Evidence for YHWH that is not evidence for the IPU

[Master Vigil]

Where do you get these ideas? That is totally false. Someone is decieving you, my friend.

:banghead3 Woah, second time I've used that smiley.

The bible cannot be used to prove what the bible says is true.

"Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises"

This is a logical fallacy - you do know what fallacy means right? It means false. When you try to prove what is written in the bible to be true by using the bible you are basing the truth of your conclusion on an assumption that the bible is true. Since this hasn't been proven, (history doesn't have any bearing on the metaphysical claims) your conclusion is also based on an assumption and is therefore invalid, and false.

Have you found statistics on the total number of biblical prophecies, and the number of them that have actually been true? That is your best bet, why you keep losing sight of that I'll never know. But the bible cannot be used to prove that yahweh is god, anymore than it can be proved that the IPU is god. You will be lucky enough with your prophecy argument to atleast argue validly for the existence of the "uncommon ability" in which you call supernatural. But this does not come close to prove the existence of one god over another another.

 

[No*s]

Some people want us to believe that all 5,306 manuscripts that disagree with the "minority text" are corrupt and that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are as pure as the wind driven snow.

There is a problem with that however. These two Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone. Anytime you are dealing with the Alexandrian texts, you are dealing with corrupted texts. They are the Gnostic gospels, which the Bible warns against the Gnostic teachings. These were corrupted to support the Arian dogma. These texts are not valid to begin with. It is the "Majority Text" that makes up our Bible, and this includes the King James Version and the New King James Version. Most other versions are from the Alexandrian texts and so, therefore, not even reliable. There is evidence of at least three copyists tampering with the text.

I'm going to throw down the gauntlet on this. I can't do it in this thread and remain on-topic, but I'm quite certain you've been misinformed on these things. Here's a thread on the subject.

I like discussing the biblical text, and I'm kind of a stickler on getting stuff like this right .

 

[Lightkeeper]

Now you know how an atheist feels constantly confronted with "God".

If you don't want to be confronted with God, then why do you hand out at a religious forum?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*likes everyone that hangs out at RF, no matter what their belief*

 

[Mister Emu]

When you try to prove what is written in the bible to be true by using the bible you are basing the truth of your conclusion on an assumption that the bible is true. Since this hasn't been proven, (history doesn't have any bearing on the metaphysical claims) your conclusion is also based on an assumption and is therefore invalid, and false.

MV,

Being true in some parts lends credence to the idea that it is true in others, no?

One person continually lies. Another consistantly tells the truth.

On a question of supreme importance which would you go to?

 

[Master Vigil]

No, I am trying to prove what is written in the Bible to be true by using HISTORY. I am basing the 'truth of my conclusion' on an assumption that HISTORY is true.

Remember? When history took the stand?

But also remember, just because the history is correct does not necessitate the metaphysical claims of the bible are as well. Remember me eating IPU cereal with my ridgeback dragon?? You can use history to prove that the bible is accurate in portraying history. But even still, if you read an american history book, compared to a european history book. World war 2 is discussed quite differently. Just because the history is true, does not necessitate that the bible can be used to prove god exists.

 

[Master Vigil]

MV,

Being true in some parts lends credence to the idea that it is true in others, no?

No. I don't care that if "may" be true. It can't be proven true. Saying that I must be eating IPU cereal with my pet ridgeback dragon simply because I am indeed in said place at said time is not logically sound, valid, or true. Saying yahweh exists simply because the bible is mostly historically accurate is not logically sound, valid, or true.

One person continually lies. Another consistantly tells the truth.

On a question of supreme importance which would you go to?

Schizophrenics claim their hallucinations are real, are they lying? No, but does that mean their hallucinations really exist? Saying the bible is inerrant simply because is has some truth in it logically falls short.

