Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jaybees · 06-23-2011, 08:54 AM

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?

Jarhyn · 06-23-2011, 08:55 AM

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.

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).

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.

simon kole · 06-23-2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Which of course means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL because the Bible itself is not consistent with reality.

The Bible cannot POSSIBLY be the revealed truth of god in it's entirity. The bible says specific events happened. A detailed and honest and unbiased examination of the universe shows that they did not. Either the universe is created to hide the true nature of what happened (that is, the universe is a LIE) or the Bible does not describe the true nature of the universe. Since the bible describes God as incapable of lying, and one of the two MUST be a lie, and both are Attributed to god, the Bible is wrong when it says cannot lie.

So nothing you pull out of the Bible is necessarily true and must be taken on the individual merits of each individual statement, and must be held against the candle of logic and reason.

That the Bible is true is not the basis of my responses. What the Bible says is the basis of them.

Each gets to decide for himself if I have accurately relayed what it says.

Then if you do not make responses on the basis that the bible is true, your responses are simply NOISE with no meaning or purpose, which confound and muck up actual conversation on the subject.

I could for example, then, say all manner of untrue things and then not have to defend them because I am not saying them on the basis that they are true; I am just saying them to say them.

Your example is not analogous to my situation unless what you say is what you have read somewhere,
which does not make you responsible for its truth.

Quote:

So do you, Simon Kole, believe that the bible is true?

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.
I simply believe what it says.

My addressing the presented contradictions in it is simply for the purpose of informing
others of what the Bible actually says.
There is a lot of misinformation floating around out here regarding what it says,
as in what is presented on the Why is the Bible so Contradictory? thread in this forum.

I assume others want to be informed rather than misinformed in their opinions, whatever are those opinions.
That is why I engage in this forum.

But the Bible as a whole cannot inescapably conclusively be proven either to be true or untrue.
Both positions are a matter of belief.

But I believe it is true because of the convincing personal evidence I described in
post #212 @ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6815073, above the archaelogical finds, and in

post #837 @ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6834873, at the bottom.

Jarhyn · 06-23-2011, 09:26 AM

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.

simon kole · 06-23-2011, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saramago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saramago

New topic stemming from post #734 in the "Why is the Bible so contradictory" thread.

simon kole, I'd be very interested in hearing/reading your explanation of what you see as the "basic logical inconsistency of the Bible" below, with a chance for further discussion on that topic. Thanks!

(Bolding added by me to the pertinent lines near the end of this quoted section; other bolding was in the post linked above):

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saramago

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

# 50: Who was to blame for originial sin?

Adam was to blame for originial sin (Ro 5:12).

Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived (1Tim 2:14).
But Adam disobeyed anyway, because of Eve.
Adam was the first human created and, therefore, from whom original sin is inherited.

No; according to the story and as you have said, everything happens according to God's plan. God was/is to blame for "original sin" (in the story, even if he doesn't exist IRL).

And both statements are true. This is the basic logical inconsistency of the Bible, which I may choose to address.
But if I do, I will have to start a new thread because of all the objections and responses it will generate.

So, going back to the OP and interpreting in light of the basic doctrinal inconsistency (DI) you've revealed here, is this (below) how you see Adam/Eve & 'original sin'? You'd used a the term 'logical inconsistency' (LI) and seemed to draw a distinction between LI and DI; what did you mean by that?

DI inconsistency is what looks like opposing doctrines in the Bible.
The doctrines themselves are logical, but they appear basically in opposition to one another, as in
Armenism and Calvinism ("Paulism") of post #35

@ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6836009 .

LI is what looks like an illogical doctrine, whose apparent Biblical conclusion does not logically flow from its apparent Biblical premise.

I will be addressing an LI next, regarding the Biblical conclusion of the moral responsibility of man not logically flowing from the Biblical premise of the sovereignty of God.

Quote:

1) God's revealed will was that Adam/Eve should not eat the forbidden fruit. Everyone since then (including but not limited to Adam/Eve) are judged based on this revealed will

2) However, God's secret will was that they should indeed eat the forbidden fruit (but you said God's secret will was about what he does/did; what would that be, creating the situation so the fruit-eating was bound to happen?)

The Scriptures show that God's secret will involves two things:
1) what he decrees shall occur, and
2) what he does, his acts.

Quote:

Why not just create Adam & Eve already dead with an apple in their mouths (like pigs at a roast) & skip the middle man?

I can't present what the Bible says on that issue because it is not addressed there.
So I guess you will have to take that up with him.

simon kole · 06-23-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Either Universalism is correct, or your "god" is a monster.

I understand why you think that. I really do. It's more than odious to think we are not the center of the universe, but God is, and that we exist for his purposes, not our own. I understand how you feel. I really do.

No, you don't.

I do not for a moment think that we are the center of the Universe. We are insignificant specks whose fleeting existence barely registers against the background of the Universe.

It is Christianity which likes to pretend that the Universe was fashioned for us, and that we are the reason "god" made everything. It is incredible egotism, even with the caveat that we are supposed to do "his will" and not our own. Christianity may say "God is the center of the Universe," but it also says "and we're His favorites."

What Christians are incapable of doing is examining their belief system dispassionately. If they could do so, they would see how monstrous their BibleGod really is. Christians who study Comparative Religion regularly cluck their tongues at how "terrible" other gods are - Shiva, for example, or Ba'al - but they are blind to the fact that their own "god" is no different.

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 the center of the universe to which I am referring, and which mankind finds it odious not to occupy.
And I do understand how they feel.

schriverja · 06-23-2011, 10:21 AM

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.

dockeen · 06-23-2011, 10:34 AM

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.

simon kole · 06-23-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

That the Bible is true is not the basis of my responses.

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).

Jarhyn · 06-23-2011, 10:41 AM

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, 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.