Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HtownWxBoy

God talked to me... does that make me crazy?

Recommended Posts

can you prove it's not the literal word of God? just asking...

Actually, this is quite easy.

Following the timetable outlined in the book of Genesis regarding the creation of the Earth, our world is concluded to be approximately 6,000 years old. Scientific inquiry has found this assertion to be utterly, completely false. This leaves us with two possible deductions:

1. The bible was written by men thousands of years ago, who had not 1/1000th the understanding of the world which we today take for granted, or

2. God was wrong about the age of his own creation.

Since the tenents outlined in Genesis can be proven demonstrably false, it is logical to conlude the bible is not the literal word of god.

Furthermore, the rules of logic dictate the burden of proof falls on the affirmative position. Do this for me; prove there is not a society of purple whatchamacalits living on Saturn. I'll wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, this is quite easy.

Following the timetable outlined in the book of Genesis regarding the creation of the Earth, our world is concluded to be approximately 6,000 years old. Scientific inquiry has found this assertion to be utterly, completely false. This leaves us with two possible deductions:

1. The bible was written by men thousands of years ago, who had not 1/1000th the understanding of the world which we today take for granted, or

2. God was wrong about the age of his own creation.

Since the tenents outlined in Genesis can be proven demonstrably false, it is logical to conlude the bible is not the literal word of god.

Good try, but that doesn't work. God could have created the universe exactly as described in Genesis (both ways) and made it look older than it was. Sort of like a faux antique. That's the problem with putting an all powerful god in any logical proof. He or she is all powerful, and that power extends to logic itself. Even though Genesis clearly contains two contradictory accounts of creation, that's no problem for an all powerful god. He could have done it sequentially, in parallel, or in some mysterious way that our limited brains can never comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good try, but that doesn't work. God could have created the universe exactly as described in Genesis (both ways) and made it look older than it was. Sort of like a faux antique. That's the problem with putting an all powerful god in any logical proof. He or she is all powerful, and that power extends to logic itself. Even though Genesis clearly contains two contradictory accounts of creation, that's no problem for an all powerful god. He could have done it sequentially, in parallel, or in some mysterious way that our limited brains can never comprehend.

Oh, but it does. For brevity's sake, I'll defer you back to my original post on page 3, regarding the "God of the Gaps" rebuttal.

The question posited is "Prove the bible is not the literal word of god." Based on the logical proof provided, god is either;

1. Fake; a man-made concoction, or

2. Incorrect in its account of creation, or

3. A liar, purposely deceiving its own creation.

Option number one is certainly the most logical conclusion.

Options number two and three would be unsavory, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, a lot to catch up on here.

I know I have a lot of reading to do, but the initial aspects of major presumptuousness and evangelism of Christianity are the utmost turn-offs. I won't let that stop me from at least learning more about the history, though.

And what about the timeline of religious texts? Where does the writing/compilation of the bible fit in with others? What about similarities between them?

For the above post by Orikal, though, option 1 does seem to be most logical, even in its oddity.

Like John Burroughs said, "Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods. It has been the most serious and significant occupation of his sojourn in the world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, but it does. For brevity's sake, I'll defer you back to my original post on page 3, regarding the "God of the Gaps" rebuttal.

The question posited is "Prove the bible is not the literal word of god." Based on the logical proof provided, god is either;

1. Fake; a man-made concoction, or

2. Incorrect in its account of creation, or

3. A liar, purposely deceiving its own creation.

Option number one is certainly the most logical conclusion.

Options number two and three would be unsavory, to say the least.

You ignore option 4, that science is just wrong. You can't prove that a god didn't create a 14 billion year old universe 6,000 years ago. An all powerful god makes science and logic useless, since he can magic anything he wants to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there anything that is not holy?

Sorry, I didn't rememeber seeing the second question.

