Evidence for God

[GrowingSmaller]

I'll mention the proof "via negativa" for fun. The best way to know a ineffable and transcendent God is not to know him. rotfl

 

[Upisoft]

Is there any evidence for the existence of any deity whatsoever?

Objective evidence - no. Subjective evidence - I don't know, there are people who say there is.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that any deity exists?

You may look at this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7510561/. I was searching for reason to believe. What they wanted from me was to make a leap of faith. It is funny how they insist on this when their book contains a story that warns of dangers doing such things.

Is it possible to ever decide either way? Must belief in gods be based purely on faith?

For me it is not possible. I'm stuck in the middle. However, if God exists, He is definitely not the homicidal maniac from the books. Also non existence of God is not necessary. Even if you find proof that our universe was not created by a deity, that only means so it was not created by a deity. A deity that did not create our universe could still exist...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is about detection and the nature of man. Though there are other examples, the manifestation of the Christ by Jesus more notoriously.
I think the "other explanation" is well known in these parts.

Indeed, hence why it should be obvious why your analogy fails. A may well imply B, but the truth of B doesn't imply A - unless A is the only cause of B. With radios, that is known (or, at least, supremely probable). With man, that is not known. Thus, man is not evidence of God.

Its a position which requires a belief since the authorship was given as a part of the text. Therefore, to say "I dont know" is to discard what has been given, which is a result the belief that the origins of writing (as depicted) are from another nonviable source (of choice).

"I don't know" is the default, the stance we all take until we are presented with reason or evidence (or, perhaps, faux reason or evidence). I do not know who wrote the Bible. It could have been God, it could have been Moses, it could have been built up over centuries of oral tradition by Bronze-age nomads, it could have been aliens. In lieu of evidence - and feel free to present some - "I don't know" is where I'm going to stay.

He has no choice. They are here. Even if he says that it is not knowable as to why they are here, it is still a belief in regards to the debasing of authorship and the nature of the man as given.

To reject X is not the same as to affirm ¬X - rejecting the existence of God is not the same as affirming the non-existence of God. Rejecting the claim that God authored the Bible (either directly or indirectly) is not the same as affirming the claim that God did not author the Bible.

We are well aware of the fact that humans wrote them. The discarding of text is not because humans wrote them though, nor is their reverence. You took a stance. So even if I asked you "if humans wrote them why do you discard them" then your beliefs will come out. Thats why they are said to come of a lower race of man, etc. Both sides believe that humans wrote them, yet this constant does not produce an equal stance. Hence the reason for divergence cannot be "humans wrote them". You still have to explain the divergence in your explanation as the text speak on the conclusion (God). The divergence is just as evident as the texts themselves.

The divergence is one of affirmation and rejection. The theist affirms God wrote them, while the atheist rejects that claim. Epistemologically speaking, rejection is not affirmation of the contrary (see above).

But there is an affirmation. The atheist says that it is possible, turns around and the text is still there. "It is possible" is not the affirmation which fulfills the existence of said texts. There is also the disregarding of authorship. Which goes back to the nature of the man, and the origin of man at the extreme.

Hardly. The texts exist, sure. Some of those texts claim a supernatural origin, sure. It is possible that some or all of those claims are true, sure. But so what? In the absence of evidence supporting any such claim, the atheist is justified in saying "I don't know". Thus, those who affirm such claims must provide some reason to believe them.

But this doesn't explain your current stance. Its merely shifting the focus then slinking out of sight.

It was a single sentence to explain the nuance of my point. It was never meant to explain my current stance, nor to take focus. If it offends you, ignore it. It's of no consequence.

There are still beliefs. An positive affirmation like the it is not knowable is essentially the authorship of the bible is to be disregarded. This isn't based on evidence.

Neither is it a belief.

Understand what God is first. The bible is being studied not the Quran and merely reading texts without any kind in depth analysis is malpractice. A Buddhist may claim that Buddhism is atheistic for example, but an understanding of what the Buddha is warrants investigation, as this is against the very nature of its divinity. But I'm not a Buddhist nor has there been an extensive study into this.

Buddhism is 2000 years old. I daresay it's been studied at least as much as Christianity.

