cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Redemptionsong]

Just curious if you ever actually address the content of posts ....

You were on about prayers being answered. I responded to that. You changed the subject.

You were on about eyewitness testimony. I responded to that. You changed the subject.

There is evidence that certain people and places in the Bible actually lived\existed, sure. But there is zero evidence of any of the extraordinary (i.e. supernatural) claims contained therein.

The question you asked was not just about my experience of prayer. But, if you wish to know about my experience of prayer, l am happy to respond.

 

[gnostic]

There is ample historical evidence to support the Bible narrative. In fact, we would have a very poor understanding of the history of lsrael (and many of its ancient neighbours) were it not for the Bible.

The case for the Bible as prophecy lies in the depth and consistency of the message. But only people who have studied the scriptures carefully would know these things. We have the Jews to thank for being the guardians of the oracles of God. IMO.

Actually, history is something that need to be verified either from other external (written) sources or from physical archaeological evidence.

Whether it be written sources or archaeological evidence, verification are only possible if they are “contemporary” or “near-contemporary” to the events as described or narrated in the biblical sources.

But none of the books that narrated from Adam to Solomon are contemporary to these people. Moses supposedly born and died in the Late Bronze Age, more specifically in the late 16th century to late 15th century BCE, supposedly wrote 4 of the 5 books attributed to him - Genesis, Exodus, Numbers & Leviticus - and yet not a single book exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1570 - c 1050 BCE). There are also contemporary book of Joshua, supposedly written by Joshua.

None of these works (or sources) existed until the late 7th century BCE and 6th century BCE.

Plus, if Moses did write both Genesis and Exodus, why is it that, Moses cannot name a single Egyptian king that were contemporary to when he was born (Exodus 1 & 2) and before he left Egypt with his people (Exodus 12:37); Moses also couldn’t names the kings of Egypt, when Abraham was in Egypt and when Jacob and Jospeh were n Egypt.

If Moses had been able even one of these kings in either Genesis or Exodus, then and only then would the Bible’s so-called “history” have some credibilities.

But no contemporary Egyptian records have recorded the names of Abraham, Joseph or Moses.

The only times, where you get confirmation on history of Israel and Judah, are that we can match the Hebrew names of rulers (2 Kings) with kings of Egypt or kings of Assyria, contemporarily.

But even then, a large part of Kings were written after prominent Jews of Jerusalem were exiled to Babylon, so the books of Kings weren’t written contemporary to centuries of kings in Israel and in Judah.

And just because some names in Kings matched with the Assyrian records, the stories of miracles associated with prophets (eg Elijah, Elisha) cannot be verified, as none of the prophets do not exist in any Assyrian sources.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Actually, history is something that need to be verified either from other external (written) sources or from physical archaeological evidence.

Whether it be written sources or archaeological evidence, verification are only possible if they are “contemporary” or “near-contemporary” to the events as described or narrated in the biblical sources.

But none of the books that narrated from Adam to Solomon are contemporary to these people. Moses supposedly born and died in the Late Bronze Age, more specifically in the late 16th century to late 15th century BCE, supposedly wrote 4 of the 5 books attributed to him - Genesis, Exodus, Numbers & Leviticus - and yet not a single book exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1570 - c 1050 BCE). There are also contemporary book of Joshua, supposedly written by Joshua.

None of these works (or sources) existed until the late 7th century BCE and 6th century BCE.

Plus, if Moses did write both Genesis and Exodus, why is it that, Moses cannot name a single Egyptian king that were contemporary to when he was born (Exodus 1 & 2) and before he left Egypt with his people (Exodus 12:37); Moses also couldn’t names the kings of Egypt, when Abraham was in Egypt and when Jacob and Jospeh were n Egypt.

If Moses had been able even one of these kings in either Genesis or Exodus, then and only then would the Bible’s so-called “history” have some credibilities.

But no contemporary Egyptian records have recorded the names of Abraham, Joseph or Moses.

The only times, where you get confirmation on history of Israel and Judah, are that we can match the Hebrew names of rulers (2 Kings) with kings of Egypt or kings of Assyria, contemporarily.

But even then, a large part of Kings were written after prominent Jews of Jerusalem were exiled to Babylon, so the books of Kings weren’t written contemporary to centuries of kings in Israel and in Judah.

