge of the Bible (and a lot of which Sheshbazzar possesses).

The bible presents itself as contradicting reality. This would not be a problem except that the bible says it should not contradict reality,

Would you point out to me where it says that.

Quote:

yet it does, therefore the whole of it is suspect.

Therefore nothing that is said from it is any more than noise without outside observational corroboration.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.