Evidence for a god and against a god

[Audie]

Kinda like what people do with the Bible.

Another completely irrelevant and insensible reply.

Or maybe not completely. Everyone who reads the bible
ends up with their own idea of what it means, so I guess
that constitutes making things up. Some do it to a much greater
extent than others but all do it.

 

[rrobs]

Like I dont know that.

I asked about what you call "knowledge".

Are you simply being careless with your vocab,
like when you spoke of science "proving", or
do you just not know any better?

What does any of that have to do with the OP?

 

[rrobs]

No,you did not twist my words, you just made up
something utterly ridiculous.

And of course, made nothing resembling a sensible
response to what I said.

Yes, that is exactly what I did. It's no different than people saying Jesus is God when the actual text says some 50 times he is the son of God. That of course is nothing that resembles sensible. I mean, a son being his own father? Really? They have to do some pretty convoluted word twisting to get that idea.

 

[Audie]

What does any of that have to do with the OP?

Topic drift is hardly new.

You are the one who brought up those things.
Ifn you dont like to be challenged, dont make
specious claims.

 

[rrobs]

Another completely irrelevant and insensible reply.

Or maybe not completely. Everyone who reads the bible
ends up with their own idea of what it means, so I guess
that constitutes making things up. Some do it to a much greater
extent than others but all do it.

I couldn't agree more. But is that necessary? Is there a way to read it and take it for what it says, without going over the deep edge?

 

[Audie]

Yes, that is exactly what I did. It's no different than people saying Jesus is God when the actual text says some 50 times he is the son of God. That of course is nothing that resembles sensible. I mean, a son being his own father? Really? They have to do some pretty convoluted word twisting to get that idea.

Well, never mind the semantics of what is twisting and
what is just making things up. I agree with your figuring
on what people do with the bible.

 

[Audie]

I couldn't agree more. But is that necessary? Is there a way to read it and take it for what it says, without going over the deep edge?

Yes, but you have to be an atheist to actually understand
the bible, imo.

 

[rrobs]

Topic drift is hardly new.

You are the one who brought up those things.
Ifn you dont like to be challenged, dont make
specious claims.

Well, actually I was thinking this was another topic. Cancel my last reply about not being on topic.

btw, thanks for bringing up a new word to me: specious. I had to look it up. Good word.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, but you have to be an atheist to actually understand
the bible, imo.

Interesting idea. Why do you day that? I mean, the book itself makes just the opposite claim (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14,et.al.).

 

[rrobs]

Well, never mind the semantics of what is twisting and
what is just making things up. I agree with your figuring
on what people do with the bible.

When you consider that Jesus is the main character of the story, how could it end up making any sense? After all, there is a huge difference between a god and a man. Seems like if one is mistaken for the other, the rest of the story goes pretty much downhill.

 

[Audie]

Interesting idea. Why do you day that? I mean, the book itself makes just the opposite claim (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14,et.al.).

The book makes a lot of silly claims.

An atheist has a big advantage. For example.
one need not wonder if "genesis" is literal, or
something else.

And actually, once you eliminate all supernatural
claptrap and read those parts as magic realism,
the rest as a semi-historical novel and collected
folk tales / wisdom you are far closer to understanding
it than if you think it is all "god's word", perfect and inviolate.

 

[Audie]

When you consider that Jesus is the main character of the story, how could it end up making any sense? After all, there is a huge difference between a god and a man. Seems like if one is mistaken for the other, the rest of the story goes pretty much downhill.

Pretty much.

 

[rrobs]

The book makes a lot of silly claims.

An atheist has a bid advantage. For example.
one need not wonder if "genesis" is literal, or
something else.

And actually, once you eliminate all supernatural
claptrap and read those parts as magic realism,
the rest as a semi-historical novel and collected
folk tales / wisdom you are far closer to understanding
it than if you think it is all "god's word", perfect and inviolate.

As far as Genesis goes, consider that God had to work with an ancient people with a world view practically 100% diametrically opposed to how we think. I mean, do you suppose they would have understood hydrogen atoms? And yet there is nothing in Genesis that would preclude their existence.

 

[Audie]

As far as Genesis goes, consider that God had to work with an ancient people with a world view practically 100% diametrically opposed to how we think. I mean, do you suppose they would have understood hydrogen atoms? And yet there is nothing in Genesis that would preclude their existence.

I guess I could similarly consider how superman should
protect his secret identity, but, it entertaineth me not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I trust you know that about 1/2 of scientific "knowledge" has been shown to be wrong.

Actually, I don't generally know made-up stats.

When it comes to proving God then, science would have at best a 50-50 chance of getting it right.

Not sure how to even figure out what you're trying to say here or what point you think it's in aid of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hence the need for any serious Bible student to learn how to use a few different Hebrew and Greek language tools. I think maybe you also misunderstand exactly how we got the scriptures, how God inspired all those men to write the message.

I understand it perfectly well. Try reading a bit about the Synod of Hippo.

While your thought experiment is interesting and I have watched all the Star Trek series, I don't think you understood my conclusion.

I understood it; I just disagree with it.

 

[rrobs]

Actually, I don't generally know made-up stats.

What would be the correct figure? If you do even a bit of your own research, you will find "about 1/2" in not too far off the truth, certainly not a made-up stat.

Not sure how to even figure out what you're trying to say here or what point you think it's in aid of.

If science is about 1/2 right and it says anything at all about the Bible, then it follows that it would have a 50-50 chance of being right. In other words, a 1/2 chance of being right is the same as a 50-50 chance of being right.

 

[rrobs]

I understand it perfectly well. Try reading a bit about the Synod of Hippo.

The church was in left field relative to Christian doctrine by the time Hippo came around. Paul told Timothy that pretty much everybody had abandoned him. That was still 1st century, and it is pretty clear the church by then was on a trajectory opposite of that which Paul intended. They abandoned the truth and ended up today in the form of 3,000+ different denominations. Nonetheless, the truth is still written as it was when Paul wrote it. There have always been a few who dared believe the scriptures and not what has become the orthodox church.

I guess all I'm saying is that the Synod of Hippo did nothing to get people back to believe that which Paul said by inspiration of God some 350 years earlier.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The church was in left field relative to Christian doctrine by the time Hippo came around. Paul told Timothy that pretty much everybody had abandoned him. That was still 1st century, and it is pretty clear the church by then was on a trajectory opposite of that which Paul intended. They abandoned the truth and ended up today in the form of 3,000+ different denominations. Nonetheless, the truth is still written as it was when Paul wrote it. There have always been a few who dared believe the scriptures and not what has become the orthodox church.

I guess all I'm saying is that the Synod of Hippo did nothing to get people back to believe that which Paul said by inspiration of God some 350 years earlier.

The Synod of Hippo established - with only slight modifications since then - the Biblical canon, so if it was "in left field relative to Christian doctrine," then the Bible is "in left field" as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would be the correct figure? If you do even a bit of your own research, you will find "about 1/2" in not too far off the truth, certainly not a made-up stat.

If science is about 1/2 right and it says anything at all about the Bible, then it follows that it would have a 50-50 chance of being right. In other words, a 1/2 chance of being right is the same as a 50-50 chance of being right.

It seems like you're trying to imply that it's a bad thing to re-evaluate one's positions as we get better information. Is this what you're going for?