Religions often overlap. Some of the Greek heroes which can be found in the Greek Pantheon, in the bible, may merely be depicted only as the last line in Genesis 6:4. Depictions of Zeus may also serve as the Demiurge as given by Plato, which is a slightly different concept. But both were ancient Greece. Hence the "if you believe in God why don't you believe in Zeus" is not entirely accurate. It only means that what was given in ancient Greece or the titan that was ancient Egypt, is not studied. Some text so deeply encrypted, its isolation to a fifth level initiate of said time is guaranteed. Only decoded and simplified by other religions, including Christianity. Hence none are entirely different. What you call "Allah" may just be what I call "God" and so forth. So its not as easy as the predictions of your persuasion would like it to be.

So you believe in Pluralism. OK.

 

[Greg1234]

Indeed, hence why it should be obvious why your analogy fails.

Nobody ever said the "other explanation" was accepted. I think my stance as a creationist is blatantly obvious. Though you will make quick work of a "TE", no, the analogy does not fail. And if these are the grounds and conditions upon which these things base themselves, then it is clear that there is another debate which needs to antecede this one.

"I don't know" is the default, the stance we all take until we are presented with reason or evidence (or, perhaps, faux reason or evidence). I do not know who wrote the Bible. It could have been God, it could have been Moses, it could have been built up over centuries of oral tradition by Bronze-age nomads, it could have been aliens. In lieu of evidence - and feel free to present some - "I don't know" is where I'm going to stay.

Saying I don't know requires the dismissal of the author. The dismissal of the author is based on a belief that authorship is of some other source upon which the grounds are established for dismissal (usually of a more incompetent status) In essence, it is everything but what it is given as. This is a belief. Saying I don't know can easily be met with what it is presented as. The authorship is within the works. Hence the belief that it is of an inferior quality (a belief which warrants dismissal) precedes the actual dismissal.

To reject X is not the same as to affirm ¬X - rejecting the existence of God is not the same as affirming the non-existence of God. Rejecting the claim that God authored the Bible (either directly or indirectly) is not the same as affirming the claim that God did not author the Bible.

Saying that the bible was not divinely inspired does not make it disappear. Not being something is not an explanation for something that is here. That which happened is still needed to explain the evident effect. Even if you say it "just happened", it is still a belief not based on evidence.

The divergence is one of affirmation and rejection. The theist affirms God wrote them, while the atheist rejects that claim. Epistemologically speaking, rejection is not affirmation of the contrary (see above).

But they are still there even though you reject the claim. A rejection does not make the text disappear. What you say is, "I believe it was written by somebody else" (in accordance with your rejection). Even on the grounds where it is not seen today, you must still support your belief that they made it up as the inability to revive the past conditions does not verify that the goal of the writers were to deceive or to fabricate. Along with the belief that the conditions present were inferior or void of that recorded (in any form that it is written).

Hardly. The texts exist, sure. Some of those texts claim a supernatural origin, sure. It is possible that some or all of those claims are true, sure. But so what? In the absence of evidence supporting any such claim, the atheist is justified in saying "I don't know". Thus, those who affirm such claims must provide some reason to believe them.

Saying that they are not of "supernatural origin". There is writing on the paper, so "it wrote itself", or "it just happened" (unless you deny that the bible is there). These are still beliefs. There is authorship on the pages. Letters according to such and such. Works according to such and such. And then there is manner of man. But thats another story. "You don't know" but within the text there is authorship. There is dismissal of the authorship. You believe that it is to be dismissed, then you say you don't know. It is not an objective fact that they should be dismissed. I don't dismiss in favor of inferiority, incompetence, goat herding overdose or any of these assertions. These are all beliefs based on faith which is not universal and stretches back to the dawn of man. As an ignorant beast.

The idea that atheism is the place you go to escape the presentation of evidence has undoubtedly been enhanced by the "a" in atheism. Perhaps theism should change its name to "amaterialism" to match persistence.

It was a single sentence to explain the nuance of my point. It was never meant to explain my current stance, nor to take focus. If it offends you, ignore it. It's of no consequence.

The gist of this was explained later down.

Buddhism is 2000 years old. I daresay it's been studied at least as much as Christianity.

Was not speaking in general.

 

[eugler]

Since a certain someone turned the other thread into a tirade against atheism (while simultaneously lamenting how all atheists broad-brush Christians - go figure), I thought I'd hit the big red reset button.

Is there any evidence for the existence of any deity whatsoever?
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that any deity exists?
Is it possible to ever decide either way? Must belief in gods be based purely on faith?

