Hawkingfan

theo,

The point I am making is quite valid to the discussion. You say we are deliberately rebelling against an entity we do not believe exists. But you are doing the same thing if you do not believe in Allah.

Jack the Bodiless

Theo:
This claim is false.
This claim is false.
This claim is false.
This claim is false.
This claim is false.
This claim is false.
This claim is false.

...Theo, I note that you now have 843 posts on this forum. By now, you should have learned that endlessly repeating refuted arguments and empty assertions will NOT make them true.

There is NO EXCUSE for this level of ignorance.

Do you seriously believe we will be IMPRESSED by this display of unreason?

Jack the Bodiless

Going back to page 1:
So PETER SAID that God (actually Jesus, but let's not get into that right now) is omniscient.

Did Jesus say "Yes"? Did he say "No"? Nope, he said "Feed my sheep".

For all we know, this could be equivalent to the modern "get outta here".
So JOHN is "sure". Wow, that's reassuring. His reason for being sure is... ?
Then maybe you should find out, hmm?

Jack the Bodiless

I'll just tug a few more snippets out of this thread (what the heck, I'm bored, and I'm a latecomer to it).

Magus55:

You needn't bother to cite New Testament verses implying that God is omniscient. The concept of the "omnimax" God lay centuries in the future when Job was written. God tested Job because he did not know whether Job would pass or not.

Don't add stuff that wasn't available to the authors and readers of the actual books in the Bible. Just read what the text says, and you'll get a clearer idea of what the author's intent was.
You were created by your parents. Even if you prefer to believe that God made the process possible, YOU exist because of THEIR decision to create you.

Furthermore, the verse you quoted doesn't specifically refer to God creating life: "all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". By this argument, a potter does NOT have the right to smash a pot: the pot was made by God.

Therefore, according to the Bible, abortion is morally equivalent to a potter smashing a pot. There is actually NO Biblical condemnation of abortion, anywhere: this is a fiction invented by "pro-lifers".
Whatever gave you the notion that the Bible (even just the gospels) were written by fishermen? Nobody knows who actually wrote the gospels.

But the Bible is not merely myth, it's poor-quality myth. In terms of both size and sophistication, it's a shoddy pamphlet compared to Hindu myth, for instance. And the reason Plato and Aristotle were accepted by the church as "honorary Christians" is because the Hebrews never approached the sophistication of pagan Greek philosophy.
The Bible is FALSE. It is the work of men, not God.

No, we don't particularly like it either. But that is a secondary issue.


Theo:

Some books are factual, some are fiction: the Bible is one of the latter. But OUR knowledge is not based on a book. We regard books as a form of communication: if knowledge can come OUT of a book, it's because someone put that knowledge INTO the book.

You are applying your own magical thinking to us, by assuming that we have "holy books" that are presupposed to be true.
Ignorance.

You are ignorant because you suppresses the knowledge of evolution that is apparent in all life on Earth. You are without excuse; you are in an active state of rebellion against proof that is readily available to you - a puerile offence against an overwhelming body of evidence.
Babble. You must borrow from the "atheistic" perception-based materialist worldview to even READ the Bible, a fact that has been pointed out to you many times.
...Now, do you seriously expect us to believe that you didn't use your perceptions to READ that verse?

Or have you actually managed to delude yourself into believing that you know what Romans 1:18-20 says by divine revelation?
The first part of this sentence is correct: other evidence DISproves scripture. The rest is babble.
How can anyone possibly confirm that the Hittite empire existed without using PERCEPTION to verify that?

You claim that the Bible is exempt from empiricism, but then hypocritically pounce on any empirical evidence that confirms a Biblical claim. Yet, when evidence DISproves a Biblical claim, you start waffling about the worthlessness of empiricism!

I hereby claim that any coin toss will always come up heads. Every "heads" result is proof of my claim. All apparent "tails" results are optical illusions caused by the observer's baseless reliance on empiricism.

That is your argument, Theo.
And this is simply a lie. The empirical evidence does indeed clearly indicate that large portions of the Bible are mythical: notably, Genesis.

Why don't you hang out on the Evolution/Creation forums and LEARN something about this, rather than simply lying to those of us who DO know far more than you about such things?

Wyz_sub10

Obviously. However, the god of the bible supposedly interacts with his creatures on a physical level (in many cases). those physical interactions could be measured. Would they relate with certainty to a god? Perhaps note - and you have stated that this is a road you never go down in discussion (i.e. offering physical proof of god).