 

[Master Vigil]

Also, to allow the history to prove the existence of yahweh, you also have to allow the history in other religions to be proof of their gods existing. Are you willing to do that?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I see your point. Let me submit some additional testimony to support Peters claim:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

God-breathed means that God used men to write His words for Him. So while the men did the writing, Peter is saying that God is the true author. So he is speaking for the author when he makes his claim.

This is precisely the problem, Limbo: you have assumed, not substantiated, that Peter is speaking for the author. Peter claims to be speaking for YHWH (the author). It is this claim that is in dispute.

My point with this thread is basically that the same use of vague prophesies, loose interpretations, and low standards for evidence of miracles could prove Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Greek religion, Religious Daoism, etc. The IPU is thrown in there to counter the argument that the miracles/prophesies of other religions are true, but incorrectly ascribed to gods other than YHWH. (In that case, I argue that they were actually incorrectly ascribed to gods other than the IPU.)

Well, first it wasn't against contemporary knowledge, but Jesus was born according to the scriptures, so yes, it did prove out in the end.

The most frustrating thing when you evade my questions is that I can never decide whether to do this :banghead3 or this :bonk: . Here's the question, again: I mentioned the stoning of adulterers earlier, but you chose to ignore it. Did that law "prove out in the end" despite defying contemporary knowledge? If laws that do "prove out in the end" are evidence of YHWH's existence, aren't laws that don't "prove out in the end" evidence of His nonexistence? It appears you are putting your selection bias to good use here.

There wasn't a concept of "microbes" back then. That's what's so remarkable Spinks.

That's not remarkable at all, NetDoc. Quite the contrary, in fact...without microscopes, it's not surprising at all that the Hebrews knew nothing of microbes. If, however, the ancient Hebrews had known about viruses, bacteria, etc. back then--without access to microscopes--that would seem like pretty good evidence that their knowledge came from a divine source. Alas, you interpret everything as 'remarkable': it's remarkable that Hebrews appeared to know that cleanliness prevented disease, and it's remarkable that they were ignorant of microbes. Then, when I point out that the ancient Egyptians did brain surgery, you respond--predictably, I'm afraid--by downplaying what was truly a remarkable achievement:

"Sure they did brain surgery, and I am sure that the patient died of an infection afterwards."

Tsk, tsk. :tsk:

The Scripture from I Peter applies to ALL scripture, contrary to what you said. Why? Because it said it did. Read it again and see if you see it this time.

Yes, Peter claims that it applies to ALL scripture, but I am disputing that claim. Merely claiming it doesn't make it true. *Gasp!*

 

[Master Vigil]

Limbo, you're not understanding. First off, his name is Sp inkles, No "r".

And secondly, why are still going on about this history stuff? It proves nothing, have you been reading my posts?? Whether your history makes it more likely yahweh exists than the IPU proves absolutely nothing. One can claim that the IPU made it that way because she wished to keep herself completely invisible until modern times, so she made it so people attributed all the miracles to a god that doesn't exist. There is countless history that discusses unicorns, fairies, goblins, and counltess other gods. There is actually more history discussing them then there is discussing yahweh, so by your own argument you are proving that it is more likely that pagan gods exist than yahweh. Discussing god is not a business of "likelihood." Just because something is likely to exist, is NOT proof of said things existence. Please Limbo, are you reading this?? If you don't believe in the IPU, or any other gods, you see why athiests don't believe in your god. (Even though, as you helped point out, historically there is more evidence for them. Thank you for that. )

 

[Pah]

Mr_Sprinkles,

I love sprinkles on donuts...and I'm sure you do to. As one sprinkle lover to another I'm asking you to understand what I'm trying to do here.

I'm trying to show you that your assumptions: (particularly #1)

IPU satire Assumption 1: there is no evidence of God.
IPU satire Assumption 2: there is no evidence of an IPU.
IPU satire Assumption 3: any arguement applicable to #1 is also applicable to #2.

are LESS LIKELY than my assumptions:

My Assumption 1: there is evidence of God
My Assumption 2: there is no evidence of an IPU
My Assumption 3: arguements applicable to #1 are not applicable #2

If there is even ONE instance of historical fact which even remotely suggests the existance of God, then MY assumptions have more validity than your assumptions.

