Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 181 of 477 (550354)
03-15-2010 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Peg
03-13-2010 8:02 PM


Omnipresence
God is indeed omnipotent, and he is omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. But is he really omnipresent? Is God everywhere, or is he a person with a specific dwelling place?
Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? declares the Lord. --- Jeremiah 23:24
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will alead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me. --- Psalm 139:7-10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 8:02 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Phage0070, posted 03-15-2010 4:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 207 by Peg, posted 05-01-2010 8:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 477 (550361)
03-15-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2010 2:03 AM


Re: Omnipresence
In the vein of this tangent...
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then why is being omnipresent or not relevant?
When we think about people, not being present greatly limits their ability to know about and effect things. But if we are talking about a being with no limits to its ability or knowledge, who cares if it is present or not? The only functional difference would be if you could see it or not... and lets not forget we are talking about a god that is supposedly *hiding* anyway!
Besides being something to argue theology over, who cares?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2010 2:03 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 183 of 477 (550362)
03-15-2010 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Peg
03-13-2010 8:02 PM


Did I miss something?
Peg writes:
...so he is most certainly not omnipresent.
I'm sorry, but did I miss something? Where does Phage mention omnipresence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 8:02 PM Peg has not replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 184 of 477 (550882)
03-19-2010 1:59 AM


Finish the following sentence
I can reasonably conclude gravity exists by dropping a ball and watching it fall to the ground.
I can reasonably conclude wind exists by watching the trees move when it blows.
I can reasonably conclude God exists by...
Edited by killinghurts, : grammar
Edited by killinghurts, : grammar

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Pauline, posted 03-23-2010 10:46 PM killinghurts has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 185 of 477 (551719)
03-23-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by killinghurts
03-19-2010 1:59 AM


killinghurts writes:
Finish the following sentence
I can reasonably conclude gravity exists by dropping a ball and watching it fall to the ground.
I can reasonably conclude wind exists by watching the trees move when it blows.
I can reasonably conclude God exists by...
Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by killinghurts, posted 03-19-2010 1:59 AM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 10:54 PM Pauline has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 186 of 477 (551722)
03-23-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Pauline
03-23-2010 10:46 PM


Faith.
You were asked to finish the sentence: "I can reasonably conclude God exists by..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Pauline, posted 03-23-2010 10:46 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Pauline, posted 03-23-2010 11:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 187 of 477 (551724)
03-23-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2010 10:54 PM


Yep, that's not reasonable to you, I know. If the person wants a logical, evidence-based explanation, there is none (at least not that I'm aware of). If the person wants to how it really is done, I just told him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 10:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 11:30 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 202 by killinghurts, posted 04-01-2010 2:38 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 203 by Stile, posted 04-01-2010 6:10 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 188 of 477 (551728)
03-23-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Pauline
03-23-2010 11:00 PM


Yep, that's not reasonable to you, I know.
But you yourself can hardly think it reasonable.
It is evident that faith cannot be a good reason, because it tells people such radically different things.
It tells one person that they should be Protestant, and another person that Protestants should be burnt at the stake. It tells one person to be Jewish, and another person to start a pogrom. It tells one person that Islam is evil, and another person that Allah wants them to crash a plane into a building.
Obviously, then, faith can't be a way of discovering facts, because if it was, people would find out the same facts by applying it.
Compare it with a scientific instrument such as a telescope. If two completely different people, with two completely different world-views, look at the planet Saturn through a sufficiently powerful telescope, then they will both see that Saturn has rings.
But when two different people use faith as a way of finding out about the world, they end up with completely different answers: just as if two people put the same question to a "magic eight ball" it'll tell one of them "yes" and the other one "no".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Pauline, posted 03-23-2010 11:00 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 1:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(2)
Message 189 of 477 (551744)
03-24-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2010 11:30 PM


It is evident that faith cannot be a good reason, because it tells people such radically different things.
It tells one person that they should be Protestant, and another person that Protestants should be burnt at the stake. It tells one person to be Jewish, and another person to start a pogrom. It tells one person that Islam is evil, and another person that Allah wants them to crash a plane into a building.
I never said religion is a way to reasonably believe in God. Things like 9/11 use religion as an excuse for accomplishing selfish ends. Yes, there are different religions in this world. Radically opposite ones too, some of them. But there is a sure way to distinguish religion from faith. Faith isn't defined by adherents. But, religion very much is fashioned to suit adherents.
Obviously, then, faith can't be a way of discovering facts, because if it was, people would find out the same facts by applying it.
Surely, science is the best way to discover facts.
But faith isn't a pursuit of "discovering facts' based on "finding proof'. Its placing strong trust in something based on the knowledge that the object, though not tangible, is true. A reasonable belief in God is based on faith because of the definition of God. If He was observable, then sure, use science to detect Him. But when He's not.....is science any useful? Faith and religion are different, radically. And the above instances you mention relate to religion, not faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 11:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2010 1:59 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2010 2:35 AM Pauline has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 190 of 477 (551746)
03-24-2010 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Pauline
03-24-2010 1:45 AM