Just to refresh everyone's memory, this discussion (you and me) began with the notion of proof based on books - the validity of books as evidence.

I don't feel compelled to provide you with a way to test god. I'm mearly trying to demontstrate that evidence from the bible is not the same as evidence for Cleopatra. You seem to agree that there is a necessary distinction.

I'll return to the comment that I would be more receptive to returning to christianity if the surrounding information (that can be measured) was supported by evidence. It would not be a proof or god, but it would instil within me a higher degree of trust for the words of the text.

This is an odd comment - you say that something is required for knowledge to exist. Yet you say that empiricism and rationalism have failed. This may have been discussed elsewhere, but how have these be "shown" to fail?

Or you of the opinion that all knowledge is contained within you and empiricism simply "liberates" it from your brain? When I was 10, knoweldge of fixing my computer did not exist. At 30, it does. That knowledge was gained through a mix of empiricism and rationale. (Not to mention the ability to experience our surroundings thanks to a highly-developed complex brain).

You learned to drive based on god's revelation? How about developing a recipe for carrot cake? My favourite colour is a dark midnight blue. There's something you just learned through empiricism. I'm not sure what you mean by "knowledge", mind you. Do you divide "types of knowledge" between mundate and enriching, or some such distinction? If so, I'd be interested in where that line was drawn.

Fair enough.

Your focusing on proofs regarding revelation. I think we can (and most can) agree that such a thing is unprovable. By comparison, I can claim that god has revealed to me his plan to build a better donut. Silly as it sounds, I could not supply proof of this, and you could not supply proof against it. But it's difficult to defend that my claim is as valid as the existence of Cleopatra, simply because I am making a statement that cannot be tested.

I'm not sure I need to demonstrate "infallibility" because I never made such a claim, nor do I believe this to be the case.

As to "superiority", I suppose it depends on what you mean. I would define superiority, in this case, as the ability to furnish tangible proof and being less prone to subjectivity. I didn't think you disagreed on either of these points - revelation cannot be proven tangibly, and is definitely prone to subjectivity.

If you think these two points are not valid, then I would ask how you choose a treatment for injury, or make similar decisions re: taking medication or fixing your car or building a toolshed.

There's not much I can say to this. I would only note that meaning is not assigned, it is perceived. (Meaning is received, not broadcast).

Wyz_sub10

I don't understand your meaning. I have not developed anything, and I am certainly not being subjective. I don't claim to have a moral code handed down to me from an intangible being that cannot be proven to exit. I am simply sharing information based on current theory.

I do not criticize the bible because it fails to meet my standards - and this is important - I criticize the bible because it fails to demonstrate the standards supposedly promulgated by Christans.

My apologies - by "you" I meant Christians in general. "Preach" is not the term I should have used, but I think I've better stated what I meant in the point above this one - there is a moral standard adhered to by Christians (you have stated that there is an absolute, no?) and I find this inconsistent with the bible.

In my defense, though, you have made some preachy comments re: what is okay and what is not okay, so please do not act so deeply wounded. I think I've been very civil and forthright.

This is an assertion you have yet to prove. It's also one you cannot prove (but feel free to try).

You keep making the statement that morality "cannot be accounted for materialistically", and while I admire your persistence here, you have yet to demonstrate this. I have clearly (if only briefly) explained the derivation of moral concepts based on evolution and changing need. You have yet to make an argument against them, stating simply that this cannot be. Why?

Feel free to disagree, but provide some rationale as to why you believe me to be in error.

The fact that moral concepts vary slightly between cultures strengthens my argument. Morality, at the base, is common to most cultures because we are all humans - we are from the same species and did not develop such specialized differences until only 7-8k years ago or so. Conversely, we are a species 100k years old, from a genus over 2 million years old.

"Basic" morality developed long ago, while the specifics (what is acceptable to read, how one should dress, is cheating on your taxes okay) came about far, far, far later, and was situation dependent.

As such, morality, indeed, differs very little - we share the same basics, but differ on the details.

My personal preference plays no part in what you decide to do. But my personal preference and your personal preference have the same roots (as you no doubt agree). But while you insist this root is a god-given conscience, I insist this root is biological.

And yes, you could be faulted by "my standard" for killing me. See, we live in a society where we have made some agreements. One agreement is that we don't let people kill each other for no reason. So it's our collective standard you must be held to, not mine.

