Does God exist? (20 Viewers)

[Sultun]

i'm quite aware of who wrote the bible... there are many many different authors ranging from moses to paul.

and yes it does require one to believe the bible in order for that arguement to be true. but as i said it was from a certain book and in the book it had already explored the reliability of the bible.

so, why is it obviously not true???

and i'm not ignoring the final statement about other holy books just unsure of how to answer without knowing the answer to my question.

Yea this is the whole problem with your argument. This 'book' of yours will have no doubt 'established' that the bible is in fact the 'word of god' or 'inspired' or whatever. However, I would argue that this person is wrong and that there is nothing to suggest the Bible (or the Koran, or Torah) is any different to any other book you would find in the library (and the evidence supports my arguement).

 

[birdy17]

Give me an example of an argument in the book, with page citation that you feel was particularly weak?

i can't say that i can, as i gave the book back. but i do recall him saying that how can anyone trust the bible because it's weird.
just quietly there is a whole lot of evidence as to the reliability of the bible.
and good for richard dawkins for thinking the bible is weird. but that's not an intellectual reason as to why someone should not believe it.

It's not so much that they were written after (though in some cases they were), but it is that people have translated them differently after - Like the works of nostrodamus for instance. Another example is when for instance, we have an event like 9/11 - you then have people point to some verse from nostrodamas and say "AH HAH! THAT'S WHAT THAT VERSE MEANS" after the fact. The predictions never come before hand, i.e. no one knew there would be an attack on 9/11 from nostrodamus.

to which writing of nostradamus are you refering?

Give an example of a recent prophesy which has been specific in its details and fulfilled?

define recent.
and why does it have to be recent to be credible?

As far as I understand christianity... the bulk of 'fulfilled' prophesies came around the time of jesus right? Do you think we have a solid historical record from that time so we have no way to confirm if these events occured. Furthermore, everyone who was writing about jesus was doing so a decent period after his death, is it that hard to imagine that people may have been making things up about his life to fit the prophesies of the past?

332 of 2000 were fulfilled by jesus and his life.

well maybe. but there are non religious authors from around that time whom have written about the life of Jesus and of the things he did.
so are you saying things have been changed since the original writtings or you think that what was written originally is false?

 

[Sultun]

i can't say that i can, as i gave the book back. but i do recall him saying that how can anyone trust the bible because it's weird.
just quietly there is a whole lot of evidence as to the reliability of the bible.
and good for richard dawkins for thinking the bible is weird. but that's not an intellectual reason as to why someone should not believe it.

Well, he never said that but, I can kind of see how you may have derived that from his arguements. His argument was more along the lines of; thers alot in the bible that is just plain wrong, and hence we obviously do not draw our morality from it; and rather impose our morality on it. E.g in the bible it states:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Unless you think the biblical passage above is the best moral teaching an all knowing god could give to human kind you must abandon the bible...(which i presume you don't, I presumme you chose to 'ignore' this part of the bible; which confirms Dawkins point that we cherry pick parts of the bible according to our presupposed morality)

 

[birdy17]

Yea this is the whole problem with your argument. This 'book' of yours will have no doubt 'established' that the bible is in fact the 'word of god' or 'inspired' or whatever. However, I would argue that this person is wrong and that there is nothing to suggest the Bible (or the Koran, or Torah) is any different to any other book you would find in the library (and the evidence supports my arguement).

if you want complete honesty, i haven't read, or know enough about the Koran or the Torah to tell you if it is or isn't different.
there is a stack of evience to support the Bible and it's writings, especially the new testament.
is there that for the Koran or Torah? [o and that's not a challenge that's a legitimat question.]

and what's this evidence you speak of??

 

[birdy17]

Well, he never said that but, I can kind of see how you may have derived that from his arguements. His argument was more along the lines of; thers alot in the bible that is just plain wrong, and hence we obviously do not draw our morality from it; and rather impose our morality on it. E.g in the bible it states:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Unless you think the biblical passage above is the best moral teaching an all knowing god could give to human kind you must abandon the bible...(which i presume you don't, I presumme you chose to 'ignore' this part of the bible; which confirms Dawkins point that we cherry pick parts of the bible according to our presupposed morality)

hmm interesting quote.
but if you want to argue bible with me i'll do my best.

yeah the bible sure does say that, but you know what, Jesus came to earth. YAY!
see the old testament was the book of law. it was about all the things we must do in order to be fit infront of God.
the new testament however is refered to as the book of grace, where God's love through jesus christ became the one of most imporant things.

that was a law of the old testament. one of many many that nowdays are irrelavent, amoung the one about don't wear clothes made of two types of yarn.

but as the story goes Jesus was born, lived a perfect life and became the ultimate sacrifice, through His crucifiction, what many ppl seem to misunderstand is that being the ultimate sacrifice his death indeed changed things. many old testament laws that were true and relevant before that time were well, made irrelavent because of jesus death and resurection... others were kept.
so no, christians don't "cherry pick" as you say. that though the bible does not need to be read in a linear fashion, it does need to be pointed out that it still has an order in which it was composed so what is true of the old testament is true, and what is true of the new testament is true, yet different because of the life and death [and life again] of jesus christ.

o and what parts of the bible are just "plain wrong"?

