Jorge

Originally posted by The_Unknown_Banana

Surely you can impose a limit on the amount of proof necessary, before believing without further question?

There will always be questions... old ones that haven't been or can't be answered and new ones that come up. If one bases his stance on the absence of questions then the game is over before it begins.

And also the kind of proof necessary? This is what science tries to achieve, in my opinion. If not for that, then anything goes. (Including leprechauns)

I hear what you're saying but there's more to it than this. Science, in particular, is unable to find all of the answers unless a person assumes that it is capable of doing so. Well, do you make that assumption?

You are no doubt correct here. They can be difficult topics, if you want them to be. However, I maintain my original statement - if you believe the whole bible speaks only literally, and is an error free, perfect record of the past - written by God - then I can show many contradictions. Minor contradictions should do to disprove such a belief in my opinion - such as differing accounts of Jesus' last words, among others.

Having studied the matter a good deal, it is certainly understandable why many people believe as you do. It is simply mistaken but that's not the important part. The important part relates to the predisposition that exists in the person.

I have pondered on this I guess. But give me an example of something generally accepted, that cannot be disproven by any means? (Without going all matrix on me, and saying reality is an illusion)

It would be more meaningful if you came up with such an example - an example that to you is 'rock solid'. That matrix comment, BTW, is quite appropriate - more than you might know.

Yes, this is true. If there really were leprechauns running around, I would have reason to believe they exist. The problem of course is proving ("beyond reasonable doubt") that the object does indeed have an objectively independant and real existance.

Agreed, which is why "advanced" techniques are required. Using your 'matrix' as an example, imagine someone in this fictitious matrix "proving" to someone else that a wooden table is "real" by pounding his fist against it.

Within what goalposts do you define "proof" when you make such a statement? Is it better than the "proof" that exists for any other religion/belief?

I wouldn't know how to answer that question without going into a dissertation or leaving you short-changed. For now, I'll only say that it is possible and later we can develop the answer if we ever get that far... we'll see. BTW, rest assured that I am not playing games here - I don't play games in such a serious matter.

To be honest - probably not, but I'm willing to consider any new evidence that should make me think otherwise. Even if I do it with a skeptical mind :P

Well, you see, there's what I mean right there. There is nothing wrong with a good, honest, inquisitive mind. Even a touch of 'skepticism' may also be good - it shows a kind of 'seriousness' in accepting things.

But then there's the person that is in a state of 'invincible ignorance'. Nothing could be presented to that person to make him change his preferred views. That kind of skepticism is not only unhealthy, it's also dangerous. In any event, it certainly doesn't lead anyone to the truth in these matters.

I'll be frank with you, the minute I detect such a state of mind as that I'm gone in a New York minute.

I say this because we must all accept up front that all of the answers will not be available - they never are and they never will be... not for me and not for anyone else. Each of us is given "just enough" and then the 'heart condition' that I spoke of in the previous post takes over. This is, IMHO, why some people never find God.

If you are unable to accept this fact then there's no point. I'll answer many of you questions, but not all, and then you'll say something like, "Aha... see, I knew it... I'm right!" or words to that effect. That'll get neither of us anywhere.

Jorge

Asha'man

Wow, I'm late to the feeding frenzy...

I've got a fun one, no interpretation needed. It's perfectly obvious for anyone and everyone, no PhD needed. This is an obvious contradiction, and every explanation ever provided requires an extreme alteration in the plain meaning of the text: The conflicting genealogies of Joseph (husband of Mary) as presented in Matthew 1 vs Luke 3.

And before you cart out the usual song and dance, I should point out that both genealogies clearly mention Joseph and his father (either Jacob or Heli), so claiming that one genealogy is that of Mary still proves that the text is wrong.

Sure, some of the errors and contradictions presented by the S.A.B. are a bit weak. But some are well known, obvious, and pretty darn bulletproof. The Bible has errors, of the sort that only man could have produced. Things such as blatantly fabricated genealogies prove that the Bible is not trustworthy. If it isn't consistant with the world as we see it, or even itself, then accepting it as an authority on the unknowable is simply stupid.

Jorge

Nothing is like listening to someone who is clueless about what they're talking about.

Let me re-state that for effect: "Nothing"... is like listening to someone who is clueless about what they're talking about.

