spurly

Again, before I type what I am going to type, I will say that I am coming with a bias toward believing what the Bible has to say about God. Note, I did not say that I believe what people have said the Bible says about God, I believe what THE BIBLE says about God. That is a big difference.

Yes, I think it is reasonable that if such a creature as "God" existed, it is only natural that he define himself to us. Has he done that? He worked with a nation called Israel to do that all through the OT. He worked through Jesus to do that in NT times. That's why we see passages like:

But I guess the crux of the problem for us is how do we interpret what we see in the word of God? And that is a question that everyone has to search out and answer for themselves.

Kevin

emur

I knew this is where you would go. Remember though, the bible is a book written by humans about God. The words therein are from human minds written by human means.

You can claim that the bible was inspired by God, but that is all you have - a claim. We know for certain that it came through humans. So the problem still exists. Want to know about God? You have to hear about him through humans. The human element still exists, and we have not heard directly from God himself.

Mel

capnkirk

I read through about half this thread before I started skimming. Most of what I am reading indicates that has become mired in detail that has obscured the initial point.

So, let's go back to the basic definition: A THIEST is one who believes in a god who has revealed himself to man through scripture. Ergo, an ATHIEST does not believe that there is a god that has revealed himself to man through scripture.

Herein lies the kernel that untangles the pages and pages of preceding discussion. The definition of said god MUST derive from his revelation to man. i.e. scripture...this is where "he has defined himself!!!!". Hence, the focus on scripture to refute same.

So, while it may seem to one theist that the particular "god" being refuted is a straw god, it is a very real god to another thiest. In a global sense, athiests refute the fact of the revelation by demonstrating the illogic of the scripture which is its vessel...it relies on no particular body of scripture of any particular faith. The fallacies are endemic to all scripture of all faiths.

There is also irony here. When it is the 'theist' that discovers the contradiction...or the unpalatable passage...it is the theist who conveniently redefines "his" god to better fit his sensibilities (as evidenced by the seemingly endless creation of new denominations of churches).

I put it to you that most athiests have trod these paths also...except that we have finally realized that the only rational solution is that there is NO scripture that reveals a believable god. In essence, athiests are arguing that ALL gods are straw!

rainbow walking

Hi spurly,
Thanx for your timely reply. You said:

Again, before I type what I am going to type, I will say that I am coming with a bias toward believing what the Bible has to say about God.


rw: I appreciate your honesty. So tell me, how did you happen upon that bias?

spurly: Note, I did not say that I believe what people have said the Bible says about God, I believe what THE BIBLE says about God. That is a big difference.

rw: I fear this leaves me a bit confused. Are you saying that god wrote the bible himself without any people participation? Or is there some significant reason why you trust the words of a primitive warrior tribe of semi-nomadic people living during the bronze age above the words of people living today...people like your pastor, teachers and fellow believers? Do you feel you are better able and qualified to interpret the bible than a theological graduate?

spurly: Yes, I think it is reasonable that if such a creature as "God" existed, it is only natural that he define himself to us.

rw: And I concur.

spurly: Has he done that?

rw: Not in any verifiable way he hasn't, that is to say, not in a way that doesn't require you to adopt a certain bias in order to accept the claims of a book, written by people, as true.

spurly: He worked with a nation called Israel to do that all through the OT.

rw: And you know this...how? Because the bible, written by men, says so? Do you see any difference in accepting their claims as true above accepting any other humanly derived claims as true? Do you have any other evidence outside of the bible to corroborate the claims made in the bible about this gods providential care of a specific tribe? And why would such a being limit his assistance only to this particular tribe? What's so special about the Isrealites?

spurly: He worked through Jesus to do that in NT times.

rw: Again, the same problem exists. You started off being quite honest and strait forward but now you are drifting into shark infested waters. You are proceeding on the bias that the bible is true because the bible says it is true and because, for whatever reason, you've decided to accept that claim uncritically. But you began by declaring that an existent god should define his own attributes without any diluting human influences. The bible is an entirely human dilution that makes claims that require you to believe without any substantial evidence in their favor.

spurly: That's why we see passages like:

rw: I fail to see the significance of this passage in providing us any evidence that these words were actually spoken by a god or by men who actually experienced such a being. You're still allowing hearsay into the courtroom and conferring upon it the status of evidence.

Tell me spurly, do you believe every word of the bible to be true? How would you define the god of Isreal from your reading of the bible?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by spurly

"So here is my question. If God exists, should we be the ones to set up the terms by which to determine whether or not he is God. It seems to me, that if a God exists, he should be the one who sets up the terms that define him."

It seems to me, that if anything exists, the very character of that entity should be the one that determines the terms that successfully define it. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. Sure, if some being with at least some of God's characteristics exists, we might not successfully know anything about Him. But if we are defining God, that gives us the ability to figure out for ourselves whether He exists.

The only thing I can think of is that you're criticizing people who frame arguments against some god's existence. I don't see how you could criticize the project instead of the specific arguments; you'd have to have some good argument to show that it is impossible to disconfirm the existence of any being with some of God's characteristics.

curbyIII

To get back to your original point spurly:

It seems that you are basing your claims about what God is like, on the Bible. So if you can give attributes to God based on the Bible then why can't atheists do the same? You said that many arguments here have the fallacy of saying what they think God is like. Yet you can and do say exactly that, by basing your view of God on the Bible.