 

[Sultun]

hmm interesting quote.
but if you want to argue bible with me i'll do my best.

yeah the bible sure does say that, but you know what, Jesus came to earth. YAY!
see the old testament was the book of law. it was about all the things we must do in order to be fit infront of God.
the new testament however is refered to as the book of grace, where God's love through jesus christ became the one of most imporant things.

that was a law of the old testament. one of many many that nowdays are irrelavent, amoung the one about don't wear clothes made of two types of yarn.

but as the story goes Jesus was born, lived a perfect life and became the ultimate sacrifice, through His crucifiction, what many ppl seem to misunderstand is that being the ultimate sacrifice his death indeed changed things. many old testament laws that were true and relevant before that time were well, made irrelavent because of jesus death and resurection... others were kept.
so no, christians don't "cherry pick" as you say. that though the bible does not need to be read in a linear fashion, it does need to be pointed out that it still has an order in which it was composed so what is true of the old testament is true, and what is true of the new testament is true, yet different because of the life and death [and life again] of jesus christ.

o and what parts of the bible are just "plain wrong"?

First of all Jesus in the New Testament Says that Christians MUST follow the Old Testament... “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

I just picked a random passage demonstrating the backwardness of the bible, I could have picked a passage just as backwards from the New Testament. Furthermore you are implying something very sinister; you are saying slavery was once 'ok by god', I am sickened by this. The ownership of human lives IS NEVER OK, and for you to say that your all knowing God once permitted is personally offending to me. FURTHERMORE (if you actually knew what you were talking about) Slavery is given the OK by god in the NEW TESTAMENT:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


There is much, much more wickedness in the Bible (both Old and New testaments), I just picked Slavery at random.

 

[Enteebee]

i can't say that i can, as i gave the book back. but i do recall him saying that how can anyone trust the bible because it's weird.

The bible is 'strange' to most modern readers, considering that it was mostly written by humans at least 2000 years ago...

just quietly there is a whole lot of evidence as to the reliability of the bible.

Such as? The bible is an interesting historical text, which has some massive historical inaccuracies and is also full of the same sort of myths and legends we still have alive today.

and good for richard dawkins for thinking the bible is weird. but that's not an intellectual reason as to why someone should not believe it.

The only argument you took from his book was that 'he thinks the bible is weird'. I don't think the dismissal of one small, offhand comment about the bible in a rather large book full of arguments is an'intellectual reason' to dismiss the entire book.

to which writing of nostradamus are you refering?

What does it matter? Do you accept that:

A) Nostradamus was not a prophet.
B) People have interpreted things he has wrote, after an event has occured. I.e. No one foresaw 9/11 by reading his writings, but once it occured they 'discovered' it within them.

If you accept that, then surely you understand my point about how 'prophetic' texts are post-hoc rationalised.

define recent.
and why does it have to be recent to be credible?

Well... preferably something post-enlightenment. It doesn't have to be recent to be credible, but the availability of what I'd argue is sufficient evidence is far less likely to come about.

332 of 2000 were fulfilled by jesus and his life.

Okay... cool story.

well maybe. but there are non religious authors from around that time whom have written about the life of Jesus and of the things he did.
so are you saying things have been changed since the original writtings or you think that what was written originally is false?

I am saying first that what was written originally may very well have been false (heaps of people wrote about prophets etc around the time) and furthermore that over time the understanding of different phrases etc has likely changed.

Neither of these claims should be too controversial imo to anyone with an understanding of history or is at least not caught up in a rapture of believing the bible MUST BE 100% ACCURATE.

It's all silly anyway, because look around you now at the various different denominations / personal beliefs regarding the text...

 

[mcflystargirl]

?You seem very confused. You realise who wrote the bible? Your whole premise requires someone to take the bible as 'truth'....which it is obviously not...the whole purpose of the bible was to create a religion. It's nt evidence at all. I could point to the Koran, The Torah and the thousands of other doctored Holy Books proclaiming they are theone truth...sorry I'm pretty sure you haven't thought about this issue very carefully.

tbh if i was going to create a religion it would not be christianity seriously think about it. It is not logical that someone would make something up that is so unpopular let alone die for believing in it

 

[Kwayera]

yeah the bible sure does say that, but you know what, Jesus came to earth. YAY!

Really? Got any contemporary, unbiased sources to that effect?

 

[birdy17]

Really? Got any contemporary, unbiased sources to that effect?

is any historical source unbiased?

and contempory... like recently found evidence?
cause if you wanted a contempory written source someone would argue that casue there was a huge gap between the event and the writing it has to be fake or unreliable.

