The Bible Claims...

[cvanwey]

Apart from volitional and stochastic conditions the probability of most events is high due to the deterministic conditions that preceded it. The blind probability that I was born is low, but the enitre procreative event occured within a deterministic system that should have a high, mostly non stochastic probability. The issue with naturalistic origins is that aside from survival, it is entirely driven by random chance, and so it's blind probality is it's actual probability. The only way around that is to accept teleology into the system.

My point is that humans tend to invent their own purpose. What was the likelihood that 'you' specifically were born? Yes, many humans exists, based upon the existing nature. But the likelihood of 'you' specifically, when later assessing the probability, is one in billions, per every single attempt in conception.

This also reminds me of the story of the puddle... The puddle comes to life, looks around, and stated, 'wow', I perfectly fit in this pot hole in the road. All my surroundings must have then been created just for me.'

 

[Ken Rank]

I'm sorry, but using the Bible to prove the Bible could not be more circular. Another verse stating Moses wrote these verses means very little. One must instead assess the evidence...

Dating the texts, scholars can see the Hebrew words in which were used, such as references to camels, appears to conclude otherwise... There were no camels in that part of the world at 'that' time. This fact alone tells us these texts were written many centuries later....

Look, if you have a desire to disprove anything, you can and eventually will. I can hand you all the photographs taken by NASA, independent companies, the military, NASA's equivalent from now 121 other nations... all proving the earth is round. But if you want to prove it is flat, and you want to believe that, you'll find just enough to stake your claim on it and stubbornly sit down on a flat earth... just don't sit too closely to the edge.

You're doing that same thing here.... We don't just have the bible giving us a historical picture, we have thousands of manuscripts that are extra biblical coming out of places like Qumran (and many other places), we have archaeological sites found that prove biblical accounts, we have many biblical stories told through the legend of other cultures, and we have science making great discoveries but discovering things that the bible either inferred our outright claimed thousands of years ago, and more. Consider, the flood in Noach's day is proven by science because we know the earth was once covered in sea. In fact, the state fossil here in KENtucky is a brachiopod which is essentially an ancient scallop. The purpose of the flood was to destroy the attempt by fallen angels to corrupt the seed that would one day lead to the redeemer of creation. Almost every culture has stories of the offspring that were produced, giants, half man/half "god" type beings that were submitted too by entire cultures. Don't stop reading yet.... outside of the bible, we have stories like "The Epic of Gilgamesh." This ancient Sumer writing has Gilgamesh (2/3rds god, 1/3rd man) as king and one who has all sorts of incredible buildings built in his honor and without telling the whole story... we end up with this character called "Utnapishtim" who is referred to as "the one with a soul." Ultimately the earth gets flooded, everyone dies, but not Utnapishtim and his family. Obviously the Noach story told through different eyes.. but whose eyes? The eyes of the losers? How can that be if they all died? The humans died, the half breeds died, Gilgamesh would have died.... but the ones who came down and started the mixing of seed in the first place, did not. The story is told through their eyes.

I shared that as one example of support for the bible that is out there and I can do this 100 different ways. But, if you want to hang your cap on the camel, a relative of which did originate in North America but was the size of a rabbit... and not look beyond the brim of that cap you're wearing... then go ahead. I don't care... whether you believe there is a God or not is between you and God, not you and I. I think you're missing out, I think you're missing a certain joy and blessing that can only be filled by God but I am going to try to talk you into anything, OK? I am good where I am, and if you ever want to chat, feel free to send me something through the inbox here or just Google my name, you'll find me in other places. Otherwise, live long and prosper.

 

[Sanoy]

I do not appeal to popularity.

I'm not saying you are appealing to popularity, I'm asking if your world view is justified or are you inheriting the popular view of naturalism which is not justified.

You worry about your families bias, but you yourself admit your own skepticism is a bias. Your heart is hardened, that is within your control. Knowledge of God does not yeild salvation, trust does.

