Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for God
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 211 of 213 (483507)
09-22-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by iano
09-22-2008 4:23 AM


Re: Seemingly Going Off -Topic, veering back on course
As I said, you'll disagree. Blind faith is a somewhat subjective term. I see much of Abram/Abraham's tale to be based on a model where God tries to create a relationship partly of blind faith: "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country...So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him". Abraham essentially trusting this deity totally without knowing that things will be OK. The whole Sarai/barrenness storyline likewise speaks to me of this kind of relationship. God doesn't show Abram lots of miracles (mostly its just a few curses) or anything, he just assures Abram that not only will he be the father of nations but that it will be by Sarai!
This rather blind obedience is borne, in my eyes, from a blind faith, a trust in the dark. You don't feel that way, I assume, but this is not the thread to get bogged down in this particular debate.
I would have more likely said that non-empirical evidence convinced me.
Only 'empirical' in scientific sense. In truth, you are an empiricist since empiricism is, to quote wiki, "a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.". You claim to have obtained knowledge through an experience.
I wouldn't have described it as internal feelings - although you can carry on considering it as such if your philosophy regarding evidence demands that you do so.
No, simple linguistic convenience allows me to, nothing makes any demands of me (without getting into determinism...) to do so. Internal feelings is a simple way of saying that your criteria of truth in the realms of theology are based on an unshareable experience, one that 'feels' or 'resonates' in a certain way with you personally. There is nothing you can 'point out' in the outside world and say 'experience that'. All of the events are occurring internally (without getting into a discussion brains vs soul...the events are happening within your brain or within your soul).
It is but your philosophy Mod, not sticks and stones
Ideas are weapons greater than any piece of matter. Epistemology is a serious argument - wars have been needlessly fought over what someone 'knew' about someone else. Sometimes that knowledge comes from such 'strong inner convictions' and 'personal revelatory experiences' as you describe and people can die as a result. I personally think that the epistemology that celebrates such internal criteria of truths is easy to accept (very much so) but also dangerous because it is demonstrably true that most knowledge gained this way is false.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 4:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by iano, posted 09-24-2008 6:44 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 212 of 213 (483634)
09-23-2008 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Brian
09-22-2008 8:51 AM


Re: A wife, a wife, my kingdom for a wife
I understand that you do not believe that the evidence supports the claims in the Torah. But this has nothing to do with your claim. You are claiming that the Torah itself is contradictory, and you bring the amount of firstborn children as a proof of this. I am showing you that this is no proof of the Torah contradicting itself. If you want to prove that the Torah is contradicting itself you would have to bring a source that proves that all Jews did not have more than one wife. Historical evidence is moot in this debate so please do not bring it up any further.
Open MInd writes:
Similarly, it states in the verse what the law is when a person has two wives and he dislikes one of them and loves the other and has a first born son with the disliked one. You then said that this shows that the Jewish people did not have two wives at that time.
Brian writes:
This is not what I said though. I have never stated that some Jewish people mentioned in the Tanakh didn’t have more than one wife, you are imagining this.
What I did say regarding this verse is that it refers to men with TWO wives, one they love and one they , one plus one is two, not MANY as you would wish it to be.
One plus one = two.
I am sorry but please read what you wrote here. Here is what you said in message 195:
Brian writes:
Secondly, the passage says 'if', which negates your claim that 'The Jewish people had many wives'. This passage tells us that some didn't have two wives and none had more than two.
I was merely pointing out the flaws in this logical argument. You have contradicted a previous post of your own.
Now let me discuss your evidence from the scriptures that seem to imply one wife. First of all, are you reading a Hebrew text or a Christian translation? This is a very important question because you are trying to show how the Torah does not make logical sense. If you do not actually speak the language that the Torah was written in, I need not say that you are wasting your time. So I assume you do speak at least some basic Hebrew, and you are reading from the actual texts and not translations.
Brian writes:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
United to his wife , singular. So a real opportunity for old Yahweh there to lay out the polygamous ideal if he wanted to.
First of all, do you know what this verse means? I will give you some background. G-d had just created Eve, and now Adam had a partner in the creation like all of the other animals. Adam said that he will call this one a women because it was taken from man. The verse goes on to say: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh. What is meant by this? According to the Jewish tradition, this means that a man and women become one flesh when they get married. The one flesh is referring to the child that is born afterwards. Honestly speaking, G-d had just created one man and one woman; would you expect the verse to go on and say therefore a man should cling to his wives and become one flesh. This does not even make any sense. How are you getting one child from many different wives combined? You are bringing a source where it would make no sense for the word wives to be used. As you will see, I will show you that all of you other sources are exactly the same kind of error on your part. You can't interpret something from the choosing of the word wife if the word wives would not fit in at all.
Brian writes:
Even one of the Commandments insists that monogamy is expected:
Exodus 20:17
i "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
In this one your error is obvious. Along your lines of reasoning, the verse implies that all of the Jews had or should have one house, one wife, one manservant, one maidservant, one ox, one donkey, and one neighbor for that matter. You can clearly see that this verse does not imply anything about the quantity of the objects described. Furthermore, if it did say wives, you would think that I am not allowed to covet all of his wives, but you are allowed to covet one of them. You see from here how the verse is actually very carefully written. By the way, I assume you meant Exodus Chapter 20 verse "14." I also want to inform you that the word neighbor does not appear in the verse and it is better translated as friend, fellow, or colleague.
Brian writes:
Leviticus 20:10
And a man who commits ery with a man's wife -- who commits ery with the wife of his neighbour -- the erer and the eress are surely put to .
The wife of his neighbour, NOT one of his neighbours wives.
Like many other verses, you have no idea what this verse is even trying to say. Why the repetition? Do you know? I do know, and the Jewish tradition has discussed this verse in detail. But this is a side point. Again the word neighbor is not the translation at all, and the verse does seem to imply that you have only one neighbor if you read it like you want it to be read. Also it is not translated as "the wife of his fellow," but rather "his fellow's wife." When you emphasize the word "the" as if the verse is trying to stress one wife, you have to realize that the word "the" does not appear in the text, and the true translation is actually what I have written. The emphasis in this verse is on the word "fellow" not on the word "the".
Brian writes:
Numbers 5:12
“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ”If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him.
Singular again. NOT one of a man’s wives.
With this one I will just give you the real translation and let you chew it over. "Any man whose wife shall go astray and commit treachery against him." This a translation given in a Jewish translation, but even it is not exactly what is written in the text. You must see the actual text for this one. According to the actual translation, there is no need to write the word "wive" and it would actually be misleading in this context. The women that commits treachery is a wife, and that is why she has done wrong. And finally:
Brian writes:
Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favour from the LORD.
Again, singular and NOT finds ”wives’.
Please, your argument does not even start over here. Any wife is a good thing, even one. If it said wives you would say that only wives are good, but one wife is not sufficient. When analyzing the texts in the future, try to think of how the meaning of the verse would change if your words were added and the actual words were edited. Usually you will easily see the problem with your words.
Brian writes:
I’ll post more if you wish, but these are sufficient to prove my point to any slightly objective observer. But I look forward to your rebuttals and rewording of the Torah, as you will surely do.
Thank you for not posting anymore as it would have just wasted both my time and your time. I have explained to you the method of analyzing the texts that would lead to something of substance. The verse that I have given you clearly gives an example of more than one wife. If your interpretation of the verses make the verses look silly, it is your interpretation that needs to be adjusted.
Brian writes:
Well there’s two bits of paper on my wall from two unis that disagree with you, so I’ll stick with the people who know what they are talking about.
Those people actually do not know what they are talking about either. They know just as much as you, and that is very little. An atheist will never be able to give an objective interpretation of a book that he considers to be a fairy tale. Any degree from such people is completely worthless. I am sorry that you had to waste time obtaining useless degrees but time spent does not make them any more worthless.
Regarding your problems with the book of Judges, I think that for now it is better to stick to the actual Torah and not start debating the books of the Prophets. If you have any problems with the actual Torah than I would want you to give those first because this is the actual debated topic.
Brian writes:
Well there are answers and there are answers. Anyone who has read the garbage that Christian apologists write when they try to make Jesus into the Messiah that He clearly wasn’t knows that not all answers are satisfactory.
I can't stress it enough that you ignore anything that the Christians have to say about the Torah. They obviously do not practice anything that is written in the Torah, and they have persecuted Jewish people for many years. Frankly, it is the Christian morons that have been causing the atheism that exists in this world. Christians do not have much of a tradition and it is obvious that each priest has his own interpretation of the entire Bible. You cannot group all religions into one basket, because you have to remember that only one of them is actually correct. The rest are actually complete garbage, and they will create a bad name for G-d.
Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.
Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Brian, posted 09-22-2008 8:51 AM Brian has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 213 of 213 (483767)
09-24-2008 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Modulous
09-22-2008 8:07 PM


