Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Why is there no discovery of such things?

Simple answer: much of the bible is non-literal and instead is composed of parables.

 

[KFunk]

If you are proposing a necessary existence (of the unmoved mover variety) for all possible worlds how to you appropriate this with the beginning of the universe for each of these worlds?

I'm also a little confused by your terminology here. Where as "possible world" is usually used as a maximal description of all reality, you seem to be using it as a description of the universe we observe? In short, I don't understand how multiple possible worlds could actually exist since all that does exist is encompassed within the term "possible world". I'm a little lost...

Heya, I'm not sure if I understand your first question. Do you mean to ask how to make sense of the beginning of a given world if all possible worlds exist (necessarily)? Full blown modal realism doesn't have to deal with the problem of genesis, and instead only needs to consider possibility, since on the modal realist account possibility is a necessary and sufficient criterion for existence. David Lewis' argued that possible worlds are like ours (but are different, of course!) and are spatiotemporally and causally isolated from one another (note that a science of possible worlds would therefore be impossible).

Possibility is a troublesome concept, but a few interpretations one might endorse include physical possibility, logical possibility and conceptual possibility, which, respectively, would be that which is possible in accordance with physical laws (as we know them, or otherwise), in accordance with logical laws (i.e. non-contradiction), or in accordance with conceivability. A possible world would then be a world (another concept which itself screams for a definition) which satisfies one of these brands of possibility. One might even bypass this and simply say that 'a world W is possible if W is such that it could come to exist', taking our own world as the paradigm of a world which exists.

In any case, this is a prime example of speculative philosophy - I don't have a great deal of time for it myself.

 

[will-anal]

I've already posted this in the "what proof is there that god exist?" so thought I might as well post it here as well :

What I don't understand is where do all the dinosaurs fit in. Did "god" create them, realised it was a mistake, then chuck a huge asteroid down on earth? Or did they die in the alleged "great flood"? Also, doesn't the bible mention giants (Goliath??) ? (Genesis 6:1-8, Jude 6 etc)

Why is there no discovery of such things?

Noah also built an ark because of a flood. How is it possible for the "Noah" family and 2 of every animal to repopulate the earth?

At the end of the "flood", god promised that it would never make another flood and made a rainbow to symbolise that promise. Science, however proves that a rainbow simply occurs because water is refracted by light, thereby producing 7 colours.

The bible also speaks of many miracles. Like how moses produced water from a rock. Or how he made the sun stand still. Why is there no record of such miracles nowadays?

Care to explain?</SPAN>

oh god why are there so many sub par trolls on this website

 

[KFunk]

much of the bible? which parts are literal then? the part where women should be stoned to death for adultery or the part where homosexuals should be put to death? or maybe the part about not being able to eat shellfish?

I can't give you an answer as I am neither a Christian nor a theologian. My point is that it is overly simplistic to assume that a Christian must defend a literal reading of the Bible given that (1) other approaches are available and (2) biblical literalism, as I understand it, is a relatively modern phenomenon which has its roots in the reformation and came to fruition in more recent evangelical movements.

Consider, for example, St Thomas Aquinas who was both a philosopher and a keystone of the Catholic church. Aquinas made use of the Bible but also endorsed the approach of natural theology, which would have one notice that, if god exists, then surely the natural world and phenomena with which we are faced possess a significance which is at least on par with that of revelation through scripture and religious experience. In other words, it is important to take account of our moral and intellectual sensibilities, making psychology significant, as well as the form of things (plants, landforms), communities (politics) and ideas (say, geometry and metaphysics). All such things will be accessed through the interaction of human reason with the world, both of which Aquinas would assume to be structured by God and therefore to be of significance. Another doctor of the Catholic church, St Augustine of Hippo, similarly maintained that it is silly to cite biblical facts which directly contravene easily accessible scientific truths (for example, Augustine has a work in which he defends a non-literal reading of the genesis myth).

In the context of such thought the Bible must nonetheless remain an essential supplement (at least, for one who maintains the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth) but it need not be literal nor the sole determinant of Christian faith.

 

[KFunk]

Quoting Saint Augustine, courtesy of wikipedia:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

 

[mirakon]

I can't give you an answer as I am neither a Christian nor a theologian. My point is that it is overly simplistic to assume that a Christian must defend a literal reading of the Bible given that (1) other approaches are available and (2) biblical literalism, as I understand it, is a relatively modern phenomenon which has its roots in the reformation and came to fruition in more recent evangelical movements.

