• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The odds of a Shakespearian sonnet

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Which teachings are those? This whole tangent started when I pointed out that the Bible is so contradictory and ambiguous that Christians can't even agree on what "the Bible's teachings" are.

My question was: "How does people disagreeing over the Bible validate or invalidate the Bible's teachings?"

I find the Bible unambiguous, especially since I notice that skeptics always disagree with Christian teaching. ;)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'm simply pointing out that to be real is to have objective existence, to exist in nature / reality / the realm of the physical sciences. Nothing false about that equivalence. The alternative is to say that the imaginary is, of itself, real ─ and it's not.
"I sometimes win at chess" is a true statement, given I say it. "The moon sometimes appears to have a reddish tinge" is a true statement by anyone.

I'd say that ─

'true justice' was justice that conformed to whatever definition of justice you and I had agreed on in advance;

'true math' was EITHER mathematics of a kind recognized by the best regarded of our mathematicians, OR, any mathematical operation correctly carried out according to the conventions of that recognized field of mathematics; and

'true logic' was in parallel with 'true math'.

BUT I'm still waiting for your definition of 'truth'. What is it?

True--something that is consistently true, with no falsity.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
We've covered this at length already, and you chose not to address my rebuttal except to repeat yourself without addressing the specific points made. Whenever this happens, the discussion hits an impasse.

If I tell you that I disagree with you due to reason A, and you merely repeat yourself rather than explaining why you reject point A, the discussion has stalled. I feel no need to repeat myself with an identical rebuttal to an identical claim already rebutted.

I've discussed the difference between faith (unjustified belief) and justified belief multiple times,and discussed the relationship of those phrases with concepts like trust and confidence. I don't intend to repeat myself again.

You've not once been willing to discuss such distinction. I have nothing more to say until you do. My former argument still stands, as yet unrebutted.



No, I did not have faith in church folks then or now.



Newborn babies are sometimes girls. Is that not a true statement?

The statement "Newborn babies are sometimes girls" is always true unless we abort all female conceptions. The statement itself is not "sometimes" true or "subjectively" true.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
My question was: "How does people disagreeing over the Bible validate or invalidate the Bible's teachings?"
And my answer, effectively, was that you'd need to figure out what "the Bible's teachings" are before we could decide whether they're valid or not.

I find the Bible unambiguous, especially since I notice that skeptics always disagree with Christian teaching. ;)
Really?

Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

How many women went to Jesus's tomb when they discovered it empty?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And my answer, effectively, was that you'd need to figure out what "the Bible's teachings" are before we could decide whether they're valid or not.


Really?

Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

How many women went to Jesus's tomb when they discovered it empty?


A lot of Christian teachings are the same as
what is taught in different cultures around the world.

The idea that skeptics always disagree is just silly.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True--something that is consistently true, with no falsity.
But you still haven't told me your definition of truth, which you need before you can say anything is false.

And as I said at the start of this conversation, the definition of truth is basic here, and underlies any discussion of religion.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And my answer, effectively, was that you'd need to figure out what "the Bible's teachings" are before we could decide whether they're valid or not.


Really?

Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

How many women went to Jesus's tomb when they discovered it empty?

And this is why skeptics' biases disallow correct understanding of the Bible. Like I've never heard your question before! Like a child couldn't respond, "one angel was the spokesperson, the other was silent," or "two angels were there, one left".

Sad.

Oh, wait, your "contradiction" completely undid thousands of verses showing God knows everything about human behavior, family structure, money management and wisdom, as well as the redemptive death of and love of Christ. Sigh.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
But you still haven't told me your definition of truth, which you need before you can say anything is false.

And as I said at the start of this conversation, the definition of truth is basic here, and underlies any discussion of religion.

Thanks. While truth has dictionary definition of "the quality or state of being true", I find that truth is a person, Jesus Christ. Whatever He says, thinks and does is wholly true.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thanks. While truth has dictionary definition of "the quality or state of being true", I find that truth is a person, Jesus Christ. Whatever He says, thinks and does is wholly true.
But that definition is meaningless. (And is subject to many questions of truth (ie conformity with reality) itself, such as the existence of an historical Jesus at all, the actual authorship of the words attributed to him in the NT, and the errors and self-contradictions in those words.)

And being meaningless as a definition of truth, it provides no test we can use to determine whether such statements as "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" are true or false.

So I ask you again for your definition of truth, and please accompany it with a demonstration of how it shows whether "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is true or not.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
But that definition is meaningless. (And is subject to many questions of truth (ie conformity with reality) itself, such as the existence of an historical Jesus at all, the actual authorship of the words attributed to him in the NT, and the errors and self-contradictions in those words.)

And being meaningless as a definition of truth, it provides no test we can use to determine whether such statements as "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" are true or false.

So I ask you again for your definition of truth, and please accompany it with a demonstration of how it shows whether "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is true or not.

I can't understand why I can find a similar "meaningless" definition in multiple dictionaries online?