Secondly, humans have evolved with a sense of self and identity, and as such, we have come to recognize the violation of that identity or self as problematic. We have decided to create a standard based on that. (Hence, why we abhor slavery today in the western world, while it is condoned and even endorsed in the bible).

You don't seem to understand the relationship. A stable society is not the goal. It is the product of an undirected process. But we can look back to see how we got here, without assuming that here is where we're supposed to be.

Some traits provided early humanoids with social skills. The environment made it such that those social skills faclilitated survival. Thosem with them benefited, while those without them, died out.

It was not until tousands of years later that we developed the capacity to care for and nuture that society.

Just as a fish that learns to take in small amounts of oxygen from the air will better survive waters that become choked with algae, so too will humanoids with social advantages better survive a world that has become increasingly predatory and requiring of cooperation.

Does a person born with no arms indicate that humans are not meant to have arms?

Do conjoined twins indicate that such births are the norm?

That is an absolutely false statement. The foundation for criminal law is the concept that actions are harmful to stable societies.

We may fly the flag of absolute morality, but laws are passed to minimize conflict. Do you think the Jim Crow laws, for instance, prohibiting blacks in white restaurants, etc. was developed because it was a moral, inherent absolute, or because the proponents believed their society and way of life was being threatened?

Most laws passed deal with the details around conflict resolution - property issues, workplace issues, limits around time for various agreements, etc.

These are done for practical purposes and have little to do with absolute morality.

phil

The Bible never says that God was testing Job to find out if Job was tried and true. God already knew Job's heart "Then the Lord said to Satan, 'Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright.' " Job 1:8

In fact, God is not the one who tested Job, it was Satan. God just let it happen. "The Lord said to Satan, 'Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.' " Job 1:12

Why does suffering happen? Because of Satan. Though God will allow it to happen for many reasons; so people may learn, their character may be built etc. There is an analogy that Christians often use that is quite true. Just as gold is refined by fire, so are we refined by the trials that we go through.

It seems to be a law of nature. An athelete puts himself through very unpleasent training, but the athelete does it so they may be stronger, faster, etc. to win.

In the case of Job, why did he endure SO much suffering? Because Satan is a dufus! Satan is not willing to take God's word for it and wants scientific PROOF. If God is not to be a liar and someone wants proof, then he will provide it.

Just think though, if you were standing before God and he just told you the answer to something, what kind of an idiot would you be to ask God to prove it?!

You would have to be the kind of idiot that is skeptical of everything. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for skepticism, but there is also a place for belief. Persons who are skeptical of everything believe nothing (not even science). Persons who believe anything are gullible. Both are plain stupid.

One must continually try to find the balance between skepticism and belief. Those that do are truly wise.

-phil

Jack the Bodiless

It appears that GOD is the "doofus" in this story. He keeps letting Satan do exactly what he wants to do: to torture Job. The more Satan "plays dumb", the more torturing God lets him do.
This is quite obviously NOT the reason Job was tormented. "There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright". He didn't need it.

Mageth

Though God will allow it to happen for many reasons; so people may learn, their character may be built etc.

So why did God let Job's sons, daughters, and servants all die? To teach Job a lesson? What did the sons, daughters and servants get out of it???

Just think though, if you were standing before God and he just told you the answer to something, what kind of an idiot would you be to ask God to prove it?!

The Idiot: "God, are you omniscient; do you know everything there is to know?"

God: "Yes, I AM GOD!"

The Idiot: "OK, God, prove it. Prove that there is not a fact X that you do not know."

God: "Umm, mm, hmm...AARGH!" (God disappears in a poof of logic)

Icarus

Phil,

I have three objections:

1. Delegating human beings' character development to an evil entity's scheming would be a grossly irresponsible move for a perfect deity in my opinion. (One could find blameless individuals like Job receiving inordinate amounts of attention);

2. Equivocating human suffering to Satan's actions fails to recognize biblical accounts of God actively influencing historical events--often causing much suffering--in order to forge his people into more steadfast followers. (I offer the Exodus as one of many examples.)

3. Attributing human suffering to Satan's influence in the world completely fails to meet the challenge I leveled against Magus55 in a response I previously posted in this thread http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=3;

I am interested in learning how you reconcile these three complaints with your position concerning God's and Satan's role in Job and in overall human suffering.

Icarus