Re: Seemingly Going Off -Topic, veering back on course
Mod writes:
I see much of Abram/Abraham's tale to be based on a model where God tries to create a relationship partly of blind faith: "Now the LORD had said unto Abram
A few verses might illuminate.
quote:
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
quote:
Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth.
quote:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Our words can achieve more than the apparent sum of their parts. Words and the tone with which they are issued can cause us to cry, laugh, trust. The word of God is this and much more: his word spoke creation into existance. People are sanctified (have their outlooks transformed, turned 180 degrees around) by Gods word. Martin Luther was converted on reading Romans 3:20.
When Jesus himself is described as the word and the light of men it becomes problematic to suppose:
This rather blind obedience is borne, in my eyes, from a blind faith, a trust in the dark.
Scripturally, Abraham was trusting in the light. Those in darkness (with all due respect, but you included) have not understood that.
Only 'empirical' in scientific sense. In truth, you are an empiricist since empiricism is, to quote wiki, "a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.". You claim to have obtained knowledge through an experience.
It would depend upon a semantic throw of the dice. As I and most others around here seem to understand and apply it - and as the wiki article goes on to point out:
quote:
Rather, according to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained ultimately from one's sense-based experience
No, simple linguistic convenience allows me to, nothing makes any demands of me (without getting into determinism...) to do so. Internal feelings is a simple way of saying that your criteria of truth in the realms of theology are based on an unshareable experience, one that 'feels' or 'resonates' in a certain way with you personally. There is nothing you can 'point out' in the outside world and say 'experience that'. All of the events are occurring internally (without getting into a discussion brains vs soul...the events are happening within your brain or within your soul).
Fair enough.
Ideas are weapons greater than any piece of matter. Epistemology is a serious argument - wars have been needlessly fought over what someone 'knew' about someone else. Sometimes that knowledge comes from such 'strong inner convictions' and 'personal revelatory experiences' as you describe and people can die as a result. I personally think that the epistemology that celebrates such internal criteria of truths is easy to accept (very much so) but also dangerous because it is demonstrably true that most knowledge gained this way is false.
It's not that I celebrate such things, it's that there is nothing else to be done given the situation I find myself in. If faced with having to dissect a mechanical system there's little value in a recommendation which suggestst I apply the tools of electronics to the task; multimeters don't undo bolts however wishful the thinking.
People die and wars are fought irrespective of the epistemology held - it's not so much the knowledge held but the desires and motivations of the people holding it that forms the deciding factor in whether or not folk go to war. True knowledge can be suppressed afterall, just ask Saddam.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Modulous, posted 09-22-2008 8:07 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024