Hi Doc,
I agree with absolutely everything you just said. The reason I'm an Atheist now, however:
But faith isn't a pursuit of "discovering facts' based on "finding proof'. Its placing strong trust in something based on the knowledge that the object, though not tangible, is true.
I simply don't see how faith can be any more accurate than random guessing. I can't find an idea credulous without evidence to give me greater confidence than a random guess.
When someone says "I think x is true," I need to know why x is true, the evidence supporting the statement, and I want to be able to test independently whether x is true with positive results before I'll believe in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 1:45 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 2:55 AM Rahvin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 191 of 477 (551749)
03-24-2010 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Pauline
03-24-2010 1:45 AM


But there is a sure way to distinguish religion from faith.
Well, no there isn't.
You seem to be saying that other people's faith is just religion, which is bad, but your religion is faith, which is good.
But they look exactly the same from the outside; and of course since you are not a mind-reader you have never seen anyone else's faith from the inside.
But, religion very much is fashioned to suit adherents.
Yeah. For example, I know of a religion, I don't know if you've heard of it, it's called "Christianity", which teaches its adherents that just by sincerely believing in that religion, all their sins are automatically forgiven and when they die they won't actually die but instead they'll live eternally and be perfectly blissfully happy for ever.
This seems tailor-made to suit the desires of Christianity's adherents. Certainly I've never seen any Christian object to it and say --- "Darn, I wish God hadn't forgiven all my sins, I wish I didn't have eternal life, I wish I wasn't going to be happy for ever and ever, but I guess that's just the way things are, and I'll just have to learn to deal with it. It sucks, but what can I do?"
But faith isn't a pursuit of "discovering facts' based on "finding proof'.
Which is my point. You were asked how you could reasonably know that God exists, and you answered "faith". This is as though I asked an anti-semite how he could reasonably know that Jews are subhuman and he answered "bigotry". Or if I asked a New Ager how he could reasonably believe in astrology and he answered "superstition". Or if I asked David Icke how he could reasonably know that the world is secretly being run by reptilian lizard-men and he answered "because I'm mentally ill". You were asked for a reasonable foundation for your beliefs and you responded by naming a form of irrationality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 1:45 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 205 by Pauline, posted 05-01-2010 3:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 192 of 477 (551754)
03-24-2010 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Rahvin
03-24-2010 1:59 AM