Science is a career not a magisterium of naturalistic truth. You want funding and noteriety then you make hyperbolic headlines, and bury the real truth in paygated journals. If you don't want to lose noteriety you attack anyone that is a threat to your prior work. It is bias, and gut driven, if you will recall the method begins with a hypothesis, which means you have to already have a thought about the conclusion. You contradict yourself when you call them humble and then admit ridicule awaits the person that goes against the grain. Does it work, sure, but it's no ministry of truth, it is very much a human affair that should be coupled with a healthy amount of skepticism.

The likelihood that I was born is very high, presumably to deterministic factors. We may not know what those are but if determinism is true for an event then by definition the probability is high. However for first causes the probability of a life permitting world based on chance is far below expectation of it ever happening.

The puddle example is a specious parrallel. The reason being is that the puddle has a mere two components to bring it about, a hole and water. That is an absurd thing to parallel with all life.

 

[cvanwey]

Look, if you have a desire to disprove anything, you can and eventually will.

It is not my desire to disprove anything actually. It becomes the burden of proof for the believer, making claims of the supernatural, to demonstrate their case. I can believe it, based upon the given evidence, or not.

We don't just have the bible giving us a historical picture, we have thousands of manuscripts

It becomes irrelevant if the earliest found manuscripts were recopied once, or 25,000,000 times. This has no bearing as to whether the original stories were true or false. The earliest manuscripts found were quite a bit later, and were nowhere near completed. Since the 'Word' was God's chosen method for spreading truth, one might think God would assure the originals were preserved (and in a way which would demonstrate 'truth'). But that is just not the case :-/

we have archaeological sites found that prove biblical accounts, we have many biblical stories told through the legend of other cultures

As I've stated elsewhere, I do not doubt Alexander the Great's existence, prior existence of Alexandria, etc... But, it is another to believe he was the son of Zeus or possessed supernatural powers.

Consider, the flood in Noach's day is proven by science because we know the earth was once covered in sea. In fact, the state fossil here in KENtucky is a brachiopod which is essentially an ancient scallop. The purpose of the flood was to destroy the attempt by fallen angels to corrupt the seed that would one day lead to the redeemer of creation. Almost every culture has stories of the offspring that were produced, giants, half man/half "god" type beings that were submitted too by entire cultures. Don't stop reading yet.... outside of the bible, we have stories like "The Epic of Gilgamesh." This ancient Sumer writing has Gilgamesh (2/3rds god, 1/3rd man) as king and one who has all sorts of incredible buildings built in his honor and without telling the whole story... we end up with this character called "Utnapishtim" who is referred to as "the one with a soul." Ultimately the earth gets flooded, everyone dies, but not Utnapishtim and his family. Obviously the Noach story told through different eyes.. but whose eyes? The eyes of the losers? How can that be if they all died? The humans died, the half breeds died, Gilgamesh would have died.... but the ones who came down and started the mixing of seed in the first place, did not. The story is told through their eyes.

Speaking of your earlier reference to archaeology, I would love to receive your source information, demonstrating a worldwide abrupt, (less than one year), catastrophic flood event. This would be a very significant discovery.

But, if you want to hang your cap on the camel, a relative of which did originate in North America but was the size of a rabbit... and not look beyond the brim of that cap you're wearing... then go ahead. I don't care...

I could provide other examples too. However, the example of the camel alone is all that is necessary. Moses did not write these stories, unless he was lying. It becomes this simple really... Either someone else, much later from a differing area wrote such stories, or Moses lied about camels. Why would I need to go further?

whether you believe there is a God or not is between you and God, not you and I. I think you're missing out, I think you're missing a certain joy and blessing that can only be filled by God but I am going to try to talk you into anything, OK? I am good where I am

According to a publication from Psychology Today, 'psychology of belief in god' is directly associated with five causes.


1) The believer possesses a need for control. The uncertainty or presented possible finality for the concept of death demonstrates lack in control. Since the government, police, or any other associated authority, has no control in preventing death, the believer feels a need for control and applies faith to their chosen god.


