Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Roylion]

This is the sort of question that will not concern a believer too much, Roy.

That's fine. Just don't expect me to accept as correct what a believer claims is true.

Let me frame it in a way that a believer might ask of you:


Why don't you provide some spiritual evidence that proves evolution?

Spiritual evidence? Provide evidence that is above and beyond nature and of which we can have no knowledge, to prove something in nature? If certain groups claim that the Bible is "true" and that, for example, Adam and Eve were real people who lived and died in a particular place at a particular time, surely we can use genetic or archaeological evidence, to determine the probability or likelihood of such a claim.

You're asking a person who looks at the world spiritually for scientific proof??
...and that's why such debates frustrate both "sides".

They're often not commenting on spiritual matters though. A claim that the Bible is literally true and the story of the origins of mankind as outlined in Genesis is therefore literally true is not spiritual.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Similar conversations are had because similar ignorance is embraced by similarly closed minded individuals.
There is no such thing as scientific fact only theory. Science has never laid claim to fact that is the express territory of religion which blows it's nose at even evidence.

That's a rather large generalisation, Pie. Both ways.

I feel that this is kind of what escalates disagreements on this board.

Could you rephrase this more even-handedly?

 

[Roylion]

Most Xians and Jews will tell you Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that is his historic proof but for some that isn't enough.

I'm willing to accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, if there is enough evidence to support that fact. In fact most Biblical scholars do not accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis for a whole host of reasons. They believe Genesis was written in about the 6th century BC at least eight hundred years after Moses (if he existed at all) was believed to have lived. A 1976 study by Schmidt demonstrated that the Yahwist writer of Genesis knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning the Yahwist section of Genesis could not have been written earlier than the 7th century BC and probably in the 6th. Genesis therefore cannot have been written by Moses.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

That's fine. Just don't expect me to accept as correct what a believer claims is true.



Spiritual evidence? Provide evidence that is above and beyond nature and of which we can have no knowledge, to prove something in nature? If certain groups claim that the Bible is "true" and that, for example, Adam and Eve were real people who lived and died in a particular place at a particular time, surely we can use genetic or archaeological evidence, to determine the probability or likelihood of such a claim.


Isn't that the point? Generally, Christians would argue that the bible is loaded with spiritual truths, not scientific ones. Fundy groups aside, of course. But you can see the reverse point I'm making, can't you?


They're often not commenting on spiritual matters though. A claim that the Bible is literally true and the story of the origins of mankind as outlined in Genesis is therefore literally true is not spiritual.

I get the feeling that this is what frustrates you most, and fair enough. I think that when Christians claim it as truth, they're mixing literal & spiritual truths (for them) in a way that is unhelpful - again, fundy groups aside.

At the same time, some Christians prefer to accept it as "truth" because it aids their spiritual development. Whatever works for individuals, I suppose...

 

[GetDimmaBack]

That's fine. Just don't expect me to accept as correct what a believer claims is true..

I wasn't asking you to. I was merely pointing out what a believer believes. Call me a genius, but I would never have thought you would!

You make your points strongly, and I can't help feeling that you get annoyed when people don't agree with you. You certainly have a wealth of intellectual knowledge, and I read your posts with great interest. But I would be shocked if many Christians changed their beliefs because of the results of your research.

Much of what you say is right, in the historical sense. It's just that Christians believe that the bible as we know it has come to us via the workings and direction of the Holy Spirit. Not bound in a black folder with gold print on the cover , but put together in its entirity by the Spirit, over many years of course. To teach us in the theological sense.

 

[Max zero]

I wasn't asking you to. I was merely pointing out what a believer believes. Call me a genius, but I would never have thought you would!

You make your points strongly, and I can't help feeling that you get annoyed when people don't agree with you. You certainly have a wealth of intellectual knowledge, and I read your posts with great interest. But I would be shocked if many Christians changed their beliefs because of the results of your research.

Much of what you say is right, in the historical sense. It's just that Christians believe that the bible as we know it has come to us via the workings and direction of the Holy Spirit. Not bound in a black folder with gold print on the cover , but put together in its entirity by the Spirit, over many years of course. To teach us in the theological sense.

Which is your right of course but from a non believer's perspective it sounds a lot like "I believe in this because the voice in my head said it's right."

Sometimes it is hard to take seriously.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Which is your right of course but from a non believer's perspective it sounds a lot like "I believe in this because the voice in my head said it's right."

Sometimes it is hard to take seriously.