Hey Rahvin,
I simply don't see how faith can be any more accurate than random guessing. I can't find an idea credulous without evidence to give me greater confidence than a random guess.
I understand that perhaps Christianity boils down to a "random guess", in your opinion. I think such a viewpoint can result from either extreme ignorance or extreme unbelief. In your case, Rahvin, I don't doubt at all that it is not ignorance. You seem like an extremely knowledgeable, intellectual person. So, maybe you have all the evidence in front of you.....but, there is doubt as to whether or not it is reliable.........(I could easily be wrong, correct me if I am)
There are expert archaeologists, many unbelievers I might add, who acknowledge the historicity of the Bible. Here are quotes from just a few of 'em:
"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen." - Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology (quote obtained from: Archaeologist Speaks Out)
"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable." - Dr. Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49.
"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible." - Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research [1]
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries." - Dr. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, (New York: Farrar, Strous and Cudahy, 1959), 136.
"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong." - Dr. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Scripture Press, Wheaton, IL, 1969, pg. 1
"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself." - Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confirmed the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery
"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." - Dr. William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1956, p. 176.
"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized." - Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University, What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 1
"The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." - Professor Millar Burrows (Professor of Archaeology at Yale University), What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 176.
"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest — that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge." - Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), page 279.
"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment." - Sir William Ramsey (eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study in the field), (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint), page 89.
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." - Sir William Ramsey (archaeologist), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, pages 81, 222
My source
Faith in Jehovah is derived solely from a complete trust in the authority, historicity, and authenticity of the Bible. And when there are ways to reasonably confirm this, and people have been doing it all the time, it seems strange to label Christianity a "random guess". If the Bible didn't exist, and there was absolutely zilch physical evidence supporting anything Christian, and I woke up one day....decided to invent a religion because I was bored, then yes, your "random guess" argument is perfect, Rahvin. But this is not the case with the Bible, is it? Compared to other historical documents, it stands out because of its proven authenticity.
Have you heard of the eye-witness testimony argument for the authenticity of the NT? The time-gap and number of manuscripts arguments? When was the last time people came up with such arguments for the IPU? Read about the historicity of the Bible here and here
When someone says "I think x is true," I need to know why x is true, the evidence supporting the statement, and I want to be able to test independently whether x is true with positive results before I'll believe in it.
There is evidence out there. Evidence that events recorded in the Bible reflect history. There was a man named Jesus. And He was everything He said He was.
But we're out of the realm of the testability, reproducibility and all...that's good for science, not for faith. So, I don't know that testability is what might convince you to accept the evidence.....
---But faith comes into play in all of this, due to the fact that today, 3-23-2010, I can't physically see or touch Jesus.... I can't go to John or Peter and ask them questions.... So I take the historical document that reveals God to me, believe it to be true based on the evidence, and exercise faith in order to apply it to my personal life. As a believer who's been through struggles pertaining faith, I honestly admit that it would be a lot easier if Jesus was living physically today and I could go talk to Him face to face. But God ordained that often faith replace sight.
Elsewhere I have said that a belief in the genesis account of creation is based on faith more than evidence. I still believe this. And that's becasue that particular piece of history is way too old for us to reasonable confirm it. But we can, and have, confirmed relatively newer history form the Bible.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : added last paragrpahs...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2010 1:59 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2010 4:06 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 194 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2010 4:31 AM Pauline has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 193 of 477 (551763)
03-24-2010 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Pauline
03-24-2010 2:55 AM


There are expert archaeologists, many unbelievers I might add, who acknowledge the historicity of the Bible.
What about the historicity of Noah's flood? Is that not completely confuted by all the archaeological evidence?
Heck, why did I even phrase that as a rhetorical question? It is confuted by all the archaeological evidence.
Show me an "archaeologist and unbeliever" who thinks that that's a real historical fact rather than a fairy-story for children.
Elsewhere I have said that a belief in the genesis account of creation is based on faith more than evidence. I still believe this. And that's becasue that particular piece of history is way too old for us to reasonable confirm it.
However, it is sufficiently recent that we can be absolutely certain that it's false. The reason that you can't confirm it isn't that it's too long ago, but that it's claptrap.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 2:55 AM Pauline has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 194 of 477 (551769)
03-24-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Pauline
03-24-2010 2:55 AM


Dr. Sing writes:
There are expert archaeologists, many unbelievers I might add, who acknowledge the historicity of the Bible. Here are quotes from just a few of 'em:
Um, can you pinpoint any of the particular names in that list of quotes who are "unbelievers"? With sources like "The Authority of the Bible", "Associates for Biblical Research" and "Scripture Press", I suspect your notion of "many unbelievers" is an exaggeration at best.
(I was intrigued by Millar Burrows, "Prof. of Archaeology at Yale", and looked up his bio -- he was actually referred to as "professor of Biblical literature" and held a position as "Winkley Professor of Biblical theology in the Yale Divinity School". An "unbeliever"? With direct scientific involvement in prehistoric archaeology? Really? Bear in mind that by "prehistoric", I mean "before any writing system existed to record history" -- that is, pre-Sumerian, hence long before the Dead Sea Scrolls that apparently occupied most of Burrows' career.)
This is a "Social and Religious Issues" thread, not a "Science" thread, so it would be unfair and probably off-topic to question these references with regard to their stance on the global flood or the Tower of Babel, stories for which the archaeological evidence is contradictory, to say the least.
Assert whatever you like about your personal reasons for accepting and maintaining your particular religion (or faith, or religious faith) -- I'll respect that (to the extent that it's not indicative of pathology) -- but for your own good, don't make it dependent on how the Bible is thoroughly and completely accurate as a historical document. I'm not saying it's all false: the New Testament clearly contains references to places, individuals and even some events whose existence/occurrence has been independently verified; less so for the Old Testament -- there are some confirmed references, but just on the basis of the flood and the tower, I have to conclude that it really doesn't work as history.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar fix for clarity

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 2:55 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 195 of 477 (551856)
03-24-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2010 2:35 AM


edit: Well, I changed my mind about putting such stuff up on the internet. :S
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2010 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Phage0070, posted 03-24-2010 6:13 PM Pauline 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