2) The person feels a need to cope with death. Repeated reminders of one's mortality increase people's belief in the supernatural and also prayer. Continued and repeated readings from the Bible or community gatherings in churches both assert the possibility to life after death, which appears to reduce psychological distress for many. Repetition is key. Re-reading the Bible, while also receiving affirmation from selected authority, via church leaders, offer added comfort and assurance, especially when in doubt or during trying times.


3) Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often actually increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan.


4) The believer feels the need for justice. Many feel a higher sense for morality if they believe a cosmic deity is watching over all. They also have less tendencies or less of a need to require earthly punishment. Believers feel a higher authority will settle the score in god's chosen time.


5) The battle between experimental thinking versus logical thinking drives many to belief in god. Experimental thinking is associated with the individual in which relies upon their 'gut' feeling in rendering decisions, and is classified as a more emotional decision. The logical thinker more-so makes decisions in a 'matter of fact' manor, void of any personal bias or emotional feelings of any kind. The logical thinker assesses the evidence presented, to determine if the evidence leads to a demonstrated and directly fitting conclusion. As a result, predominant experimental styles in thinking lend higher tendencies for believe in a higher power, verses majoritively logical thinkers.

and if you ever want to chat, feel free to send me something through the inbox here or just Google my name, you'll find me in other places. Otherwise, live long and prosper.

Thank you! I appreciate it.

 

[cvanwey]

if you will recall the method begins with a hypothesis, which means you have to already have a thought about the conclusion. You contradict yourself when you call them humble and then admit ridicule awaits the person that goes against the grain. Does it work, sure, but it's no ministry of truth, it is very much a human affair that should be coupled with a healthy amount of skepticism.

This is a severe straw man to practically all of science. I 'trust' you fully accept the germ theory of disease, gravitational theory, cell theory, atomic theory, etc...?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

The likelihood that I was born is very high, presumably to deterministic factors. We may not know what those are but if determinism is true for an event then by definition the probability is high. However for first causes the probability of a life permitting world based on chance is far below expectation of it ever happening.

So therefore Yahweh? You are a smart guy, so please do not lead with such an argument (argument from ignorance), to conclude your specific God claim.

The claims of the Bible demonstrate fact or fiction, based upon their own merits. I've studied many parts, and the more I do, the more I find inconsistencies with discovered reality. Yes, you can argue, this too, is a straw man. However, I am more than willing to demonstrate the failures and inconsistencies, as told from the Bible. Are you then willing to demonstrate and present 'failures' to scientific theory?.?.?

The puddle example is a specious parrallel. The reason being is that the puddle has a mere two components to bring it about, a hole and water. That is an absurd thing to parallel with all life.[/QUOTE]

I feel you missed my point.... Often, points get lost in translation (since we are not dialoguing face to face). People find meaning, to bring closure and purpose. My point is, that many look around, and state this entire universe was created for 'me.'

 

[Ken Rank]

It is not my desire to disprove anything actually. It becomes the burden of proof for the believer, making claims of the supernatural, to demonstrate their case. I can believe it, based upon the given evidence, or not.

Not in the least.. I don't have to prove anything. YOU are the skeptic, the burden of proof falls on YOU! If you are seeking, you'll find... if you are not, you won't. And you are not here seeking today, you are here trying to show ME why my faith is unrealistic. I don't care... I stand put, next.

It becomes irrelevant if the earliest found manuscripts were recopied once, or 25,000,000 times. This has no bearing as to whether the original stories were true or false. The earliest manuscripts found were quite a bit later, and were nowhere near completed. Since the 'Word' was God's chosen method for spreading truth, one might think God would assure the originals were preserved (and in a way which would demonstrate 'truth'). But that is just not the case :-/

25,00,000 times, eh? Him... and did you know that 76.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

As I've stated elsewhere, I do not doubt Alexander the Great's existence, prior existence of Alexandria, etc... But, it is another to believe he was the son of Zeus or possessed supernatural powers.

Again, I don't particular care whether you hold my view or not. I answered your question, accept it or reject it... doesn't matter to me. I am not here trying to create little Ken-clones...