This post is directed at not just Asha'man, but at any other person here that feels that this subject (Bible "discrepancies and errors") is a 'Waterloo' for Christianity.

Tell me, exactly how many years of serious, dedicated study do you have under your belt on the subject of Bible "discrepancies and errors"? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? How many times have you read the Bible cover-to-cover? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

What's that you say? None? One?

And if you ever did read it, with what kind of 'heart condition' did you read it? What was your spiritual and intellectual 'attitude'?

'It only takes one reading and the attitude has nothing to do with it' - is this what you're thinking? If so, you are completely wrong.

You must be willing to grant that if the Bible is what many believe it to be (I said IF) then it represents a message from a Being with an IQ that is off the charts (limitless, actually). So, you wouldn't really be expecting to understand this message - completely and without errors in perception/comprehension on your part - with your relatively feeble mind, would you?

I could cite you scores of names of Bible scholars that have studied this topic for a major portion of their lives. Do you think that you know something on this subject that, combined, they don't? If so, pray tell what that would be.

One of you linked to this S.A.L. list of over one-thousand Bible discrepancies/errors. Those of you so inclined are undoubtedly 'impressed' with this very long list and take it as "proof" of your position. You probably consider the 'case closed'.

I just laughed! I'm not even close to what one would consider a scholar in this field and I'm aware of over 31,000 (!!) "discrepancies". BTW, this knowledge (and the subsequent studies) has served to strengthen my faith, not weaken it.

Hence, I'm afraid that you guys are, relatively speaking, in pre-Kindergarden insofar as this topic is concerned. There's no nice way to put it, you are clueless as to the extent of this topic and the studies that are behind it.

Frankly, those of you smart enough to have understood what I've posted here should simply say to yourself, "I'm not discussing this subject any further until I find out what the heck this is all about."

Anybody want to place a bet what the actual reaction will be?

Jorge

Jobar

I want to quote something from one of our regular members; bd-from-kg posted this in the Must theistic belief have evidence to be rational? thread, several months ago.

A Christian apologist must argue that God would in fact do things one way rather than another in some cases because his religion entails that He did. In these cases the Christian is making the positive claim and therefore has the burden of proof; it won’t do merely to point out that it can’t be proven that it isn’t so. Thus, it’s no good to say merely that we don’t know for sure that God would not condemn all mankind because Adam and Eve ate something from a tree; you must argue that this is just the sort of thing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God might do. You cannot argue merely that we cannot know for sure that God would not become a man (in fact, be human in part from the beginning of time) and sacrifice himself on a cross in order to redeem mankind from Adam’s sin, but still condemn anyone who was unwilling or unable to believe this ridiculous-sounding tale to eternal torment; you must show (at a minimum) that it’s reasonably plausible that an all-powerful, infinitely loving God would behave in this weird way. You have to show that God would, in all probability, reveal His deepest, most vital secrets by having some fallible men write them down anonymously, having some other men write similar but false works, allowing them all to be altered to an unknown extent, and then having some other fallible men sort out the “true” stuff from the “false” by majority vote. You have to argue that the true meaning and significance of Jesus’ life and death can be reliably deduced from the fact that one particular competing faction succeeded in declaring the others “heretical” and wiping them out along with virtually all of their writings. And the only remotely plausible argument for this is that God wouldn’t have allowed a false doctrine to prevail: “God wouldn’t do things that way”.

This cuts to the heart of our disbelief in the Bible; it is so very obviously the product of humans- yet you believers claim that it is the "Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God"! To us that simply seems laughable- until we remember that less than three hundred years ago people were burned at the stake for so laughing.

Men, not God, wrote the Bible; men, not God, name it holy. Just like the Koran, and the Book of the Dead, and umpty-ump other documents supposedly handed down from on high, not a single word is from any god.

JetBlckNewYr03

To all of the people trying to reason with SignOfTheCross: You'd be better off reasoning and explaining to a tree.

BioBeing

What a way to avoid the question!

Aurguments of your type are pointless too, you know. "Take two of these pills and call me when you can read the bible my way" is what you are saying. Arrogant and offensive is what i say. And possibly the fallacy of aurgument ad authoritarium.

Why do you think that is? God's own work, his one tome to mankind, and you have to have a PhD to read it? Kind of an important book to make quite so obtuse, isn't it?