You also assume that the Bible is the word of God. How do you know this?

Also, how do you know that the Bible is true? Maybe the Koran is true.

By the way, I can mathematically prove that the Bible is not completely true.

spurly

Guys and gals,

Thanks for responding to my original question. I have enjoyed reading the posts and digesting the meat of what you all had to say.

You all have sufficiently rebutted my proposal in the first post. We do need to look at the attributes that are ascribed to God to see if god exists. But I guess one of the big problems is that the ideas about God - even a god that a specific religion advances, vary widely within that religion. So how do we know which ones are true and which ones are not?

I had a philosophy professor at the Christian college I attended who I appreciated a lot. One of his main points in his understanding of God was that God may not be omniscient. He may not know what decisions we are going to make until we make them. Needless to say, this is a radical departure from orthodox Christian thought. So his view of God must be put through the test, as well as orthodox views.

I will take your word on what is done here. You take attributes that other people ascribe to God or that you see the Bible ascribing to God and put them through the test.

I am excited about the rational dialogue that I have found on this site, and hope to be able to continue that dialogue in the future.

You have sufficiently knocked down my "setting up a straw God to knock him down" argument.

I guess a new question that I have is this - Can it be proven or disproven that God exists? How can we prove or disprove the existence of a Spirit being? Just curious.

Kevin

spurly

Rainbow walking, I will try to respond to the questions you asked me in your post. I will put my words in blue so you will be able to find them.

I was raised in a Christian home with extensive Christian roots. My great grandfather was a preacher, my great uncle was a missionary, my uncle was a minister, and several members of the extended and immediate family have been elders, deacons, and otherwise involved in church leadership.

As a teenager, I dug into the word, and literally memorized whole books of the Bible. When I graduated from high school, I attended a Christian college in Tennessee, where my foundations were strengthened. It was there that I first questioned the whole concept of whether or not God exists. I was sitting in a theology class and I went into a day dream where I saw a God in heaven directing hsi creature as if they were puppets on a string. Was that really the case? Was i just a puppet of God? Did a God even exist? As i continued my search, I found that the God my family worshipped indeed did exist, though he wasn't exactly what I had always been taught.

He was much more full of grace and mercy, and less the God of wrath that I had imagined. (Though he still has the characteristics of being a God of justice, and the Judge of all mankind). I saw him as someonw who wants, more than anything else, to have a relationship with us, and that's what the Bible was all about. God, living in relationship with his people, hoping to get us back to the relationship with him we enjoyed in the beginning.

I guess I need to clarify what I meant by that. What I was saying is that often men's interpretations of what the Bible says are faulty. We can not base what we say on men's interpretations (because they are many and varied). We have to go back and search the word of God for the answers. We can read what other people thought, and listen to what other people say, but in the end it comes back to "what does the word of God say", if it really is the word of God, which I believe it to be.

This is a tough one, because some people say he has done that, and others are just as adament (sp?) that he has not. I can see your point though, that within the framework of my faith, I ahe had to adopt a certain bias to believe that God exists. And the major part of that bias is believing that the bible is the word of God.


Extra-biblical evidence, as you probably know, is limited. Archeology has provided a little over the last 80-100 years, and there are scant reference in ancient histories of other nations.

As to why a being would limit his assistance to one tribe, and what is so special about the Israelites, I would have to say that he didn't really do that. It is true that he focused on Israel, but the reason he did that was to bring about the Christ who would enter a relationship with not only Israel, but everyone who would believe in him.

Even in the OT, if people from other nations wanted to become a worshipper of the God of Israel, they could.



Granted, I am in shark infested waters. I did not accept the truth uncritically, however. I have done some studying, and will continue studying to see if what the Bible says is really the Word of God. So far my conclusions have been yes. This is based mainly on fulfilled prophecy (which some doubt), the evidences for the resurrection (which some doubt), and the way God works in the lives of people today.

The Bible does have a human element. Everything we have does. But the question is how does that human element affect the word that we have?

As far as accepting it uncritically, I haven't. I am not sure if certain disputed sections (i.e. Mark 16, John 8:1-11, etc.) were actually part of the orginal manuscript, and I don't give them equal weight when put on a scale with the rest of Scripture.


Kevin

emur

Are you saying that most of your evidence for the existence of God rests on the bible being the word of God?

As for the way God works in the lives of people today, other religions have those experiences. Thus this is not evidence for the bible being the word of God.

Regarding prophecy and the resurrection, you need to read what people who question their validity have to say. Don't simply rely on evangelical authors. It seems you have had plenty of exposure to them. Broaden your horizons. Look extensively outside of the box. Balance the input you have had with other views. The journey to discovering what is true must include this approach. If your brand of Christianity is indeed true, you have nothing to fear by looking at opposing viewpoints.

Mel

post-it

If only God can define God, which could be, then God can't be defined by man. Thus you wouldn't be able to posit a rational argument for or against the existence of God.

For a small segment of earths population, yes. This is a God you can attempt to prove or disprove. But a undefined God is impossible to prove nonexistent.

Therefore, a God could exist.