And, please, let's keep this about the evidence and rationale for believing in gods. Discuss atheism only as it pertains to the evidence.

Of course there is evidence for the existence of god. This great fireball wandering in the sky every day, who else but god could have done... wait we know now what the sun is and why it's moving. But it's moving in perfect circles, who else but the divine could have come up with something as perfect... wait I forgot, it doesn't. But then where do we come from, who else could have created... hrmpf, yeah there was this very logical and very evident way that doesn't need a creator.

Got it: Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity seem impossible to unite. There is no way to explain the Interaction of the 4 forces all at once hence we don't know how exactly the universe works so god had to have a hand in it.

Pretty obvious when you come to think of it.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

1) There is only one source from which all force emanates.

Which force? All of them? One of them? And they don't emanate from anything except matter. If you know otherwise, demonstrate it.

Thats what we call God.

You are so vague about that term that it's no wonder people get confused talking to you.

Therefore, the terms "any deity", (which is in fact a subliminal invocation to your own perception of God, around which evidence is expected to be given), will merely be seen as the manifestation of God in different phases and forms. With the top down perception of the hierarchy (man's view) establishing any being within which that source prominently manifests, a higher being, as God.

In other words, you're claiming that God is any creature more powerful than humans are. Check.

2) Evidence for God has already been given. Man.

Man cannot be accepted as evidence until you explain WHY Man is evidence. You've never done that.

Reasons as outlined in the visible manifestation of an invisible phenomenon (God).

If it's invisible, then we can't see it by definition, so your claim is meaningless.

Also, the fact that with the removal of Darwinism, it is clearly visible (and up to date) that naturalistic processes cannot assemble the man.

Exactly. Evolutionary theory provides the best current explanation for existing biological diversity. And we know it works - we've proved it.

The onus then actually lies on the atheist (twister effect) to provide evidence that lifeforms can be assembled through chance.

Since no one has made this claim, you're arguing a straw man.

This is not being given and the Darwinist will then say that one day it will.

Nonsense. We say we have the evidence now. And we do. I suspect you've been given that evidence many times.

What reason is there to believe that?

Logic, reason, science, common sense. You know, the usual reasons.

Because God began as a concept to explain what ignorant hominids did not know. Do I hold that belief? No. Is the belief correct? No.

Prove it. You're the one big on proof. Prove it.

With man created, and the basis of atheism resting on improper analysis, it is fair to say that the input from atheism is not required.

Atheism isn't telling you evolution works; science is. The two are not the same.

What can propel atheism though, is if it attaches itself to something. It cannot possibly survive on its own.

Of course it can. Atheism is the default position; the null case. Theists claim God exists and claim to have evidence - evidence they never ever share.

Its taken over science.

An absolute, 100% falsehood. There are many religious scientists.

Now there is a symbiotic relationship established so strong, it's just short of your appliance being tagged with the sticker "Made in Atheism".

You believe this because you are not a scientist, do not work with scientists, and are completely unfamiliar with the scientific community. Three strikes. You're toast.

This relationship creates the illusion of a superior man. One held in high esteem by society. It is not just by accident that the terms "bronze age" is attached to text relating to God. It is a mechanism of mind control. One which feeds on the disparity between "bronze age" and "information age". It is not by accident that theists are constantly told that they are dumb and atheism is intelligent.

The reason this is done is that many theists - yourself included, and notably ignorant of science. It's not the scientists fault; it's YOUR fault. Education in basic science and logic given the availability of the internet is entirely possible.

Again, reputation to them is key. Because if atheists can get a foothold as the intelligentsia of state, then it is easier to dodge questioning, a critical look at this atheism thing, and establish the right of way. Then people will look up to them as the pioneers and leaders of tomorrow. We are well aware that sticking a territorial flag in the sands of time is so critical, as the present as well as the past, has escaped your reach.

Science has provided you your health, your computer, your ability to read, write, and blabber on the internet. Science has given you your clothes, your possessions, your job, your understanding of the world. Religion has brought you no tangible benefit.

To be sure, there are many theists who have fallen into this trap. What is important to note though is that when one peels the atheists off the back of science, forces him to use science like everybody else and not be science, all you have are men. Just men, rebelling and talking loud.

That is too incoherent to bother replying to. Everything is done by humans. Science, religion, war, politics, art. Humans do these things.

So strong in fact, has reputation become, atheist speculation surpasses empirical facts supporting theism when they are shown.