Consider, for example, St Thomas Aquinas who was both a philosopher and a keystone of the Catholic church. Aquinas made use of the Bible but also endorsed the approach of natural theology, which would have one notice that, if god exists, then surely the natural world and phenomena with which we are faced possess a significance which is at least on par with that of revelation through scripture and religious experience. In other words, it is important to take account of our moral and intellectual sensibilities, making psychology significant, as well as the form of things (plants, landforms), communities (politics) and ideas (say, geometry and metaphysics). All such things will be accessed through the interaction of human reason with the world, both of which Aquinas would assume to be structured by God and therefore to be of significance. Another doctor of the Catholic church, St Augustine of Hippo, similarly maintained that it is silly to cite biblical facts which directly contravene easily accessible scientific truths (for example, Augustine has a work in which he defends a non-literal reading of the genesis myth).

In the context of such thought the Bible must nonetheless remain an essential supplement (at least, for one who maintains the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth) but it need not be literal nor the sole determinant of Christian faith.

Exactly. The literal interpretation is not the only interpretation.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Exactly. The literal interpretation is not the only interpretation.

Yea great! so when my cook book says 'add a cup of sugar' I can interpret that to mean 'God is the breeze that vacates my ass when I take a shit'...

The christian bible was written by a dirty bronze aged cult hundreds of years ago, it is one of the many cult manuals in existence, and is largely plagiarized from previous cult manuals, it is a failed attempt at history, science and ethics,
it's exactly what we'd expect from a mentally and physically impoverished middle eastern peoples.

 

[KFunk]

@ mirakon & KFunk, so you're basically saying that the bible is a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally? Then is god him/herself a metaphor as well?

No. I am saying that non-literal interpretation is an important form of biblical exegesis, and that historically it has even been a dominant trend if we go back to the fathers of the Catholic church. It would be wrong to say that the Bible is a metaphor, simpliciter. The more reasonable middle ground is to argue for a mix of literal/historical and non-literal/metaphorical passages.

I don't see how it follows that God then becomes a metaphor (for what??). You would be hard pressed to argue that the entity 'god' is a negotiable part of the Bible. The most palatable alternative I can think of is a pantheistic one which posits the equation 'God = nature', but even this is a fringe interpretation with fairly minimal relevance to mainstream Christianity.

 

[KFunk]

So is the bible literal or is it not?? Sorry I'm slow >.<

Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Mu

(Translation: false dichotomy)

 

[ad infinitum]

It's so blatantly obvious that those that choose to 'interpret' the bible are in fact projecting what they want to read onto the scripture. So they 'interpret' genesis as a metaphor for 'the big bang and evolution moved through the spirit of the essence of god', etc, ad nauseum. When in fact genesis was intended to be a perfect account and representation of reality; which it is obviously not.

How do you tell the 'literal' parts from the 'metaphorical' parts? How do we know to ignore the part when it demands that we stone to death adulterers and to take take notice of the Ten Commandments (well some of them)? The Bible is either the word of God or it is not. It is clearly not. Done.

@Kfunk it is quite revolting to see you grovel at the feet of such a backwards lunatic as Aquinas. You make him out as some wise sage, when in fact his contemporary equivalents are those unforntunates who holler on city street corners with their bibles.

Regarding heretics he wrote:they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.

He also claimed that he could levitate. He also claied to know the mind/nature of god, and other such nonsense. No sir, I will not be putting any change in the dirty hat of this senile person.

 

[mirakon]

It's so blatantly obvious that those that choose to 'interpret' the bible are in fact projecting what they want to read onto the scripture. So they 'interpret' genesis as a metaphor for 'the big bang and evolution moved through the spirit of the essence of god', etc, ad nauseum. When in fact genesis was intended to be a perfect account and representation of reality; which it is obviously not.

How do you tell the 'literal' parts from the 'metaphorical' parts? How do we know to ignore the part when it demands that we stone to death adulterers and to take take notice of the Ten Commandments (well some of them)? The Bible is either the word of God or it is not. It is clearly not. Done.

@Kfunk it is quite revolting to see you grovel at the feet of such a backwards lunatic as Aquinas. You make him out as some wise sage, when in fact his contemporary equivalents are those unforntunates who holler on city street corners with their bibles.

Regarding heretics he wrote:they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.

He also claimed that he could levitate. He also claied to know the mind/nature of god, and other such nonsense. No sir, I will not be putting any change in the dirty hat of this senile person.

ad infinitum is himself ad nauseum.

Seriously, you're completely misconstruing the point that KFunk is making.

The fact is that just because a person chooses to interpret something metaphorically doesn't make it any more or less wrong. Your argument that you can interpret things in any conceivable manner is ridiculous, the various interpretations have actual grounds on which they are based, the metaphorical interpretations are based on a thorough understanding.

In fact it seems that those who have minimal understanding of such texts tend to take it more literally as they are not open to the possibility of another more subtle meaning. Such narrow-mindedness on your behalf indicates that you yourself have a poor udnerstaanding of the topic, especially as you consider the literal meaning of the Bibl, Qur'an etc. as the only one to analyse.