Speaking of your earlier reference to archaeology, I would love to receive your source information, demonstrating a worldwide abrupt, (less than one year), catastrophic flood event. This would be a very significant discovery.

Really? And exactly how do you expect to prove using 5000 year old date that it happened to the "day" as the bible suggests? Well, I don't have that ability, I just believe it. But there is a movie on Netflix done by some scientists you might check out... it DOES make a good scientific case showing how it happened, and ended, quickly.

I could provide other examples too. However, the example of the camel alone is all that is necessary. Moses did not write these stories, unless he was lying. It becomes this simple really... Either someone else, much later from a differing area wrote such stories, or Moses lied about camels. Why would I need to go further?

No... just because there was a cousin of the camel in North America the size of a rabbit 3 million years ago and the camel only APPEARS to have entered the Middle East about 2900 years ago means the case is closed? That is some narrow thinking my friend...but have at it.

According to a publication from Psychology Today, 'psychology of belief in god' is directly associated with five causes.


1) The believer possesses a need for control. The uncertainty or presented possible finality for the concept of death demonstrates lack in control. Since the government, police, or any other associated authority, has no control in preventing death, the believer feels a need for control and applies faith to their chosen god.


2) The person feels a need to cope with death. Repeated reminders of one's mortality increase people's belief in the supernatural and also prayer. Continued and repeated readings from the Bible or community gatherings in churches both assert the possibility to life after death, which appears to reduce psychological distress for many. Repetition is key. Re-reading the Bible, while also receiving affirmation from selected authority, via church leaders, offer added comfort and assurance, especially when in doubt or during trying times.


3) Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often actually increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan.


4) The believer feels the need for justice. Many feel a higher sense for morality if they believe a cosmic deity is watching over all. They also have less tendencies or less of a need to require earthly punishment. Believers feel a higher authority will settle the score in god's chosen time.


5) The battle between experimental thinking versus logical thinking drives many to belief in god. Experimental thinking is associated with the individual in which relies upon their 'gut' feeling in rendering decisions, and is classified as a more emotional decision. The logical thinker more-so makes decisions in a 'matter of fact' manor, void of any personal bias or emotional feelings of any kind. The logical thinker assesses the evidence presented, to determine if the evidence leads to a demonstrated and directly fitting conclusion. As a result, predominant experimental styles in thinking lend higher tendencies for believe in a higher power, verses majoritively logical thinkers.

Interesting... not one, and I am not making this up, not one of those applies to me and my experience. But, Psychology Today said it... and because those leftist atheists said it, it must be true. Who am I to argue with them?

I wouldn't waste your time responding... I have no desire to waste another minute here. You have a bent against God and are doing all you can to undermine the faith of others with your "healthy skepticism." I don't buy it... I think you have had an agenda all along and if I were a MOD on here, you'd be gone.

 

[cvanwey]

Not in the least.. I don't have to prove anything. YOU are the skeptic, the burden of proof falls on YOU! If you are seeking, you'll find... if you are not, you won't. And you are not here seeking today, you are here trying to show ME why my faith is unrealistic. I don't care... I stand put, next.

Time for some remedial education...

Burden of prove fallacy - (also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim

Example: I state I was abducted by an alien once, then ask YOU to disprove it.

25,00,000 times, eh? Him... and did you know that 76.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Diverting my observation does not honestly address the root of the matter. "God" did not preserve any originals. Seems rather odd?

Really? And exactly how do you expect to prove using 5000 year old date that it happened to the "day" as the bible suggests? Well, I don't have that ability, I just believe it. But there is a movie on Netflix done by some scientists you might check out... it DOES make a good scientific case showing how it happened, and ended, quickly.