And just because some names in Kings matched with the Assyrian records, the stories of miracles associated with prophets (eg Elijah, Elisha) cannot be verified, as none of the prophets do not exist in any Assyrian sources.

Moses was not writing a history, but revealing the Word of God. It just happens that Moses supplies us with enough historical information in his prophecies to enable men to look further at the material evidence and determine for themselves whether the information is accurate.

If your case against the accuracy of the historical record in the Bible was to be upheld, then it would have to be upheld by more recent archaeology in lsrael. At present, there are hundreds of archaeological sites in Israel, and none of them, to my knowledge, undermine or contradict the Biblical account. So, if the more recent findings are accurate, there is no justification to doubting the accounts of the ancient past. One prophetic account leads seamlessly into another.

History and geography provide the framework for the prophetic word, and of course, we cannot be certain, based on historical accounts, that words spoken, or miracles performed, actually matched reality. But, what your verification tests fail to account for is the possibility that faith pleases God, and that faith brings about God's intervention in human affairs. This is, if you hadn't noticed, the message that God makes plain throughout the Bible. Paul describes faith as 'the evidence of things not seen'.

How can you hope to gain personal knowledge about God and his works without faith?

The humanist invariable thinks of faith as existing in the absence of reason, but this, too, is nonsense. Reason is applied where reason is applicable. Faith is applied to those areas of life that cannot be seen, measured or tested, and especially to God.

In the Bible, the Psalmist [of Psalms 14 and 53] calls the atheist 'a fool' because he has failed to see that the visible world is built upon the invisible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I rely on the evidence supplied by historians, and other scholars, to reach my belief that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066.

And that evidence consists of many corroborating, independent and contemporary records and artefacts.

But it remains a belief and not a proof

"Proof" only really exists in mathematics.
Beliefs can be rationally justified or not. To say that a belief based on evidence is "equal" to a belief based on mere faith, is what-I-can-only-call intellectually dishonest.

No. Faith-based beliefs and evidence-based beliefs, are not the same thing.

This is why the battle of Hastings belief is also called "knowledge" concerning history, while religion is only a "belief".

Logic states clearly that proof is only arrived at by deduction, not inference.

There is no such thing as "proof" in the natural or historical sciences.
You keep mixing things up.

Science doesn't deal in proof.
Faith-based beliefs are not equal to evidence-based beliefs.

Just as l believe there is good evidence for the battle of Hastings, l believe there is good evidence for the Bible being the Word of God.

And that belief is not supportable with evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's not drag a third party into this debate! Tell me about your experience, and l will tell you about mine. We actually have no way of knowing what goes through someone else's mind.

Have you ever sought Jesus Christ in faith?

Notice how you try your best to talk exclusively about first person anecdotes.
This, to me, is a sign that one knows that what one is trying to sell is really a scam.

When I would want to argue for gravity, I would have no need to keep the scope of discussion limited to my "personal experience" of that single apple that fell on my head years ago.

The reason is simple. Things that are real have manifestation in the real world. And one doesn't require others to "just believe" one's anecdotes about it. Instead, it can be independently verified, simply by checking those manifestations in reality of the thing, which would occur regardless of one's "testimony".

Off course, you can't do such with things that have no manifestation in reality.
And things that have no manifestation in reality, are things about which I would say that they don't seem to exist.

Non-existent things have no manifestation in reality.
I know of no thing that demonstrably exists that has no manifestation in reality.
If such things do exist, then they are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.
And because of that, they are also completely irrelevant, since they have no role in anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is ample historical evidence to support the Bible narrative.

Such as? Don't just claim it. Show it.

In fact, we would have a very poor understanding of the history of lsrael (and many of its ancient neighbours) were it not for the Bible.

Errr... the history of Israel, and the entire region in fact, derived through good ol' archeology, does not match the OT narrative of the bible. At all.

The case for the Bible as prophecy lies in the depth and consistency of the message.

Funny how only believers of the bible tend to think those "prophecies" are accurate. Funny also how followers of other, mutually exclusive, religions don't believe in biblical "prophecies", but do believe in their own "prophecies". While the christians don't believe those prophecies.

It seems as if only believers of the specific religion are able to "recognize" the "prophecies" of those respective religions. Odd, isn't it?


Conversely, it's not odd at all if one considers that belief in prophecies is just part of the religious beliefs...
All these things are believed religiously.

But only people who have studied the scriptures carefully would know these things.