If that's how you understand a believers' way of perceiving God, then that's a bit sad, and derogatory.

To be fair, I'm not sure you meant it that way, though.

 

[Roylion]

You make your points strongly, and I can't help feeling that you get annoyed when people don't agree with you.

Rarely. I don't expect people to agree with me. I'm never going to change what a believer thinks. All I can do is post an alternative view and why I hold that view. Sometimes I post a view that I don't wholly agree with myself, just to give the other side of the argument. The public can then decide for themselves.

You certainly have a wealth of intellectual knowledge, and I read your posts with great interest. But I would be shocked if many Christians changed their beliefs because of the results of your research.

I don't expect them to. That's not what I'm trying to do.

Much of what you say is right, in the historical sense. It's just that Christians believe that the bible as we know it has come to us via the workings and direction of the Holy Spirit. Not bound in a black folder with gold print on the cover , but put together in its entirity by the Spirit, over many years of course. To teach us in the theological sense.

That's fine. However I'm an agnostic in terms of "God".

I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena. The Abrahamic religions claim that God (Yahweh) is an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. The Bible also says that mankind is made in God's image. Well of course I reject that. Mankind doesn't know if "God" (as defined above) exists at all, much less what form he/she/it takes. That's not to say "God" may not exist at all. It's that mankind doesn't know. And if mankind doesn't know what's the point of worshipping such an unknown force or deity?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Rarely. I don't expect people to agree with me. I'm never going to change what a believer thinks. All I can do is post an alternative view and why I hold that view. Sometimes I post a view that I don't wholly agree with myself, just to give the other side of the argument. The public can then decide for themselves.



I don't expect them to. That's not what I'm trying to do.



That's fine. However I'm an agnostic in terms of "God".

I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena. The Abrahamic religions claim that God (Yahweh) is an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. The Bible also says that mankind is made in God's image. Well of course I reject that. Mankind doesn't know if "God" (as defined above) exists at all, much less what form he/she/it takes. That's not to say "God" may not exist at all. It's that mankind doesn't know. And if mankind doesn't know what's the point of worshipping such an unknown force or deity?

Again, you make some good points, Roy.

Even the bible says we "look through the glass darkly". I fully concur with that, but I disagree with the idea that the bible is the "full and final reveation of God", as some people claim.

Anyone who believes in an omnipotent God could not think God could be fully contained in the 66 books of the bible!

However, many Christians would claim to know God in the spiritual sense. No-one has seen God, but many would say they know the presence/peace/purposes of God in their lives.

Call it as you see it, I say.

 

[bombermick]

I didn't say that.

I don't get what you meant then. Please elaborate.

 

[Max zero]

If that's how you understand a believers' way of perceiving God, then that's a bit sad, and derogatory.

To be fair, I'm not sure you meant it that way, though.

What other way is there of perceiving God? If you have no physical evidence for God what else have got but the direct personal experience angle?

If you go for the direct personal experience angle what separates you from any random person claiming special knowledge?

 

[Pie eyed]

At one stage, yes I do believe so.

And how has there been no fossils? Having a love for history, I can state with certainty that there have been a fair few archaeological discoveries of what is perceived to be dinosaur remains. The same goes for mammoths.

I wouldn't know for sure what the hell happened to the dinos, being born a fair few millenia afterwards...but from a Biblical perspective, I suspect the flood may have had something to do with it. From a scientific perspective, the Ice Age would be my go.

Whatever happened to them won't affect my faith anyway, though it'd be pretty fascinating if they were still around today.

Do you understand how to do even the most basic research?
How can anyone take a single opinion of yours seriously when you post such stuff?

Honestly, you may well be very young and lead a very sheltered life....but....

You can't state a single word with certainty....sorry....you do not have even a basic grasp of what it is you are talking about.

 

[bombermick]

Agree, Max. Obviously God can't be proven, but there should be strong biological/historical proof of biblical accounts, otherwise it's no different to any other religion.

 

[porksy]

Do you understand how to do even the most basic research?

Yes.

How can anyone take a single opinion of yours seriously when you post such stuff?

That's none of my business.

Honestly, you may well be very young and lead a very sheltered life....but....

You can't state a single word with certainty....sorry....you do not have even a basic grasp of what it is you are talking about.

Instead of pointing the finger, you could have simply listed some back up for yourself as to why I "can't do basic research". By that, I don't mean more finger pointing. I mean factual information that "can be taken seriously".