Everyone but God is not holy, at least not completely holy (and don't take that to mean there are some near perfect people, cuz there's not). Although, Christians should be becoming more and more holy throught what's called sanctification, basically the progression towards perfect holiness (which will not be achieved until death when they arrive in heaven, they'll become what the bible calls, Glorified). This is not done through mere osmosis. It's accomplished through prayer, faith and obedience...none of which are easy to do. Per the bible, Christians are at war with their own flesh (sinful desires).

God is holy, set apart, from sin and sinners because he is sinless. That's why when someone is "saved" (from their sins and his wrath), they are reconciled (no longer set apart) to God. The penalty of sin is death and separation from God. Salvation nullifies these two.

The universe is anything but consistent, orderly, or cooperative. It is in constant flux, energy always ebbing and flowing, moving from one expression of itself to another. It only appears orderly from our very limited, infinitely small perspective. What you identify as cooperation is simply survival of the fittest, to put it grotesquely. Nature has no interest in teamwork. Nature takes as she pleases, and gives when she fancies. We are here, now, because we are better suited (in most ways) than any other life form for these precise conditions.

What I mean by order and cooperation is that there are so many things in this world that have to happen togethether for life to continue. From photsynthesis to how rain occurs, the nearness of the earth to sun, it's correct tilt, the seasons, pollination etc etc. There's a system it seems that is in place that even allows us to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You ignore option 4, that science is just wrong. You can't prove that a god didn't create a 14 billion year old universe 6,000 years ago. An all powerful god makes science and logic useless, since he can magic anything he wants to.

I certainly understand your point, however this option was not ignored, but its answer implied.

One may fabricate anything one wishes to poke "holes" in an all-but-certain conclusion. Wherever science has proven the bible to be verifiably false, literalists have unholstered the "Gaps" rebuttal, mentioned on page three. As millenia have passed, the areas where the "Gaps" assertion may settle have become narrower and narrower. Using past/present results as an indication of future findings, to say this is inconsistent is to either not understand, or to completely push aside fact.

See Webster's definition of "delusion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are humans the only unholy things in the universe?

You mean as opposed to like, rocks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean by order and cooperation is that there are so many things in this world that have to happen togethether for life to continue. From photsynthesis to how rain occurs, the nearness of the earth to sun, it's correct tilt, the seasons, pollination etc etc. There's a system it seems that is in place that even allows us to survive.

And this was succinctly answered in the reply.

To word it differently: You are absolutely correct that a system is in place which allows us to survive (called an open system). And yes, many factors need to be present in an open system in order for biological expressions to propagate. In our system, "life" has adapted beautifully to flourish given the conditions of the (eco)system.

For example, biological life as we know it could not exist on Mars. But this does not indicate that no form of life, more adapted to different conditions, has never existed on Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, but it does. For brevity's sake, I'll defer you back to my original post on page 3, regarding the "God of the Gaps" rebuttal.

The question posited is "Prove the bible is not the literal word of god." Based on the logical proof provided, god is either;

1. Fake; a man-made concoction, or

2. Incorrect in its account of creation, or

3. A liar, purposely deceiving its own creation.

Option number one is certainly the most logical conclusion.

Options number two and three would be unsavory, to say the least.

God also created Satan, presumably knowing full well that Satan would defy him and lure humans away from God. One could argue that God is therefore responsible for Satan's tricks and that he is in that way deceiving his own creation, but God did that intentionally for reasons that have already been explained elsewhere in this thread. The illusion of a vast geologic history may just be another test of faith.

As for what you define as being unsavory, that is entirely your opinion, originated from your circumstances and experiences. I think that the existence of mosquitoes is far more unsavory, personally...but humans living in wet areas of the planet generationally know them as just an inescapable fact of life more than a nuisance. They're just there. They are. They won't not be there. Ho hum. ...in any case, whether you hold unsavoriness against God or not, this line of argument does nothing to undermine the plausibility of God.

You mean as opposed to like, rocks?

Yes. Aside from living people, are there any unholy objects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And this was succinctly answered in the reply.