 

[hollaholla]

omgsss loll i have never seen such a large thread...

 

[Kwayera]

is any historical source unbiased?

and contempory... like recently found evidence?
cause if you wanted a contempory written source someone would argue that casue there was a huge gap between the event and the writing it has to be fake or unreliable.

Sorry, contemporary in this context means at the present time of the event. I.e., got any sources that weren't written 30+ years after the event (i.e. the Gospels)?

 

[dieburndie]

tbh if i was going to create a religion it would not be christianity seriously think about it. It is not logical that someone would make something up that is so unpopular let alone die for believing in it

...what are you even saying?

Honestly, you are one of the stupidest posters in NCAP ever.

 

[Enteebee]

someone would argue that casue there was a huge gap between the event and the writing it has to be fake or unreliable.

Depends what supporting evidence there is, I mean - There's been a MASSIVE gap between the existence of dinosaurs and now, but we accept this because we have fossil evidence amongst other things.

Jesus rising from the dead has about as much evidence as we do for other myths of people rising from the dead, which is essentially just the conjecture of followers passing down a story. Someone rising from the dead is an extraordinary act, so it requires extraordinary evidence - the testimony of long dead followers, who were themselves disconnected from ever actually seeing it, isn't going to cut it for most secular (and non secular) scientists.

Honestly, you are one of the stupidest posters in NCAP ever.

My mind also exploded.

 

[birdy17]

Sorry, contemporary in this context means at the present time of the event. I.e., got any sources that weren't written 30+ years after the event (i.e. the Gospels)?

o right my bad.
umm no, not that i'm aware - but my knowledge is fairly limited i'm still looking around, so to speak.
as far as i know the earliest one written was still 125 yrs after the event.

but how many events of the day have contempory records? [a question, not a challenge - i'm quite interested. ]

 

[Kwayera]

o right my bad.
umm no, not that i'm aware - but my knowledge is fairly limited i'm still looking around, so to speak.
as far as i know the earliest one written was still 125 yrs after the event.

but how many events of the day have contempory records? [a question, not a challenge - i'm quite interested. ]

Well the first Gospel was probably composed roughly 30 years after Jesus' supposed death. This of course is a very important point: long enough for an ordinary event gain momentum into mythical proportions.

Dan Barker deals with this very well in his book Godless.

 

[birdy17]

Well the first Gospel was probably composed roughly 30 years after Jesus' supposed death. This of course is a very important point: long enough for an ordinary event gain momentum into mythical proportions.

Dan Barker deals with this very well in his book Godless.

perhaps that is true, i still believe in the bible.
but who know's.

hmm i shall give it a read

 

[Enteebee]

perhaps that is true, i still believe in the bible.
but who know's.

hmm i shall give it a read

When you're reading the bible, all through the old testament, what do you say to yourself the point of all the craziness that goes on is?

 

[KFunk]

I reckon this is the catch though with this theory. If God is time then if we assume something needed to create it first then as a result it must have come before time. However this doesn't make sense aws you can't come 'before' time as this in turn implies time in itself. You see, with this theory nothing really needs to have created God.

Part of the trick in talking about the beginning - or more properly, I suppose, the origin - of time would be to use a notion of 'cause' which can operate outside of time, e.g. see Aristotle's four causes for a classical smorgasbord.

 

[Enteebee]

1) The "fine-tuning" of the universe is either due to either physical necessity, chance or design
2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance
3) Therefore it is due to design

Of course though, it's unfair to use probability here because chance is the only one with a probability which isn't 1.
How are we to know it's not due to physical necessity? There may very well be an eternal mechanism in the universe which necessitates our universe be this way.... Perhaps you'd call that a 'designer'?

And we would look at whatever particular version of the multi-verse theory they are bringing up and examine any problems with it - especially in regard to eternality. Are you thinking of any in particular?

No... I'm not a proponent. But I find problems with the 'eternality' of a 'god' just as much as I do a theory of an eternal universe, or multiverse.

Nahh, I don't think the teleological argument goes that far. The mind does not need to exist necessarily to satisfy the requirement of a designer. A cosmological argument would be better suited for bringing out this sort of conclusion.

So your argument doesn't support a conscious designer any better than an unconscious one? Personally, as far as arguments in favor of a 'god' go, I feel that would be pretty weak and that the word 'design' is probably the trick there.

Part of the trick in talking about the beginning - or more properly, I suppose, the origin - of time would be to use a notion of 'cause' which can operate outside of time, e.g. see Aristotle's four causes for a classical smorgasbord.

I don't see how any of those don't require time, but perhaps it's just because we're using a different definition of 'time'. I think time is the thing through which events can be said to occur or have occured, as oppose to just 'be' i.e. Time is merely the ability for causation to occur.

What sort of an operational definition are you working under?