Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Hammster]

It makes a better analogy.

And that’s what I would expect from atheists.

 

[Speedwell]

And that’s what I would expect from atheists.

LOL! Or a Traditional Christian in this case. But the point stands. You believe the Bible because you believe that it was written by God. But you also believe that you understand it correctly. Those are two distinct beliefs.

 

[Hammster]

LOL! Or a Traditional Christian in this case. But the point stands. You believe the Bible because you believe that it was written by God. But you also believe that you understand it correctly. Those are two distinct beliefs.

Okay.

 

[Kylie]

That’s not what I asked. I asked, is it possible that the documentation is correct?

There are many people who believe it is, yet there are people who disregard it, pointing out the inconsistencies between what the document says and what's observed in reality.

 

[Kylie]

I’ve never said that my belief makes it a fact.

You specifically stated that your belief was not an assumption. Is there some middle ground?

 

[Kylie]

And just as my belief doesn’t make it true, your disbelief doesn’t make it false.

True.

So it would seem that the only way to decide one way or another is to investigate reality. And that means we can leave behind any sources that you have which make the claim. After all, if your belief is correct, then reality will make the same claim as your source, and it's far more convincing to use reality itself to illustrate your position to others than just an ancient document. And if reality doesn't make the same claim, it means your source is wrong and it should be discarded.

Either way, we should concentrate on what an investigation of reality reveals, not ancient documents.

 

[BobRyan]

Atheists reject the notion that a Deity exists because there is no objective test evidence for that.
However, the possibility of what we mean by 'existence of Deities' remains, because minds 'create reality'

Not true. Minds perceive reality and some minds are more accurate in their perception than others. A tree "exists" but how tall is that tree from the perception of a blind man that happens upon the tree? A sighted man observing at a distance may notice the blind man getting more and more info about how tall the tree is - but the tree is not changing size as he does so.

Might seem like a detail not worth mentioning but it leads to a lot of errors down the road if you take a wrong turn right at that point.

 

[BobRyan]

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers.

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

 

[BobRyan]

So it would seem that the only way to decide one way or another is to investigate reality. And that means we can leave behind any sources that you have which make the claim

That would be circular reasoning. IF the source being evaluated makes a claim that proves to be true - then that source is not being "left behind" it is being evaluated.

 

[Hammster]

There are many people who believe it is, yet there are people who disregard it, pointing out the inconsistencies between what the document says and what's observed in reality.

You are avoiding answering the question. It’s a yes or no question. Is it possible that the documentation is correct?

 

[Hammster]

You specifically stated that your belief was not an assumption. Is there some middle ground?

That’s not what I said. I said that the fact that God created wasn’t an assumption.

 

[Hammster]

True.

So it would seem that the only way to decide one way or another is to investigate reality. And that means we can leave behind any sources that you have which make the claim. After all, if your belief is correct, then reality will make the same claim as your source, and it's far more convincing to use reality itself to illustrate your position to others than just an ancient document. And if reality doesn't make the same claim, it means your source is wrong and it should be discarded.

Either way, we should concentrate on what an investigation of reality reveals, not ancient documents.

Reality does conform to God’s word.

 

[BobRyan]

You are avoiding answering the question. It’s a yes or no question. Is it possible that the documentation is correct?

yes it is possible. But one can't know if that is true without first looking at the document to see what it says

 

[Speedwell]

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

There are some holes in that. It is possible to accept Christ without believing that the Genesis stories are an accurate historical account of our origins. Only some Christians think it necessary.

 

[BobRyan]

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers.

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

There are some holes in that. It is possible to accept Christ without believing that the Genesis stories are an accurate historical account

I am responding to someone who has on their profile "atheist" and they speak in general of the idea that the Bible is not from God, not a text that God inspired and that only those who already believe it... believe it. (the very definition of a tautology or circular argument).

Your profile says that you are "other religion" so I don't know if you join Kylie in that claim that the Bible is not inspired by God or not. But suffice it to say that the "mere existence" of a T.E. that happens to also be a Christian does not change the point given that Atheists do not join them in saying "God inspired all of the Bible except for its claims about His work as Creator". The Atheist POV is consistent in that it denies all of the Bible as being a text inspired or authored by God rather than engaging in pick-and-choose. So you have to give them credit for that much.

I point to the problem in that "believers believe because they already are believers" argument by pointing to the irrefutable fact of large numbers of atheists and agnostics that have become Bible believing Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.



I am responding to someone who has on their profile "atheist" and they speak in general of the idea that the Bible is not from God, not a text that God inspired and that only those who already believe it... believe it. (the very definition of a tautology or circular argument).

Your profile says that you are "other religion" so I don't know if you join Kylie in that claim that the Bible is not inspired by God or not. But suffice it to say that the "mere existence" of a T.E. that happens to also be a Christian does not change the point given that Atheists do not join them in saying "God inspired all of the Bible except for its claims about His work as Creator". The Atheist POV is consistent in that it denies all of the Bible as being a text inspired or authored by God rather than engaging in pick-and-choose. So you have to give them credit for that much.

I'm an Anglican* and I believe that the Bible in its entirety is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Your point...?

*I changed my designation in a nod to the policy of the present administration that I am not a "real" Christian.

 

[Allandavid]

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

Assuming those accounts are accurate, presumably those people became convinced by the claims that the Bible writers made?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

No, that isn’t evidence that Bible claims are true. It’s evidence that people develop beliefs. We already know that happens...

 

[BobRyan]

Assuming those accounts are accurate, presumably those people became convinced by the claims that the Bible writers made?

Agreed - at least that is the case with the ones I have encountered - they would look at things like the predictions made in the book of Daniel and then compare that to actual history (for example).

 

[BobRyan]

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

No, that isn’t evidence that Bible claims are true.

Ok so the atheists I have met who became convinced for that reason are on one side and you are an example of someone on the other.

To each his own.

It’s evidence that people develop beliefs. We already know that happens...

People breathe - we know that happens. but this is not a "random result" it is compelling evidence leading to a conclusion that goes against the beliefs and world-view that one already holds to be true.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm an Anglican*...
*I changed my designation in a nod to the policy of the present administration that I am not a "real" Christian.

Present board policy is that Anglicans are not real Christians? I did not know that.