 

[porksy]

Agree, Max. Obviously God can't be proven, but there should be strong biological/historical proof of biblical accounts, otherwise it's no different to any other religion.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/scientific-accuracy
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/archaeological-finds

 

[Max zero]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/scientific-accuracy
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/archaeological-finds

The Bible never claims to be a science textbook. Nevertheless, the Bible claims to be “true from the beginning” (Psalm 119:160, KJV), so every specific reference about science must be accurate.
Indeed, this is one way the Bible’s authenticity can be tested. Christ Himself, the Word of God who is the author of all Scripture, asserted that we should be able to believe everything He says about earthly things (John 3:12).
Over the centuries the Bible has been rigorously tested for scientific accuracy, and it has never failed. Not only is God’s Word always true; it has proven to be the key to understanding God’s world today!

Never failed? I mean really? Have you even read this thread?

I love the first line in particular: "The Bible is right because it says it's right so therefore it must be right."

 

[Pie eyed]

Yes.


That's none of my business.


Instead of pointing the finger, you could have simply listed some back up for yourself as to why I "can't do basic research". By that, I don't mean more finger pointing. I mean factual information that "can be taken seriously".

Mate the rubbish you posted is so "simple minded" that I am being courteous even responding to you.
I won't waste anymore time even reading the tripe you post.

 

[bombermick]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/scientific-accuracy
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/archaeological-finds

Ah the half-truths of AIG.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.

Yes animals largely stay the same, but there is a whole field of science that contends otherwise - evolutionary biology. It's this hypothesis which meant we now know crows reason, just like us.

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.

Again, partly true. Catrosphe plays a part, but 99% of geologists agree the fossil record documents billions of years of evolution. This is supported by an upward progression in the record, including not a single case of an animal being discovered out of sync to the age it would be expected to be found in (inside the evolutionary timescale).

 

[bombermick]

Mate the rubbish you posted is so "simple minded" that I am being courteous even responding to you.
I won't waste anymore time even reading the tripe you post.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I believed similarly as I would brought up in an evangelical church, before seeing creationism was a load of rubbish.

This says it in a nutshell. "I.D is not science" - Judge John E. Jones (appointed by that ravenous evolutionist, George W. Bush Jnr)

 

[Pie eyed]

Mammoth's are not and never have been dinosaurs.

 

[tesseract]

Tesseract, you haven't even attempted to argue your case. No trying to defend creationism via AIG or quoting scholars who disagree with Roy's position. Paul in Acts defended his faith to the Greeks, but yours looks completely blind. The Bible says so, end of story.

I've deliberately kept my input minimal. I rarely bother with this board anymore due to what the scientific minded folks mean when they want proof of God's existence is for me to not only produce a picture of God and I standing next to each other with an arm wrapped around each others shoulder, but to also get God to accompany me to rock up on said sceptic's door, introduce Him, and then put God to the test by asking Him to perform miracles in front of said sceptic in order to prove Himself as being God almighty. It's truly a waste of time for me to fully argue my case, of which I could fill page after page here. But why would I bother practically writing a book explaining my position to those who don't really care for it, no matter what was said in it, when the bible speaks for me better than I could? Yet, when I've previously introduced scripture quotes, it's scoffed at. Roy and I know each others' position, for this is not the first time we've crossed paths. While Paul defended his position, the bible also advises caution in not doing so in every situation. Matthew 7:6 is something I consider when commenting here.

'Defend your position on BF or I consider your faith blind' sounds like a silly attempt at bait to me. The two are in no way linked, whatsoever. Roy selects scholars who agree with his position, and I could do the very same thing. It'd end up being the same result - pick who you believe.

 

[bombermick]

I know the bible is supposed to prove the Bible, but you need more than that. Unless you can establish its scientific and historical credibility, you won't get this audience to take it seriously. That's what you're trying to do, I assume.

 

[jdisc]

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Which is your right of course but from a non believer's perspective it sounds a lot like "I believe in this because the voice in my head said it's right."

Sometimes it is hard to take seriously.

My point was that your statement re "the voice in my head" suggests believers are mentally ill - schizophrenic, if you want to put a tag on it. That is not particularly helpful.
From a believer's perspective, it's a good reason to stay away from threads like this.

Just phrase your points in a way that doesn't sound like a personal attack.

Not that hard, is it?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Ah, the cynical genius of the BF poster.

Do you guys really wonder why believers rarely bother with the dumb vitriol of this board?



Oh, by the way, well done Ghossein. You are, as thay say in the classics, a star.