No empirical evidence supports theism any better than it supports atheism. None.

As given in the previous example, an atheist saying that one day science will get a naturalistic cause for life is somehow, in someway, greater than the empirical everyday fact that man cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic processes.

Humans are assembled through purely naturalistic processes every day. Millions of them. Apparently you haven't looked out the window recently.

What keeps this machine going? Apart form the faulty analysis of text, a constant supply of ad homs. The theist must keep believing that you are king. And you'll make sure of that. Do I believe that the atheist holds the heirlooms of intelligence? No.These are beliefs and claims to faithlessness isn't viable. You're just a man. Speaking of which, is evidence for God.

Meaningless babble.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nobody ever said the "other explanation" was accepted. I think my stance as a creationist is blatantly obvious. Though you will make quick work of a "TE", no, the analogy does not fail. And if these are the grounds and conditions upon which these things base themselves, then it is clear that there is another debate which needs to antecede this one.

You'll notice I never presumed the truth of the theory of common descent, since, as you said, you're a Creationist. The point is that an alternative explanation exists, and it's a widely accepted one at that. If an alternative to the standard explanation for voices on the radio exists, I don't know of it, while an alternative to the existence of humans than YECism does exist. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is "Radios work, thus radio waves exist. Humans work, thus God exists", which is a non sequitur: though radios work by radio waves, it's not established that God must exist for humans to exist. So, again, the existence of man is not evidence of God.

Saying I don't know requires the dismissal of the author.

Only if an author has been established with overwhelming evidence, such as JK Rowling's authorship of the Harry Potter series. The Bible, however, is of disputed authorship - it is no more known that the Bible was written/inspired by God or Adam or Moses than Harry Potter was written by Lord Voldemort himself.
Ultimately, it may simply be that no deities exist, and that the Bible is wholly the work of superstitious men - this is a very real possibility, and accounts for its internal claims of divine authorship. Thus, though the Bible claims to be divinely authored (or w/e), that has yet to be established. JK Rowling's claims to authorship has been verified; God's has not. If you could establish God's claim to authorship, then you would be justified in believing that claim. And who knows, maybe you can.

Saying that the bible was not divinely inspired does not make it disappear. Not being something is not an explanation for something that is here. That which happened is still needed to explain the evident effect. Even if you say it "just happened", it is still a belief not based on evidence.

But they are still there even though you reject the claim. A rejection does not make the text disappear. What you say is, "I believe it was written by somebody else" (in accordance with your rejection). Even on the grounds where it is not seen today, you must still support your belief that they made it up as the inability to revive the past conditions does not verify that the goal of the writers were to deceive or to fabricate. Along with the belief that the conditions present were inferior or void of that recorded (in any form that it is written).

Of course it's still here. No one's disputing the existence of the Bible . We're disputing the claims as to its origins.
We agree the Bible exists. We agree that it was physically written. What we dispute is who authored it, and who, if anyone, 'inspired' it. I have absolutely no idea who wrote it. It's a mystery. Just because I reject your claim that God wrote it (directly or indirectly), doesn't mean I have to advocate an alternate; it was written, but I have no idea who.

Defining God as a catch-all explanation for what we don't yet know is bad theology - deities were the explanation for lightening, thunder, volcanoes, earthquakes, yet now we know them to be physical phenomena, able to occur without divine intervention. "I don't know, therefore God" is fallacious logic.

Saying that they are not of "supernatural origin". There is writing on the paper, so "it wrote itself", or "it just happened" (unless you deny that the bible is there). These are still beliefs. There is authorship on the pages. Letters according to such and such. Works according to such and such. And then there is manner of man. But thats another story. "You don't know" but within the text there is authorship. There is dismissal of the authorship. You believe that it is to be dismissed, then you say you don't know. It is not an objective fact that they should be dismissed. I don't dismiss in favor of inferiority, incompetence, goat herding overdose or any of these assertions. These are all beliefs based on faith which is not universal and stretches back to the dawn of man. As an ignorant beast.

I disagree (and I object to being likened to an 'ignorant beast'). It is not a positive belief to reject an unsubstantiated claim. If I claim that unicorns exist in my garden, you are free to reject that claim based solely on the fact that the claim is unsubstantiated - you don't need to actively disprove it.
Similarly, any text that claims to be written by X doesn't automatically get a free pass - until that claim has been substantiated, we are free to reject it without onus of proof. It is affirmation, nor rejection, that requires justification.
So the mere fact that the Bible claims supernatural authorship is irrelevant - until that claim is substantiated, I am by no means obliged to accept that claim. I accept it as a possibility, but an as-yet unsubstantiated one.