And what do you say Jorge, to the Bible scholars who are atheists?

mosaic

I'd really like to know what exactly is the neccesary "spiritual condition" to read the bible in, and if this is only confir,med, when your subjective lttle feelings make you feel good. Oh wait, I suppose, when you read it god comes forth from hiding, shining on you like the sun, and convincing that most people are indeed, just sinful stupid morons that will be punished cause they possess the ability yet cant read its great text right. This esoteric, pretentious gargabe is one of the most despicable tings about theism. If I read the bible and come to a different conclusion than Mr Jorge here, apparently I read it wrong. Maybe you should give some explanation about the different levels of reading the bible, giving some concise description of each stage {cut out unnecessary insult- Jobar}. And then explain, why that is objective other than some appeal to "read it in the right way,' which merely rests on a subjective desire to believe it.

pariah

I would just like to make the point...whoever said that he had proof of God's nonexistance he is NOT a spokesperson for all atheists, as you have said before (you said: atheists claim they can prove god does not exist).

Very, VERY few atheists think they can disprove a gods existance. They know that they cant...only it is irrelevant to them, b/c the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.

Witt

SignOfTheCross:

Some forumite on these boards made the claim that although God cannot be disproven, there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist.

I kindly ask for this proof?
--------------------------------


Hi SOTC,

Let's assume that it is beyond reasonable doubt to say that:
It is possible that God does not exist, is true.

1. God does not exist is possible.

And, we define/describe God as:
D1. God, defined as, that for which possible existence implies necessary existence. (from Leibnitz, I think)

2. If, God exists is possible, then, God exists is necessary.

By: D1.

3. God exists is not necessary, then, God exists is not possible.

By: 2 and (p -> q) <-> (~q -> ~p)

4. God does not exist is possible, then, God exists is not possible.

By: It is not necessary that p is true, if and only if, It is possible that not-p is true.
i.e. By, ~(Necessary p) <-> (Possible ~p),

But, 1. God does not exist is possible.

Therefore,

5. God exists is not possible.

By: 1, 4, and (p & (p -> q)) -> q.

Q.E.D.


Further, it is logically true that any purported entity that is defined or described by a contradictory predicate cannot exist.

Do you have a description/definition of God that is not contradictory?

Your task, as a theist, is to show that there is at least one truth that can be said directly about your God ..then you will have proof that it exists.

Witt

Asha'man

Thank you for demonstrating this so clearly….
A fundamental rule of written communication: if the intended audience fails to understand the material, then the author has failed to communicate.

Either your reading comprehension is pathetic, or the Bible is an extremely poorly written book.

Let me get this straight: God has an important message for us. If we fail to understand and believe the message, we go to hell for all eternity. God really wants us to get this message, because he cares about each of us individually.

However, God is so incompetent or apathetic, he puts his message entirely in a poorly written book, one full of confusion, contradictions, inaccuracies, and just plain fantasy. He also writes that book in a language that nobody knows anymore, so that translation errors are virtually guaranteed.

I think my point has been proven.

So, this critical message that God wants us to have, if you don’t already believe it, you can’t possibly understand and accept it? Doesn’t that make the message pointless? The only people who need it, can’t have it, and the only people who have it, don’t need it.


If an omnipotent being was trying to communicate that message to me, then I expect perfect understanding. Otherwise, it proves that the message wasn’t generated by an omnipotent being, right?
Of course it has! You have no choice but to cling to your faith harder and harder, since reason and logic are being smothered. Faith is belief without reason or evidence, faith is letting your wants and need override your higher thinking capacity. You say that you have studied the bible, read it thoroughly, found numerous discrepancies. Logically, you would have to reject it as a message from an omnipotent being. Instead, you stick your fingers in your ears and chant “LaLaLa” until your higher brain functions shut down. Only your need and desire is left, so faith is the only possible path!

And I should point out that those genealogies are not “discrepancies.” A discrepancy would be leaving out a great-grandfather, or remembering a name as James instead of John. The two genealogies are completely and utterly different. They have no basis in historical truth, and thus must be fabrications. (Actually, it might be only one that is a fabrication, but I think it is both) This is very important, realizing that there are theologically motivated fabrications in the middle of the most important part of the bible. A genealogy isn’t a metaphor, it isn’t a parable, it is supposed to be a simple record of history, read literally. But somebody is lying to me about history. How can anyone trust the rest of the message knowing that it is written around such fantasy?