To word it differently: You are absolutely correct that a system is in place which allows us to survive (called an open system). And yes, many factors need to be present in an open system in order for biological expressions to propagate. In our system, "life" has adapted beautifully to flourish given the conditions of the (eco)system.

For example, biological life as we know it could not exist on Mars. But this does not indicate that no form of life, more adapted to different conditions, has never existed on Mars.

From an evolutionist point of view, that makes sense. But what can I say...that's a lot of adapting. I'm surprised scientists say it only took billions of years for "something" to find the right way to produce the first life, or to even reproduce that first life. For the perfect formula, I'd think it would take trillions of years or whatever illion comes after that, quadrillion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Aside from living people, are there any unholy objects?

Well, when sin entered the world, everything started deteriorating and dying. Not alone would humans have lived forever but so would have plants, animals and everything else. But the bible only talks about saving humans. Anything else, including animals, do not have souls. So no, I would not say anything else is unholy. They just are.

I guess angels would also be holy, and demons would also be unoly; so the only things holy or unholy are humans, angels and God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, when sin entered the world, everything started deteriorating and dying. Not alone would humans have lived forever but so would have plants, animals and everything else. But the bible only talks about saving humans. Anything else, including animals, do not have souls. So no, I would not say anything else is unholy. They just are.

I guess angels would also be holy, and demons would also be unoly; so the only things holy or unholy are humans, angels and God.

But God is holy and God created the heavens and the skies, and humans are apparently expected to look to these things as evidence of His existence...per my reading of the verse that you posted in the thread that prompted my questioning. If something is itself compelling evidence of God, is that not holy, just like the Bible?

The Bible is holy. It usually describes itself as such on the front cover of the book. People take oaths upon it for some reason, so some special property is being ascribed to it. Or is it just the ideas within it that are holy and the book is a null entity?

How about water? Some water is more holy than other water. By being blessed, is it imbued the presence of God? Or is God present in all things? I got my building blessed by a Catholic priest while a whole lot of laborers were there to discourage them from desecrating or stealing from a holy object. I mean, hey...it works for water, right? Why not a capitalist endeavor?

If someone does desecrate a holy object, does it become unholy by the actions of man? For instance, my dad stole holy water from the Vatican and sold it to his Mexican coworkers in little vials. Did that make the water less potent? Also, he reported that the holy water at the Vatican was very dirty, certainly not potable. It had lots of bird ____ in it. If the water were blessed after it came in contact with impurities, does the blessing apply only to the pure water (H2O) or does it also apply to the impurities, including bird ____? If the water were allowed to evaporate, would it have been possible for him to be the owner of holy ____?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean by order and cooperation is that there are so many things in this world that have to happen togethether for life to continue. From photsynthesis to how rain occurs, the nearness of the earth to sun, it's correct tilt, the seasons, pollination etc etc. There's a system it seems that is in place that even allows us to survive.

Oh that. Yes, when we look around it seems amazing that everything is just right for us to be here. Of course, that's also how it would look if we were a very different kind of life under very different circumstances. There's no telling how many ways life has formed in the universe. We only know about one, and we are in the perfect place for that kind of life to develop and survive. No coincidence or cooperation needed. We are here because here made us.

I'm surprised scientists say it only took billions of years for "something" to find the right way to produce the first life, or to even reproduce that first life. For the perfect formula, I'd think it would take trillions of years or whatever illion comes after that, quadrillion?

But scientists don't say that. It probably took less than 1 billion years for the Earth to sprout prokaryotes. There's no telling when the first life in the universe developed, unless we're all there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But God is holy and God created the heavens and the skies, and humans are apparently expected to look to these things as evidence of His existence...per my reading of the verse that you posted in the thread that prompted my questioning. If something is itself compelling evidence of God, is that not holy, just like the Bible?

Ummm...I don't think. The world, all creation, is fallen and dying. I don't think anything but God and angels are perfectly holy at this moment, well, except for believers who have already died. The bible describes that he will create a new earth after he destroys this one. That earth will be holy I suppose. When he first created, after each day, he described everything as being 'good.' I suppose even it's not holy, he'll once again proclaim it as good. I don't remember what that word 'good' is in hebrew (or aramaic, not sure what Genesis was written in), but it would be interesting to research again.