I appeal to your common sence...not to mention your reading comprehension.

You want me to base all my arguements on your IPU assumptions. I want us to first determine who's assumptions are more likely to be correct. There is a difference between proving something is true, and proving something is more likely.

Mr_Sprinkles, all viewpoints, at some point, boil down to assumptions. Even ours. I prefer to base my views (and arguements) on likely assumptions.

Meet me halfway.

First of all, "evidence" is merely an observation. That it occurrs in history does not grant "truth" to the evidence. Methods of validating evidence are given and discussed in the article Epistemology - Criteria of Truth http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35.

It is wrong to say there is NO evidence of Her Holiness. The very fact of this discussion is evidence. The fact that there are several "followers" of our blessed IPU is evidence. There is evidence of our spititual mistress in the symbols of her counternance. These things exist! and many more!

Anybody's assumptions are tested by the evaluation standards of in Epistemology. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing, in those standards of truth can be applied for (or against) God without the same type of evidence that witnesses to Her Holiness.

Sadly, the standards that the IPU (and God) meet are poor indications of truth.

 

[Pah]

You are wrong. It makes it more likely that God exists than the IPU exists. Which is my point.

You say that and provide nothing to back it up. Why is God more likely!!! Assumption is a form of truth and that CAN be judged

 

[Pah]

The testimony of historical evidence is why in a nutshell. External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--is a trustworthy historical document. ..., I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy."

While the Bible has value as history it in no way confirms the stories surrounding the places that have been discovered and confirmed.

There are hundreds of specific prophecies in the Bible which have been literally fulfilled, in many cases centuries after the completion of the Bible. Any attempt to late-date these prophecies is impossible--there is a copy of every Old Testament book but one from before 150 BC, and hundreds of these prophecies were not fulfilled until centuries later. For a detailed discussion of this area, see Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

I have McDowell's revision, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict There is no prophecy from the Old Testament that is confirmed in the New Testament. I beleive there is a thread that discusses that opinion.

The historical evidence clearly shows that the Bbele is a reliable historical document. Since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).

The fallacy of this argument is called an appeal to authority. History does absolutely nothing for the veracity of revelation. Both history and revelation are very poor standards of truth.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Historically speaking the Bible comes out ahead.

I'm sorry, Limbo, but you're a long way from convincing me that because, for example, the Hittite civilization existed, it makes talking snakes, cursed fig trees, and virgin births likely to be true. This very same reasoning should also lead you to conclude that, because the city of Troy and numerous other things turned out to be historical in The Iliad, the Greek gods also exist. This is the double-standard I'm talking about, and which is implied in the Stephen Roberts quote from the OP....you dismiss all the other gods so easily, holding them to higher standards of evidence than your god.

Let me respond to the particular post you addressed to me later.

 

[Pah]

That is one way of looking at it. But we are, according to the OP, looking at it in terms of the IPU satire. In that light, even a very poor standard of real truth is infinitely more than can be shown, in real terms, for the IPU.

You have not shown that to be true. You have not shown "real" truth about your God nor have you shown ANY DIFFERENCE between your God and the IPU

It's like comparing apples to oranges.

And you will find that they are both fruit grown on trees. I do appreciate the difference in flavour but you do not seem to grasp the common "truths"

Remember, the IPU satire states that there is no basis for Christianity other than faith. Just like there is no basis for the IPU, other than the mock faith they place in it. All I am trying to do is show that there is a basis for Christianity other than faith.

But you have not shown anything of value that can judge the truth of your statement.

Philosophically and logically the belief in a 'higher power' is more valid to me than Atheism.

Why? Present evidence, other than your say-so, that your higher power is more valid than atheism

Scientifically it seems like a stalemate...and is likely to seem a stalemate indefinetly.
Historically speaking the Bible comes out ahead.