Is it? It rather seems to me that only people who are christians, believe it.
Many people have studied the scriptures very carefully. Ignoring all those that don't share your belief and only point at those that do, is not a good way to argue your case.

We have the Jews to thank for being the guardians of the oracles of God. IMO.

If you say so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At present, there are hundreds of archaeological sites in Israel, and none of them, to my knowledge, undermine or contradict the Biblical account.

Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society

Did the Old Testament Conquest of Canaan Really Happen? (thenotsoinnocentsabroad.com)


Israelites were never massively enslaved in Egypt.
Exodus didn't occur.
Israelites never "invaded and conquered" Canaan.

Instead, Israelites ARE Canaanites.
The whole thing is ancient Israeli myth / propaganda.
Not that different from ancient Rome's origin story of Remus and Romulus, supposed founders of Rome, supposedly having been raised by a shewolf.

History and geography provide the framework for the prophetic word

Is that why the bible places camels in the southern levant about 1000 years before they actually arrived there? That's not a small error.

But, what your verification tests fail to account for is the possibility that faith pleases God, and that faith brings about God's intervention in human affairs. This is, if you hadn't noticed, the message that God makes plain throughout the Bible. Paul describes faith as 'the evidence of things not seen'.

That Paul quote says it all, doesn't it?
Tell me, how is that different from mere gullibility?

How can you hope to gain personal knowledge about God and his works without faith?

The same way I gain knowledge about anything.
Through reason and evidence.

"just believing" something results in (unjustified) belief. Not in knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable.
As the saying goes: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"

The humanist invariable thinks of faith as existing in the absence of reason, but this, too, is nonsense.

People like you keep saying it's nonsense. But every time they try to explain how that "faith" works, they demonstrate otherwise. Just read the Paul quote again. There you go.

Reason is applied where reason is applicable. Faith is applied to those areas of life that cannot be seen, measured or tested, and especially to God.

When reason isn't applicable, it means one is dealing with nonsense or things that aren't real.
When reason isn't applicable, then only the unreasonable remains.

So you literally seem to be saying here that your case requires being unreasonable.

In the Bible, the Psalmist [of Psalms 14 and 53] calls the atheist 'a fool' because he has failed to see that the visible world is built upon the invisible.

"fool" is not how I would describe someone who refuses to accept things without evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The question you asked was not just about my experience of prayer. But, if you wish to know about my experience of prayer, l am happy to respond.

My question dealt directly with the implications about the claim you made about your prayer being answered immediately.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society

Did the Old Testament Conquest of Canaan Really Happen? (thenotsoinnocentsabroad.com)


Israelites were never massively enslaved in Egypt.
Exodus didn't occur.
Israelites never "invaded and conquered" Canaan.

Instead, Israelites ARE Canaanites.
The whole thing is ancient Israeli myth / propaganda.
Not that different from ancient Rome's origin story of Remus and Romulus, supposed founders of Rome, supposedly having been raised by a shewolf.



Is that why the bible places camels in the southern levant about 1000 years before they actually arrived there? That's not a small error.




That Paul quote says it all, doesn't it?
Tell me, how is that different from mere gullibility?



The same way I gain knowledge about anything.
Through reason and evidence.

"just believing" something results in (unjustified) belief. Not in knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable.
As the saying goes: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"



People like you keep saying it's nonsense. But every time they try to explain how that "faith" works, they demonstrate otherwise. Just read the Paul quote again. There you go.



When reason isn't applicable, it means one is dealing with nonsense or things that aren't real.
When reason isn't applicable, then only the unreasonable remains.

So you literally seem to be saying here that your case requires being unreasonable.



"fool" is not how I would describe someone who refuses to accept things without evidence.

I'm not averse to reasoning, but I'm quite convinced that reasoning does not bring us closer to understanding all the realities of life.

You appear to think that reasoning answers all the questions of life. Yet, if reasoning was that effective, there would be a consensus of opinion on how to solve the problems of life. If reasoning could provide a unifying answer, then there would be peace and harmony amongst the peoples of the world.

Can you explain to me why people do not concur, and reach the same conclusions, if reason is the only path to truth?

 

[Redemptionsong]

My question dealt directly with the implications about the claim you made about your prayer being answered immediately.

You are asking me to make judgements about people I do not know. That is the implication of your question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are asking me to make judgements about people I do not know. That is the implication of your question.