Was not speaking in general.

Then what was your meaning?

 

[JonF]

Since a certain someone turned the other thread into a tirade against atheism (while simultaneously lamenting how all atheists broad-brush Christians - go figure), I thought I'd hit the big red reset button.

Is there any evidence for the existence of any deity whatsoever?
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that any deity exists?
Is it possible to ever decide either way? Must belief in gods be based purely on faith?

And, please, let's keep this about the evidence and rationale for believing in gods. Discuss atheism only as it pertains to the evidence.

[FONT=&quot]I think if we are talking in purely objectively scientific manner, claims of God are neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Which means evidence can’t be offer either way. Most people immediately jump over this and try to say you should default disbelieve positive ontological non-verifiable claims but that’s only when they are also falsifiable, concepts like the burden of evidence don’t even really apply here.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe God isn’t falsifiable because omnipotence with omniscience means if God didn’t want a scientifically verifiable way to discover him, there wouldn’t be one. (Note I’m not claiming God does or doesn’t want this, just the possibility that God could do this is enough for non-falsifiable)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe God isn’t verifiable because omnipotence entails that logical contradictions are contingent. No logical argument can imply a contingent logical contradiction. [/FONT]

 

[Greg1234]

You'll notice I never presumed the truth of the theory of common descent, since, as you said, you're a Creationist. The point is that an alternative explanation exists, and it's a widely accepted one at that.

So what? You probably know where this argument is heading (or where it always has been).
"

Radios work, thus radio waves exist. Humans work, thus God exists", which is a non sequitur:

Thats nice. Over simplification. It is not the fact that radios work that is disputed. But how they work, the nature of the radios, and the manifestation of radio waves as the phenomenon, voice on the radio.. Similarly, it is the fact that "humans work" that is disputed. But the nature of man, the manifestation of God with man as the reflection in this plane. Thats where the dispute is. Not merely that the radio or the man works.

though radios work by radio waves, it's not established that God must exist for humans to exist. So, again, the existence of man is not evidence of God.

In Darwinism it is not. The little men in the radio is the substitute. In theism it is, therefore your request for evidence for God being provided as man being rejected on the grounds of how the radio works in your persuasion is not relevant until I believe in the little men. I'm not a TE, and the man is evidence for God. Hence you should refine your request for evidence for God to "evidence for God[in kneeled reverence for random mutations as your creator]". "Or evidence for radio waves [while recognizing that the voice on the radio is made by little men]". And we will go from there.

Only if an author has been established with overwhelming evidence,

Saying I don't know would still require dismissal of the author. You are on a beach and you get an appliance. On the back of it, it says "Made in China". You have no way of verifying this claim but you head back to the camp and say, "we don't know where this appliance was made". You have automatically debased the origins of the package. Latently disregarded it not based on evidence, but on your belief that the stamp is unreliable.

such as JK Rowling's authorship of the Harry Potter series. The Bible, however, is of disputed authorship - it is no more known that the Bible was written/inspired by God or Adam or Moses than Harry Potter was written by Lord Voldemort himself.

Saying that the Harry Potter series is written by "Lord Voldemort himself" is a belief. Debasing the authorship of JK Rowling as the author, is based on the belief that the authorship as presented is fraudulent, or incompetent or untrustworthy, which then spawns the "of disputed authorship".

Ultimately, it may simply be that no deities exist, and that the Bible is wholly the work of superstitious men - this is a very real possibility,

Again, saying something is a "real possibility" does not grant you immunity or "right of way". All you're doing is stating your beliefs then putting, thats a real possibility at the end. There is a man on the roof. Witnesses say he climbed up. Your response is, "He could have been dropped there, (thats a real possibility)." Interpreted as, "the witnesses are unreliable, untrustworthy, liars, frauds, despicable, ignorant goat herders, blind, were in another venue". All these are your beliefs. You thnk attaching, "thats a real possiblity" at the end of that last list, enables you to escape your belief that they are to be disregarded.

Bible claims to be divinely authored (or w/e), that has yet to be established.