"Pierre is a capital city" is not a lying statement. Pierre is indeed the capital of South Dakota. Truth is not a lie and lies are separate from truth.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Pierre is a capital city" is not a lying statement. Pierre is indeed the capital of South Dakota.
And that's because when we look at the definition of 'capital city' and at the existence of Pierre, South Dakota, and at the status of Pierre, we find that the statement conforms with objective reality.

So now we agree that truth is in fact conformity with objective reality.

And that your 'Jesus is truth' notion provides no alternative method by which we could have determined the truth of our statement, and is indeed useless when we need to distinguish what statements are true from what statements are false.

We can now move on to examine the idea of gods at all.

Can you give me a definition of 'God' such that anyone who found a real candidate (ie one with objective existence, not imaginary) could tell whether it were God or not? As I've previously mentioned, I've never heard of such a definition. Yet without one, neither you nor I know what real thing we're talking about.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And that's because when we look at the definition of 'capital city' and at the existence of Pierre, South Dakota, and at the status of Pierre, we find that the statement conforms with objective reality.

So now we agree that truth is in fact conformity with objective reality.

And that your 'Jesus is truth' notion provides no alternative method by which we could have determined the truth of our statement, and is indeed useless when we need to distinguish what statements are true from what statements are false.

We can now move on to examine the idea of gods at all.

Can you give me a definition of 'God' such that anyone who found a real candidate (ie one with objective existence, not imaginary) could tell whether it were God or not? As I've previously mentioned, I've never heard of such a definition. Yet without one, neither you nor I know what real thing we're talking about.

I have four reasons why I believe the Bible is the God-book:

1. The Bible is demonstrably proven in real time/modern time to predict the future, specifically, exactly, millennia in advance.
2. The Bible in its construction/text is demonstrably proven to be the work of a hyper-intelligence.
3. The Bible shows the much more love of Christ, far beyond all other religious beliefs and psychology.
4. Individual verses from the Bible are the most powerful tools for human counseling, and the wisest things ever written.

I have a real book, written by 40 authors over more than 1,000 years, in different languages, cultures and empires, that is univocal. Is a 2,000-page set of documents a "real, objective thing"? Of course it is.

You need to understand the Bible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have four reasons why I believe the Bible is the God-book:

1. The Bible is demonstrably proven in real time/modern time to predict the future, specifically, exactly, millennia in advance.


Sorry, it fails terribly at that. Please note that you said "specifically". To get any prophesy to be "fulfilled" massive reinterpretation is required. That fails the "specific" test. Plus you appear to be ignoring the failed prophesies The Tyre prophesy comes to mind.

2. The Bible in its construction/text is demonstrably proven to be the work of a hyper-intelligence.

How so? It clearly is not since no one has demonstrated this You are merely shooting yourself in the foot with such obviously bogus claims.

3. The Bible shows the much more love of Christ, far beyond all other religious beliefs and psychology.

Again, no, it does not. The Old Testament morals are atrocious and the New Testament ones are not much better. For example the Bible is pro-slavery. It tells you who you can buy slaves from, how much you can beat them. You can even beat them to death if they linger more than a couple of days. The Bible tells you not to eat shrimp and yet it can't tell a person that it is immoral to own another person. That alone shoots down your claim.

4. Individual verses from the Bible are the most powerful tools for human counseling, and the wisest things ever written.

Not even close. What makes you think that?

I have a real book, written by 40 authors over more than 1,000 years, in different languages, cultures and empires, that is univocal. Is a 2,000-page set of documents a "real, objective thing"? Of course it is.

You need to understand the Bible.

I do understand the Bible. That is why I know that it is a book largely filled with myths with the poor morals of a bronze age civilization. Jesus was a bit more moral than his predecessors but even he was not perfect. Nor was he the originator of many of the morals that he espoused. That the Bible improves a bit is not surprising since civilization causes all morals to improve over time. It appears that you are a victim of severe confirmation bias at best.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have four reasons why I believe the Bible is the God-book:
That isn't what we're discussing.

We've just agreed, I take it, that truth is conformity with reality.

So now we're looking to you to provide a definition of God such that if we found a real candidate, a candidate with objective existence, not imaginary, we could tell whether it were God or not.
1. The Bible is demonstrably proven in real time/modern time to predict the future, specifically, exactly, millennia in advance.
Not so. Nowhere in the bible is there a single purported prophecy so clearly and credibly attested as to its terms and the time of its making, so remote, detailed, and unforeseeable, and so clearly and credibly attested as to its fulfillment, as to suggest, let alone require, the reader to consider supernatural foresight as a possible explanation. Not one.

But that's not our topic.
2. The Bible in its construction/text is demonstrably proven to be the work of a hyper-intelligence.
On the contrary, the bible is a collection of books each written by one or more humans, at particular times and places, to suit particular purposes, politics and agendas, and is totally human from start to end.