The Bible is holy. It usually describes itself as such on the front cover of the book. People take oaths upon it for some reason, so some special property is being ascribed to it. Or is it just the ideas within it that are holy and the book is a null entity?

Well, I actually don't even know what the word "bible" means. As far as I know, man made up that term. The bible refers to itself as "the words of god." But I think man put it on the cover as a deduction that since God and his words are holy, that the compiling of all the books, letters and poems are also holy. I don't know why people take oaths by it. the bible says not to swear by anything but instead for your yes to be yes and your no no.

So yeah, I guess you answere it yourself with your last sentece.

How about water? Some water is more holy than other water. By being blessed, is it imbued the presence of God? Or is God present in all things? I got my building blessed by a Catholic priest while a whole lot of laborers were there to discourage them from desecrating or stealing from a holy object. I mean, hey...it works for water, right? Why not a capitalist endeavor?

holy water is something the catholic church made up. that or they misinturpreted the bible somewhere (i'm guessing somewhere early in the OT). I wouldn't necessarily say that the priest blessing your building was biblical. Sure, we can ask for God's blessing, but ultimately his will should be asked for. It sort of seems like the priest cast some spell blessing onto the building and all of a sudden it's "blessed" or something. God does not want our traditions. He got mad at people in the bible for simply going through the motions, thinking that their works would save them. He wants us to have faith in him. Anyone can just do something. Salvation is not by works.

If someone does desecrate a holy object, does it become unholy by the actions of man? For instance, my dad stole holy water from the Vatican and sold it to his Mexican coworkers in little vials. Did that make the water less potent? Also, he reported that the holy water at the Vatican was very dirty, certainly not potable. It had lots of bird ____ in it. If the water were blessed after it came in contact with impurities, does the blessing apply only to the pure water (H2O) or does it also apply to the impurities, including bird ____? If the water were allowed to evaporate, would it have been possible for him to be the owner of holy ____?

The water he took was just like the water that comes out our faucets and is in the gulf. It's just water. It wasn't holy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I actually don't even know what the word "bible" means.

Really? This is from Wikipedia:

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word bible[4] is from Latin biblia, traced from the same word through Medieval Latin and Late Latin, as used in the phrase biblia sacra ("holy book" - "In the Latin of the Middle Ages, the neuter plural for Biblia (gen. bibliorum) gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae, in which singular form the word has passed into the languages of the Western world."[5]). This stemmed from the Greek term τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια (ta biblia ta hagia), "the holy books", which derived from βιβλίον (biblion),[6] "paper" or "scroll," the ordinary word for "book", which was originally a diminutive of βύβλος (byblos, "Egyptian papyrus"), possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port Byblos from whence Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia ("the books") was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,"[7] and would have referred to the Septuagint.[8] The Online Etymology Dictionary states, "The Christian scripture was referred to in Greek as Ta Biblia as early as c.223."

Basically, "bible" means "books".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? This is from Wikipedia:

Basically, "bible" means "books".

I remember someone telling me something before, but I forgot.

FYI to anyone...I have a couple of softball games at Memorial Park tonight. I'll be stopping by the McDonalds on Washington, just south of I-10 for dinner at about 5. For anyone who wants to join is welcome. Don't have to talk this topic at all, just thought I'd offer as I've never met anyone (well, 1 person) but none of my other friends are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for what you define as being unsavory, that is entirely your opinion, originated from your circumstances and experiences. I think that the existence of mosquitoes is far more unsavory, personally...but humans living in wet areas of the planet generationally know them as just an inescapable fact of life more than a nuisance. They're just there. They are. They won't not be there. Ho hum. ...in any case, whether you hold unsavoriness against God or not, this line of argument does nothing to undermine the plausibility of God.