Your claims that they should be disregarded are not established. You may claim that they are something else, but the offshoot of that claim being that they are impostors, too low and ignorant to deserve your regard, the conditions present was equal to that of the Harry potter writer (and thus both authors should be equally grouped) or whatever conditions warrant the rejection of the author's competence, are beliefs.

JK Rowling's claims to authorship has been verified; God's has not. If you could establish God's claim to authorship, then you would be justified in believing that claim. And who knows, maybe you can.

Without verification of JK Rowling's authorship, your claim that she should be disregarded as the author based on latent aforementioned conditions is your belief.

Of course it's still here. No one's disputing the existence of the Bible . We're disputing the claims as to its origins.
We agree the Bible exists. We agree that it was physically written. What we dispute is who authored it, and who, if anyone, 'inspired' it. I have absolutely no idea who wrote it. It's a mystery. Just because I reject your claim that God wrote it (directly or indirectly), doesn't mean I have to advocate an alternate; it was written, but I have no idea who.

As given. It is the acceptance of incompetence, which breeds rejection. While two Christians may argue on the exact authorship of the bible, the status of competence and conditions within and about the authors are maintained as they are given. The likes of atheism is where ignorance roamed, beasts scratched on parchment, goat herding stomped, or even ants in a line, made patterns. Anything which warrants disregard thus validating your position on the authors.

Defining God as a catch-all explanation for what we don't yet know is bad theology - deities were the explanation for lightening, thunder, volcanoes, earthquakes, yet now we know them to be physical phenomena, able to occur without divine intervention. "I don't know, therefore God" is fallacious logic.

The above won't work.

I disagree (and I object to being likened to an 'ignorant beast').

You are well aware of who is called the ignorant beast. How could an atheist be an ignorant beast. Its not possible.

It is not a positive belief to reject an unsubstantiated claim. If I claim that unicorns exist in my garden, you are free to reject that claim based solely on the fact that the claim is unsubstantiated - you don't need to actively disprove it.

And again, what evidence do you have to group someone who writes there is a unicorn in my garden to the bible writers. Unsubstantiation follows. You're merely attempting to sneak this comparison in. If there were to be a cataclysm and the entire populace and resources are wiped out. A few things survive including a "Nature"(or relevant journal) article on the moons of Jupiter. The article is rejected because if "a man claims that unicorns". What evidence do you have to compare a nature scientist to a man claiming that there is a unicorn in his garden. Until the are substantiated, the man and the nature scientist had the same conditions present. I.e, the man never saw a unicorn and therefore Jupiter's moons were not seen either. This is a belief. Merely saying that something is "unsubstantiated" is not grounds to group the conditions of the man saying there is a unicorn and a man saying that there are moons orbiting Jupiter. Of course it gets more complex than that with secret schools, the employment of allegories, dilution etc, but substantiation does not rule out the competence.

Similarly, any text that claims to be written by X doesn't automatically get a free pass - until that claim has been substantiated, we are free to reject it without onus of proof. It is affirmation, nor rejection, that requires justification.

To add evidence is not the exclusive factor at play. If you were to board an aircraft, the fact that the pilot is competent to fly is a belief. In fact it is a belief held by every single passenger on the aircraft (unless they are suicidal) This belief is not based on evidence but on the reputation of the pilot. He is in fact in the cockpit,he has his wings, he has a pilot outfit and a pilot hat. But the fact that he is able to fly the aircraft can only be confirmed when you see him fly. What made you believe that he could fly is based on reputation. This CAT III landing of the aircraft here:
YouTube - A320 ILS App CatIIIB
is not based on evidence that the runway is in fact right there. It could be anywhere. He could be anywhere. What determines whther he believes it or dismisses its presence at this point in time is not the evidence, but the belief in the reputation of the air traffic controller, and the competence of his instrumentation. That it is reliable, that it is working today. He never sees the runway till he is at about 50ft. When you claim that the pilot cannot fly, or dismisses the factors labeling him as a pilot, you at the same time asserting that he is a fraud, an impostor. It is the reputation of the writers, their competence, you are attacking. The parading of goat herder this and bronze age that, is for this very reason. Ad homs on creationists with the exaltation of atheists is for reputation. This was addressed in the first post but you brushed it off as off topic. Later rather than sooner then.