Nope, I'm not doing that.
I'm asking you to explain how you think prayer works and why.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not averse to reasoning, but I'm quite convinced that reasoning does not bring us closer to understanding all the realities of life.

How does that make any sense whatsoever?

You appear to think that reasoning answers all the questions of life. Yet, if reasoning was that effective, there would be a consensus of opinion on how to solve the problems of life. If reasoning could provide a unifying answer, then there would be peace and harmony amongst the peoples of the world.

Can you explain to me why people do not concur, and reach the same conclusions, if reason is the only path to truth?

Because a lot of people aren't actually reasonable.

Reason is a much better path to truth and knowledge than faith, which is the excuse people giving for believing something when they don't have good evidence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

How does that make any sense whatsoever?


Because a lot of people aren't actually reasonable.

Reason is a much better path to truth and knowledge than faith, which is the excuse people giving for believing something when they don't have good evidence.

Once again, you're trying to apply reason to things outside the realm of reason.

Reasoning of the sort that you encourage is totally dependent on the five senses; and the five senses are totally dependent on sense data from the material universe.

If I said that my heart was was full of the love of God, it would be meaningless to a person who did not understand the Spirit. God is not observable, and love, as a spiritual force, is not knowable by the five senses.

Does this mean that you know nothing about love?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Nope, I'm not doing that.
I'm asking you to explain how you think prayer works and why.

I think prayer works when God recognises righteousness in a man's heart. It says in Romans 8:14, 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God'. I have no reason to believe a faithful son of God would not be heard by his heavenly Father.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, you're trying to apply reason to things outside the realm of reason.

Nothing is outside the realm of reason.

Reasoning of the sort that you encourage is totally dependent on the five senses; and the five senses are totally dependent on sense data from the material universe.

We have more than five senses.

If I said that my heart was was full of the love of God, it would be meaningless to a person who did not understand the Spirit. God is not observable, and love, as a spiritual force, is not knowable by the five senses.

Does this mean that you know nothing about love?

Love is not a "spiritual force. It's the result of brain chemistry. It's a feeling or emotion that human beings experience with their brains and senses.
Hearts pump blood. So yeah, your heart being full of the love of god doesn't make much sense.

The rest of this is just claims, not in evidence. There is no evidence of spirits, so what's to understand? Oh wait, is this the part where I'm supposed to throw reasoning to the wind?
No thanks. I like believing in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible. Reasoning helps me with that. Faith doesn't, because anything can be believed on faith. And apparently is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think prayer works when God recognises righteousness in a man's heart. It says in Romans 8:14, 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God'. I have no reason to believe a faithful son of God would not be heard by his heavenly Father.

Ah, so all those starving kids across the globe praying everyday for food and not getting it just aren't righteous enough. But that guy in Florida praying for his mortgage payment to come through, now he's righteous enough!

Ugh.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing is outside the realm of reason.
...

Evidence please. Sorry, but I have never seen positive evidence for that. I have seen a lot of negative results trying to do it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Nothing is outside the realm of reason.


We have more than five senses.


Love is not a "spiritual force. It's the result of brain chemistry. It's a feeling or emotion that human beings experience with their brains and senses.
Hearts pump blood. So yeah, your heart being full of the love of god doesn't make much sense.

The rest of this is just claims, not in evidence. There is no evidence of spirits, so what's to understand? Oh wait, is this the part where I'm supposed to throw reasoning to the wind?
No thanks. I like believing in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible. Reasoning helps me with that. Faith doesn't, because anything can be believed on faith. And apparently is.

Well, faith is a response to love. Maybe you haven't noticed this, but animals consistently respond to human love with their trust.

Do you not apply trust in your relationships? Or, do you go into the laboratory and test for chemical levels to determine whether you love someone?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence please. Sorry, but I have never seen positive evidence for that. I have seen a lot of negative results trying to do it.

You've seen negative results from reasoning? Do tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, faith is a response to love. Maybe you haven't noticed this, but animals consistently respond to human love with their trust.

Do you not apply trust in your relationships? Or, do you go into the laboratory and test for chemical levels to determine whether you love someone?

But that is not evidence of your God. That is evidence of my God, because I am honest, trusted and respected. I am the final evidence and I trust that, so I can't be wrong. And if you try to show that, you are from the Devil, so be gone.