But that's not our topic.
3. The Bible shows the much more love of Christ, far beyond all other religious beliefs and psychology.
Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh, and doesn't qualify as a Tanakh messiah anyway.

But that's not our topic,
4. Individual verses from the Bible are the most powerful tools for human counseling, and the wisest things ever written.
That opinion is not shared by the best authorities on human psychology, nor could it be.

But that's not our topic,

And speaking of our topic, could we have that definition of real God please.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
That isn't what we're discussing.

We've just agreed, I take it, that truth is conformity with reality.

So now we're looking to you to provide a definition of God such that if we found a real candidate, a candidate with objective existence, not imaginary, we could tell whether it were God or not.
Not so. Nowhere in the bible is there a single purported prophecy so clearly and credibly attested as to its terms and the time of its making, so remote, detailed, and unforeseeable, and so clearly and credibly attested as to its fulfillment, as to suggest, let alone require, the reader to consider supernatural foresight as a possible explanation. Not one.

But that's not our topic.
On the contrary, the bible is a collection of books each written by one or more humans, at particular times and places, to suit particular purposes, politics and agendas, and is totally human from start to end.

But that's not our topic.
Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh, and doesn't qualify as a Tanakh messiah anyway.

But that's not our topic,
That opinion is not shared by the best authorities on human psychology, nor could it be.

But that's not our topic,

And speaking of our topic, could we have that definition of real God please.

I've never spoken on some of these points so I don't accept your (baseless) refutations.

My definition for the real God is the god who came down into timespace/reality to interact with people powerfully.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I've never spoken on some of these points so I don't accept your (baseless) refutations.
By all means reject any baseless refutations I might offer. However, all my refutations to date have been coherently argued.

And you've already used my definition of 'truth' to determine whether "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is a true statement. In so doing you've tacitly acknowledged the obvious, that your own definition is incapable of determining the truth or falsity of any statement.
My definition for the real God is the god who came down into timespace/reality to interact with people powerfully.
Again your definition is circular ─ it says that 'god' means 'god'. Since as I understand it you assert that God is real ie has objective existence, is not just imaginary, we need a definition of 'god' sufficient to determine whether any particular real candidate is God or not.

Please supply it. Otherwise it will continue to be the case that neither of us knows what you're talking about.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
By all means reject any baseless refutations I might offer. However, all my refutations to date have been coherently argued.

And you've already used my definition of 'truth' to determine whether "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is a true statement. In so doing you've tacitly acknowledged the obvious, that your own definition is incapable of determining the truth or falsity of any statement.

Again your definition is circular ─ it says that 'god' means 'god'. Since as I understand it you assert that God is real ie has objective existence, is not just imaginary, we need a definition of 'god' sufficient to determine whether any particular real candidate is God or not.

Please supply it. Otherwise it will continue to be the case that neither of us knows what you're talking about.

What's occurred so far is that I've given a dictionary definition(s) for truth and falsehood, which you say are incoherent (!) and a Christian definition for God.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What's occurred so far is that I've given a dictionary definition(s) for truth and falsehood, which you say are incoherent (!) and a Christian definition for God.
No you haven't. Your definition of truth as what is not false is circular. And you didn't use it to determine whether the Pierre statement was true or false, you used my definition.

And I've pointed out all along that to be useful, the definition of 'god' / 'God' must define to a real god, a god with objective existence, not imaginary, and must allow anyone, believer or not, to determine whether any real candidate is a god / God or not.

If god / God exists in reality then there must be such a test. If god / God is imaginary then there isn't. Without that definition, as I keep saying, neither you nor I know what real thing you're talking about.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No you haven't. Your definition of truth as what is not false is circular. And you didn't use it to determine whether the Pierre statement was true or false, you used my definition.

And I've pointed out all along that to be useful, the definition of 'god' / 'God' must define to a real god, a god with objective existence, not imaginary, and must allow anyone, believer or not, to determine whether any real candidate is a god / God or not.

If god / God exists in reality then there must be such a test. If god / God is imaginary then there isn't. Without that definition, as I keep saying, neither you nor I know what real thing you're talking about.

From dictionaries:

truth - the quality or state of being true
God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being

Can we go with these dictionary definitions or are you going to tell me your definitions are more cogent and logical (and exist in English) than the dictionary definitions?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
truth - the quality or state of being true
So what does 'true' mean? Show me how it tells us whether "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is true or not ─ talk me through each step the process of applying the test to the statement.
God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being
But since God is real, has objective existence, is not imaginary, and since God is not one of our fellow humans, and since God can do magic, there must be unique qualities that God objectively possesses that distinguishes [him] from a human, and from, say, a supergeneral and from a superscientist. Or are you content to worship a supergeneral or a superscientist?

And in particular and especial, the definition needs to give anyone the test that will tell whether whether any candidate is God or not, whether the statement, "this real thing is God" is true or not. Since I don't know what that test could be, I'm asking you.

And I say yet again, without it neither you nor I know what real thing you're talking about,
 
Top