But until you see that particular pilot fly, you don't get on the aircraft. You hardly ever see them. To say that atheism is without beliefs or without faith is hardly correct. It is not my purpose for you to accept the bible. You didnt even get through Genesis 1. The point here is the atheist is claiming that his position, his claims about the bible writer, is not a belief. You are making a case against the reputation of the writers, not evidence.

When there are people out there who have risen so high in omniescience as to be "without beliefs", "no faith", that kind of siren on your head is seldom ignored.

So the mere fact that the Bible claims supernatural authorship is irrelevant - until that claim is substantiated, I am by no means obliged to accept that claim. I accept it as a possibility, but an as-yet unsubstantiated one.

Apply the same to your claims. I have my reasons to believe in the competence of the bible writers including the fact that they did not begin as sordid ignoble beastmen.

Then what was your meaning?

It was referring to myself.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Greg, let's be blunt: we don't know who the writers of the Bible were. Any of them. We have no way to ascertain their veracity, their understanding, or their revelations. We know that certain material in the Bible is true (generally place names, names of kingdoms, etc.). We know that much of the Bible is false (Genesis 1-11, much of Exodus, etc.). But the bulk of the Bible cannot be verified one way or the other.

Those are the facts, Jack.

 

[Greg1234]

We know that much of the Bible is false (Genesis 1-11, much of Exodus, etc.).

Case in point. That is a belief. As already said, the point of presenting this is not to consult a materialist as an authority on what is true and what is not in spiritual writ, but that he/she harbors a belief regarding the competence of the writers. Disregarding authorship as authorship because you cannot verify them will at best stand as a hypothesis, the hypothesis standing as a belief. Its dismissal, be it the person, the competence of the person, or both, is based on the belief that the authorship and conditions as presented about and within said are unreliable, fraudulent or inferior.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Case in point. That is a belief. As already said, the point of presenting this is not to consult a materialist as an authority on what is true and what is not in spiritual writ, but that he/she harbors a belief regarding the competence of the writers. Disregarding authorship as authorship because you cannot verify them will at best stand as a hypothesis, the hypothesis standing as a belief. Its dismissal, be it the person, the competence of the person, or both, is based on the belief that the authorship and conditions as presented about and within said are unreliable, fraudulent or inferior.

That most of Genesis 1-11 is false is not belief, it is fact supported by all available evidence. This has nothing to do with the credibility of the authors. As I said, we know nothing of them. We - and that includes you - can offer nothing more than speculation about them.

 

[Greg1234]

That most of Genesis 1-11 is false is not belief, it is fact supported by all available evidence.

Again, irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with the credibility of the authors.

Yet this has everything to do with them. Call it speculation or not, your dismissal is still based on a belief.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Again, irrelevant.

Yet this has everything to do with them. Call it speculation or not, your dismissal is still based on a belief.

My dismissal of any genuine spiritual inspiration behind those parts of Genesis that are testable are based purely on facts. I note that you adduce no facts to support your position.

 

[Greg1234]

My dismissal of any genuine spiritual inspiration behind those parts of Genesis that are testable are based purely on facts. I note that you adduce no facts to support your position.

That disregard should be enabled pertaining to spiritual influence in the authors is still a belief. That used to support your position is not shared either. The usage of "bronze age" is used to support your belief that they were ignorant or that the data was constrained by time. The use of goat herders of the day is used to support your position that they were goat herders because goat herding is to be implemented as the measure of conditions embodied. You apply Darwinism including its beastmen origins in support of your belief as stated. But this is not the place. Though it is as support for your belief.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

That disregard should be enabled pertaining to spiritual influence in the authors is still a belief.

Sorry - this sentence appears to be grammatically confused. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

That used to support your position is not shared either.

Are you asking for the data which proves much of Genesis 1-11 is flat-out wrong?

The usage of "bronze age" is used to support your belief that they were ignorant or that the data was constrained by time.

I have not made this argument. I am making the argument that we know nothing about the authors; we cannot verify that they received revelations from god.

The use of goat herders of the day is used to support your position that they were goat herders because goat herding is to be implemented as the measure of conditions embodied.

The ancient Hebrews were goat herders, among other things. Get over it.

You apply Darwinism including its beastmen origins in support of your belief as stated. But this is not the place. Though it is as support for your belief.

Ah. But I am not doing this. Evolutionary theory does not say that the ancient Hebrews were less developed mentally or physically than we are.

 

[Greg1234]

Sorry - this sentence appears to be grammatically confused. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

That disregard should be enabled is based on a personal belief.