Ironically, you are the one whom brought up 'archaeology'. And archaeology has demonstrated, time and time again, that all fossils are perfectly layered, in the order to their demonstrated age. If a global flood happened, ever, all species would not drown in a perfect organized pattern; but would instead demonstrate chaos (with all fossils mixed together from differing ages). You know this, and are deliberately avoiding the matter. This is dishonest :-/

No... just because there was a cousin of the camel in North America the size of a rabbit 3 million years ago and the camel only APPEARS to have entered the Middle East about 2900 years ago means the case is closed? That is some narrow thinking my friend...but have at it.

This answer is perplexing... on many levels... First, are you stating the earth 'is' millions/billions of years old? If so, when did the 'flood' happen?

Second, if the world is billions of years old, Moses only lived a few thousand years ago?

Third, it appears much more 'narrow minded' to believe a story, with demonstrable errors, to instead favor your preconceived bias.

Interesting... not one, and I am not making this up, not one of those applies to me and my experience. But, Psychology Today said it... and because those leftist atheists said it, it must be true. Who am I to argue with them?

Nice straw man. Rather than honestly addressing the information, you disgard without proper cause. For all you know, the author is Christian. But even so, what would that even matter? Aren't you actually interested in unbiased truth, or just instead what makes you feel good?

I wouldn't waste your time responding... I have no desire to waste another minute here. You have a bent against God and are doing all you can to undermine the faith of others with your "healthy skepticism." I don't buy it... I think you have had an agenda all along and if I were a MOD on here, you'd be gone.

With responses like yours, could you blame me? I receive many productive responses, which make me think. Unfortunately, yours does not fit the bill... I could very much 'accuse' you of the very same thing... 'You are bias' and have no room for inquiry, and present a very specific 'agenda'.

When someone presents evidence, which you have no rebuttal for, you instead present ad hominem attacks, and also present many other logical fallacies. Oh well... Thanks anyways...

 

[Ken Rank]

Time for some remedial education...

Burden of prove fallacy - (also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

First of all, the use of of the word remedial is basically just name calling. That reveals your character. As for your lesson, you've blinded yourself to your own perceived greatness. You are the skeptic, you have the issue, you need to prove any points to determine your path... I don't have that issue. So nice lesson, champ... but take it elsewhere. I am not buying, not for a second.

PS... just so you know, I didn't spend a second reading anything beyond what I quoted of yours above. Once you stoop to name calling, I won't give you my time. Have a great life.

 

[cvanwey]

I wouldn't waste your time responding... I have no desire to waste another minute here.

And yet, you responded again. What does this say about 'your' character? I, on the other hand, am providing intellectual honesty. And FYI, this is a forum, and many others read this now, and for as long as this forum exists. I'm not responding to (you) per say... Many come on here searching for their own honest answers. It is up to all the forum readers who seek, whatever it is they choose to seek. Your response tends to demonstrate an assertion, and when someone does not agree with you, and demonstrates evidence to the contrary, you attack. Well, this is not honest. And the ones, whom actually do decide to read the posts, will see as such.

Ta ta....

 

[Sanoy]

This is a severe straw man to practically all of science. I 'trust' you fully accept the germ theory of disease, gravitational theory, cell theory, atomic theory, etc...?

I don't think it's a strawman, science is a career. And you have to go deeper than the popular articles to get the truth of it. There is a lot I accept in science, i'm not saying you should doubt a conclusion, but that you should understand it, and what it took to come to that conclusion before you believe it. If you don't you will get ropped in by the popuarlism of it with misleading terms.

If you want to talk about strawmanning let's bring up the "God of the Gaps" you just pulled on me. Free agents are natural probability overcomers so there is nothing wrong with postulating one to overcome the brobdingnagian improbability of our life from non life, and even more so something from nothing which has 0 probability. So for an event that cannot happen otherwise there is nothing wrong with placing a metaphysical necessity in it's place and abductively determining the best fit.

If you want to talk about what is a "gaps" argument let's talk about naturalism. I asked you if your own conclusions were justified, and if they are based on naturalism then they are not because naturalism begins with the "gaps" in it's first assumption. "Only the natural world exists". So if gap arguments concern you then so should reject naturalism.

Yeah I'm willing to demonstrate failures from science. And I'll do so again since I started with that.