I would not say that science will be indefinetely lacking in proof -m at least not the implication your seem to be making. Science changes, corrects itself and forges ahead into new unkowns. God is sadly lacking in that progress.

Historically, what comes out ahead? The bible is an attested document much the same way all the usenet posts are documents of the IPU. The age of the Bible does not make it true and the original authors are not known. The documentation for the IPU can be identified by author and place and time of writing - not so the Bible. Your attachment to the Bible seems to be a circular argument

Seems to be that if you look at the big picture that the Bible comes out ahead. Or, at least, a higher power. Faith really doesn't play a part. For me, anyway.

Your leap to a higher power is an act of faith.

 

[Master Vigil]

We invoke the IPU to do exactly what you said. To bring the argument for god into the realm of assumption, which is WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!!! We aren't here to prove the existence of IPU. We are here to prove that the same evidence (assumptions) that are used for god, can be used for the IPU.

If you think you're going to prove the existence of god by using assumptions, read this first...

An assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.

Therefore to have an assumption in your premise (even if valid), makes your conclusion an assumption and thus false (even if valid). Perhaps you don't understand the difference between valid and true. Lets take a simple standard syllogism here...

This argument is valid, and true...

All horses are animals,
All colts are horses,
Therefore all colts are animals.

This argument is valid, but NOT true...

All supernatural beings are gods,
Some supernatural beings are lions,
Therefore some lions are gods.

The first line is what makes the argument crumble to pieces. The syllogism is a valid AII-3 syllogism, but it isn't true. Why? Because the first premise is based on an assumption.
Could some lions be gods?? Sure, but that does not prove that some are. So even your ability to prove likelihood, doesn't prove a thing.

 

[Master Vigil]

I am truly sorry if you are unable to see the logical flaw inherent in the IPU satire. I'm sorry if I'm unable to make it clear to you. All I can do is warn you about the foolishness of using the IPU satire to shield yourself from your own faulty assumptions and misconceptions.

And I am truely sorry if you are unable to see the logical flaw inherent in the "god" satire. And I am DEEPLY sorry that I cannot make it clear to you. All I can do is warn you about the foolishness of using faulty assumptions to prove fact.

 

[Master Vigil]

Lets see how many fallacies the argument for god falls under...

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. - Since the church is the authority on God, and says its true, it must be true.

Fallacy of Appeal to Belief - Since many people believe in God, it must be true.

Fallacy of Appeal to Consequence of Belief - God must exist, because if it does, there are positive consequences.

Fallacy of Appeal to emotion - Belief in god makes me happy, so god must exist.

Fallacy of Appeal to fear - Without god, the universe has no purpose. Therefore god must exist.

Fallacy of Appeal to Appeal to Novelty - Yahweh was a new idea, therefore Yahweh is better or more correct than other gods.

Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity - Well, the majority of humans believe in a god, therefore it must be true.

Fallacy of Appeal to tradition - Belief in god is old and traditional, therefore it is correct to believe in god.

Fallacy of Consequence and Cause - The bible and god are always intertwined, therefore god wrote the bible.

Fallacy of False Dilemma - Either god exists, or the IPU exists, well the IPU exists so god must exist.

Fallacy of Genetics - I was brought up to believe in god, therefore god exists.

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization - Part of the bible is true (HISTORY!!!!!!), so all of the bible is true. And if all of the bible is true, god must exist.

Fallacy of Poisoning the well - Athiests are evil people, therefore god must exist.

 

[Master Vigil]

I accepted the burden of proving that the same evidence (historical) for God, can't be used for the IPU.

And I keep telling you, that history CANNOT be used as evidence for god. Why you still keep thinking it can is beyond me.

 

[Master Vigil]

Each and everyone of these is a load of cr*p. I've seen this stuff on the net and it's all mistakes, bias, false logic and misconceptions. Is this the stuff you "assume" is true?

It's true some of them are just models of other fallacies. But they are all logical fallacies. Since you see them as crap leads me to believe you have not studied any logic at all.