Are you asking for the data which proves much of Genesis 1-11 is flat-out wrong?

Data which proves that the bible writers were incompetent, or fraudulent in that pertaining to conditions about and within, including methods of derivation of data as conveyed within text.

I have not made this argument. I am making the argument that we know nothing about the authors; we cannot verify that they received revelations from god.

Verification is not the issue. Have you verified that they were incompetent goat herders or any attribute through which you warrant its disregard. It is your belief.

The ancient Hebrews were goat herders, among other things. Get over it.

Goat herding as a yardstick of competence is a belief. Saying that there were goat herders in those days says nothing.

Ah. But I am not doing this. Evolutionary theory does not say that the ancient Hebrews were less developed mentally or physically than we are.

It doesnt say anything really. It starts at the beginning. Man nor text did not start with the ancient Hebrews. Traits embodied and the manner of men follows a different path than that depicted by the Darwinian assertion.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

That disregard should be enabled is based on a personal belief.

No, we disregard large portions of Genesis because they are provably false - based on objective, empirical data.

Data which proves that the bible writers were incompetent, or fraudulent in that pertaining to conditions about and within, including methods of derivation of data as conveyed within text.

But I have not discussed this in any way. You really need to read and respond to what I wrote.

Verification is not the issue. Have you verified that they were incompetent goat herders or any attribute through which you warrant its disregard. It is your belief.

My position is not based on information about the writers, it is based on information about the writing. Why are you having so much trouble grasping this?

Goat herding as a yardstick of competence is a belief. Saying that there were goat herders in those days says nothing.

I never claimed goat herding was a yardstick of competence.

It doesnt say anything really. It starts at the beginning. Man nor text did not start with the ancient Hebrews. Traits embodied and the manner of men follows a different path than that depicted by the Darwinian assertion.

This makes no sense, actually. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with transfer of writing or texts.

 

[Greg1234]

No, we disregard large portions of Genesis because they are provably false - based on objective, empirical data.

Oh you understood that one huh. I'm going to add a couple words (stay with me now):
That disregard should be enabled pertaining to spiritual influence in the authors is still a belief. (From last post)

But I have not discussed this in any way. You really need to read and respond to what I wrote.

Apart from you attempts to divert, believe it or not, that what the discussion is about.

My position is not based on information about the writers, it is based on information about the writing. Why are you having so much trouble grasping this?

The information is provided as evidence for your belief. That the writers were in possession of attributes contrary to that provided warranting disregard is your belief. Your evidence is Darwinism, goat herders of that time, the bronze age etc. Your "evidence" is not relevant now. And provided that this is a subject of debate, the usage of the claim to the objective in this arena is only a long distance plea to victory with regards to where this "evidence" is debated.

I never claimed goat herding was a yardstick of competence.

Then your comment on goat herders of the day when biblical authorship is being discussed was inherently irrelevant.

This makes no sense, actually. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with transfer of writing or texts.

So now the texts were written by created men. Darwinism only pertains to humans not writing text. Thats good.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Oh you understood that one huh. I'm going to add a couple words (stay with me now):
That disregard should be enabled pertaining to spiritual influence in the authors is still a belief. (From last post)

Apart from you attempts to divert, believe it or not, that what the discussion is about.

The information is provided as evidence for your belief. That the writers were in possession of attributes contrary to that provided warranting disregard is your belief. Your evidence is Darwinism, goat herders of that time, the bronze age etc. Your "evidence" is not relevant now. And provided that this is a subject of debate, the usage of the claim to the objective in this arena is only a long distance plea to victory with regards to where this "evidence" is debated.

Then your comment on goat herders of the day when biblical authorship is being discussed was inherently irrelevant.

So now the texts were written by created men. Darwinism only pertains to humans not writing text. Thats good.

Greg, let's clarify one thing: my position is not based on any assumptions about the writers regarding their technological level. None. No matter how many times you bring this up, I am not discussing the authors, their technical achievements, or their level of sophistication. History - AND THE BIBLE, BY THE WAY - tell us that they were pastoral semi-nomads with an iron age culture. That is fact. But that fact says nothing about whether or not the things they wrote in the Bible are true. Nothing.

What tells us that things in the Bible are true or false is our ability to cross-check them against external, empirical facts. These external, empirical facts tell us that most of Genesis 1-11 is false.

Not based on anything we know or don't know about the authors. Nothing.