1. Something from nothing
2. Life from non life.
3. Objective grounding for moral values and duties.
4. Free willed, intentional, conscious agents from deterministic matter.
5 The cognitive faculties to determine truths about the world.
6. Why the plane of the ecliptic matches the cosmic microwave background information from the big bang.

If you stood before a firing squad of 100 sharpshooter and after they fired you remained unharmed would you not think there is an explanation to that? Okay what about 10^60 sharpshooters? Of course you would. The only reason to stop looking for an explanation here is if you don't like where the conclusion leads. The conclusion can only be fled from while you draw breath, after that there is no running from the consequences. The self discovered teleology in our world has by itself converted scientists to Theism.

Being a hobby skeptic doesn't make one intellectual. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle. However strong you think the foundation of your thoughts are, I assure you, the very ground they rest on belongs to God. If you remove Him, prepare for every one of your thoughts to be undone. True contents of belief are not a product of naturalism.

 

[cvanwey]

1. Something from nothing
2. Life from non life.
3. Objective grounding for moral values and duties.
4. Free willed, intentional, conscious agents from deterministic matter.
5 The cognitive faculties to determine truths about the world.
6. Why the plane of the ecliptic matches the cosmic microwave background information from the big bang.

1. If the 'universe' is eternal, then your statement is just as relevant as asking what is north of the North Pole..... And so, therefore, Yahweh?
2. Abiogenesis
: the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth : organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substance.... and,
Therefore, Yahweh?
3. Doesn't exist, sorry. Inventing an objective cause, without proof of the objective provider is madness... And, therefore, Yahweh?
4. Therefore, Yahweh?
5. Therefore, Yahweh?
6. Therefore, Yahweh?

 

[Sanoy]

1. If the 'universe' is eternal, then your statement is just as relevant as asking what is north of the North Pole..... And so, therefore, Yahweh?
2. Abiogenesis
: the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth : organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substance.... and,
Therefore, Yahweh?
3. Doesn't exist, sorry. Inventing an objective cause, without proof of the objective provider is madness... And, therefore, Yahweh?
4. Therefore, Yahweh?
5. Therefore, Yahweh?
6. Therefore, Yahweh?

You are mistaken to counter with "God of the gaps" for every objection you receive. You asked be to object to science, and I did. For someone so concerned about strawmans you sure do make a lot of it. It's not, "therefore God", it's abductivley "therefore God is the best explanation". Sure you can posit a past eternal universe but it still won't be the best explanation.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't think it's a strawman, science is a career. And you have to go deeper than the popular articles to get the truth of it. There is a lot I accept in science, i'm not saying you should doubt a conclusion, but that you should understand it, and what it took to come to that conclusion before you believe it. If you don't you will get ropped in by the popuarlism of it with misleading terms.

If you want to talk about strawmanning let's bring up the "God of the Gaps" you just pulled on me. Free agents are natural probability overcomers so there is nothing wrong with postulating one to overcome the brobdingnagian improbability of our life from non life, and even more so something from nothing which has 0 probability. So for an event that cannot happen otherwise there is nothing wrong with placing a metaphysical necessity in it's place and abductively determining the best fit.

If you want to talk about what is a "gaps" argument let's talk about naturalism. I asked you if your own conclusions were justified, and if they are based on naturalism then they are not because naturalism begins with the "gaps" in it's first assumption. "Only the natural world exists". So if gap arguments concern you then so should reject naturalism.

Yeah I'm willing to demonstrate failures from science. And I'll do so again since I started with that.

1. Something from nothing
2. Life from non life.
3. Objective grounding for moral values and duties.
4. Free willed, intentional, conscious agents from deterministic matter.
5 The cognitive faculties to determine truths about the world.
6. Why the plane of the ecliptic matches the cosmic microwave background information from the big bang.