I wholeheartedly agree. I suppose I could have used a different word, but the fact remains, all is perception. I addressed this in my original post in this thread.

And, correct, the adjective I use towards the very logical conclusion has no plausibility in my position. But then again, I never said it did. How I feel about the conclusion has no bearing on the conclusion itself.

Edit: Nice strawman, though.

Edited by Orikal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, a lot to catch up on here.

I know I have a lot of reading to do, but the initial aspects of major presumptuousness and evangelism of Christianity are the utmost turn-offs. I won't let that stop me from at least learning more about the history, though.

And what about the timeline of religious texts? Where does the writing/compilation of the bible fit in with others? What about similarities between them?

For the above post by Orikal, though, option 1 does seem to be most logical, even in its oddity.

Like John Burroughs said, "Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods. It has been the most serious and significant occupation of his sojourn in the world."

Does anyone have any recommendations for sites to find input on this? (Specifically the relation between major religious texts and when they were written, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have any recommendations for sites to find input on this? (Specifically the relation between major religious texts and when they were written, etc.)

A great (book) primer would be Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman.

I found this one enjoyable because it references many facets of the topic including textual mistranslation/transcription/manipulation, the Gnostic Gospels, what exactly we do have (the earliest documents) for books of the bible, and so forth.

I've found many other books on this subject are dry and not engaging. While this book certainly heads this direction in many places, it remains accessible for the layperson (like me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i may join in for a second.

As a person who is currently trying to come to find 'religion' again (Catholic), i had to have this converaation quite a bit.

Anyway,

The whole thing seems to somehow always come back to "evolution" and some call him the maker (if you are a droid on star wars), since DNA was discovered several decades ago, would it not be considered a SINE of God?

You may now groan and return to your original arguements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockmat, you seem to make the argument that

A) The universe is perfect; if measurements were only fractionally different, life couldn't exist -- ergo, God. (The "fine tuning" argument.)

and

B ) The Bible is the inerrant word of the same supreme being that created the universe, i.e. God.

This is a completely contradictory position. If the universe is fine tuned, then Moses could not have parted the sea, to name but one of many, many examples. The whole strength of the "fine tuning" argument rests on the premise that the natural order of the universe, having been created and fine tuned by God, is utterly inalterable in its order.

If A is true, then B is false.

If B is true, then A is false.

Edited by Don Julio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lockmat, you seem to make the argument that

A) The universe is perfect; if measurements were only fractionally different, life couldn't exist -- ergo, God. (The "fine tuning" argument.)

and

B ) The Bible is the inerrant word of the same supreme being that created the universe, i.e. God.

This is a completely contradictory position. If the universe is fine tuned, then Moses could not have parted the sea, to name but one of many, many examples. The whole strength of the "fine tuning" argument rests on the premise that the natural order of the universe, having been created and fine tuned by God, is utterly inalterable in its order.

If A is true, then B is false.

If B is true, then A is false.

Can you please explain why they are contradictory? Why Moses/God could not have done that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you please explain why they are contradictory? Why Moses/God could not have done that?

The universe is no longer "fine tuned" if the natural order can be interrupted or suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The universe is no longer "fine tuned" if the natural order can be interrupted or suspended.

If a computer programmer writes some base rules as general code (what you're calling the natural order), anticipates bugs, and so provides for specific exceptions, all in one sitting...then are the workarounds not part of the natural order?

Even if people do have free will, not acting like little pre-programmed machines, that doesn't necessarily create a conflict either if God's understanding of time and space is omnipotent and non-linear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if people do have free will, not acting like little pre-programmed machines, that doesn't necessarily create a conflict either if God's understanding of time and space is omnipotent and non-linear.

If God can know the future, then people don't have free will in any meaningful sense. A known future means you can make all the choices you want, as long as you always choose the single path that must be chosen. That doesn't satisfy anyone's sense of "free will".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wonder why some people claim to be so religious and yet when they or someone close to them has a genuine religious experience, they choose to ignore it. I mean, make up your mind already. You either believe or you don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...