If you stood before a firing squad of 100 sharpshooter and after they fired you remained unharmed would you not think there is an explanation to that? Okay what about 10^60 sharpshooters? Of course you would. The only reason to stop looking for an explanation here is if you don't like where the conclusion leads. The conclusion can only be fled from while you draw breath, after that there is no running from the consequences. The self discovered teleology in our world has by itself converted scientists to Theism.

Being a hobby skeptic doesn't make one intellectual. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle. However strong you think the foundation of your thoughts are, I assure you, the very ground they rest on belongs to God. If you remove Him, prepare for every one of your thoughts to be undone. True contents of belief are not a product of naturalism.

And now, my turn, except I'll start way shorter:

1. I say the Bible was written by humans, with no extra help or aid from any supernatural forces, as any and all text written has only demonstrated to be written by humans.

2. If a creator deity(s) do exist, demonstrate the proof and evidence that only one exists, and not three, five, twelve, or an infinite number?

Thanks

 

[Sanoy]

And now, my turn, except I'll start way shorter:

1. I say the Bible was written by humans, with no extra help or aid from any supernatural forces, as any and all text written has only demonstrated to be written by humans.

2. If a creator deity(s) do exist, demonstrate the proof and evidence that only one exists, and not three, five, twelve, or an infinite number?

Thanks

Matter is deterministic, humans are not, we are a supernatural force. So if humans can write something, I don't see anything incoherent about another being inspiring them.

Why would I give such an unparsimonius menagergie when 1 creator will do?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid?

By what specialized method was concluded to determine the Bible is given by God, besides the Bible's say-so?

Nothing specialized, no method.

IF ANYONE lacks wisdom, let him ask of God , Who gives wisdom freely without any rebuke or shame attached.

Simply asking.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh Says the beginning of Wisdom is to fear the Creator - respect Him; and that salvation only comes thru Jesus Messiah and no other way.


cvanwey says:

I say the Bible was written by humans, with no extra help or aid from any supernatural forces, as any and all text written has only demonstrated to be written by humans.

Choose TODAY who you will obey.

 

[cvanwey]

You are mistaken to counter with "God of the gaps" for every objection you receive. You asked be to object to science, and I did. For someone so concerned about strawmans you sure do make a lot of it. It's not, "therefore God", it's abductivley "therefore God is the best explanation". Sure you can posit a past eternal universe but it still won't be the best explanation.

So you are not demonstrating your case for Yahweh then? Then please enlighten me, as to what you are actually demonstrating your case for then? I say, you are presenting your case for Yahweh. Am I mistaken? How is it a strawman, when you are attempting to put forth your best cases, in an effort to demonstrate your specific believed God? It would be no different then you telling me, 'therefore, you doubt the conclusion is Yahweh." Of course, this is why I question, This is why my current status is 'skeptic.' The EXACT same reason yours is "Christian".

However, you are demonstrating one very large fallacy right now. Argument from ignorance. 'Explain this, explain that, you can't definitively. So..... Therefore, Yahweh offers the best explanation...This is even demonstrated in your response "therefore God is the best explanation". Sure you can posit a past eternal universe but it still won't be the best explanation." This is exactly the reason I can so easily posit 'therefore, Yahweh'

Am I perfect? No. Have I committed fallacies in the past? Yes, everyone does. However, the argument from ignorance "asserts that a proposition is either true or false because of lack or absence of evidence or proof to the contrary." And you continue to flagrantly violate this one.

Thanks

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Am I mistaken?

Yes. Completely.

 

[cvanwey]

Nothing specialized, no method.

IF ANYONE lacks wisdom, let him ask of God , Who gives wisdom freely without any rebuke or shame attached.

Simply asking.

I have a simple question for you... And I would really like an honest and legitimate answer please?

Some one states they regularly speak to their god(s) in prayer, but it is not your believed Yahweh. How were (you) able to conclude they are lying or delusional; and not actually speaking to their cosmic deity?

 

[cvanwey]

Yahweh Says the beginning of Wisdom is to fear the Creator - respect Him; and that salvation only comes thru Jesus Messiah and no other way.


cvanwey says:


Choose TODAY who you will obey.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.