Then is god him/herself a metaphor as well?

A valid point. All I can say is perhaps, but then this raises the question, what is God a metaphor of?

 

[ad infinitum]

ad infinitum is himself ad nauseum.

Seriously, you're completely misconstruing the point that KFunk is making.

The fact is that just because a person chooses to interpret something metaphorically doesn't make it any more or less wrong. Your argument that you can interpret things in any conceivable manner is ridiculous, the various interpretations have actual grounds on which they are based, the metaphorical interpretations are based on a thorough understanding.

In fact it seems that those who have minimal understanding of such texts tend to take it more literally as they are not open to the possibility of another more subtle meaning. Such narrow-mindedness on your behalf indicates that you yourself have a poor udnerstaanding of the topic, especially as you consider the literal meaning of the Bibl, Qur'an etc. as the only one to analyse.



A valid point. All I can say is perhaps, but then this raises the question, what is God a metaphor of?

A complete non sequitur response to what a wrote. Re-read what I wrote and perhaps respond to individual lines because you have missed almost every point I made.
The last sentence of yours makes it quite evident that what I wrote went quite above your head.

 

[KFunk]

So answer this: should the bible be taken literally or not?

I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to understand what a false dichotomy is.

 

[ad infinitum]

I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to understand what a false dichotomy is.

Obviously you are not.

How do you know what parts are meant to be taken 'literal' and what parts are meant to be taken as 'metaphor'?

 

[Lukybear]

Obviously you are not.

How do you know what parts are meant to be taken 'literal' and what parts are meant to be taken as 'metaphor'?

Obviously the discussion here pretains to the matter of contriversal teachings presented in the OT. KFunk has just presented a completely rational arguement justifying these teachings.

Despite the period of creation, texts are all affected by its context. The bible is a collection of teachings, with its gensis throughout a vast span of time. What it allows therefore, is heavy contexual bias, that present itself in both the NT and OT. What may seem absurd today, would have been viewed as ethically and morally righteous.

Take the example of the Witch Hunts by the Church that were present in the Dark Ages. What society had beleved back then was the existence of Witches that terrifies society, destroy people, eat children, as well as a myriad of other things. The result of which was paranoia and the horrifying destruction of countless of lifes. This in itself is not wrongful teaching, as it was ethically and morally righteous in its context. If we believed that harm were done to society by a certain group of people, we would absolutely do our best to counteract these people. The method of counteraction perhaps was crude and ruthless, yet it still stems into today's society (capital punishment).

Also, suppose a future, where society believed in horrifying aliens that analogous to the witches posing harm to Earth. Would we, as humans, believing that we are in danger, protect ourselves by any method possible? What if, the aliens are nothing but harmless lifeforms, that we misinterrpreted. Are we then morally and ethically right?

The point is, that we as contemporary audience to the bible, must bypass this the context, and rather draw upon the universal and timeless themes of the bible. From the obvious of Not Murdering, Not Stealing, but also acquiring respecting your parents, from Stoning those that disrespect parents.

 

[KFunk]

So its both literal and non-literal?

Bingo. Certainly you can argue otherwise, but this strikes me as the most reasonable path. I know a couple of thoughtful Christians who view the bible as a mix of history, poetry, parable, etc. No doubt it is a challenge to work out which is which, and there are strong arguments to found in postmodern literary criticism which would even suggest that a sharp delineation is not even possible. Nonetheless, it is possible for well-tempered believers to be content with fallible truth claims (they are not God, after all).

Either way, the bible is more trouble than its worth.

Aye, quite possibly. Whether or not it is ultimately correct (whichever way we wish to construe its claims to truth) it still remains an important cultural document which informs much of Western literature, philosophy, rhetoric and so forth.

 

[SylviaB]

lol half literal half non literal is just rationalisation and is essentially picking and choosing in order to make your religion less ridiculously implausible

 

[redmayne]

What I find amusing is that there is no more logic, reason and evidence behind the bible than there is behind, say, Harry Potter, or L. Ron Hubbard's novels. Or any number of other texts that the Church insists are evil and blasphemous.

 

[englishwiz17]

Thinking scientifically and analysing each scripture and scientific claim achieves almost nothing due to the average christian's ignorance to facts through denial and the answer, "it's a matter of faith."
However it helps to think as a child sometimes and analyse the subject logically...

If 2009 years ago, Jesus appeared as the human representation of god; is it coincidental that he only appeared in the "known world." (Which is not because they were the only people on the planet, but more so the boundaries of that society's communication. )
Anyway, there is historical evidence that Australian Aboriginals; along with many other seperate cultures have never encountered this same "God."
So for God and his word to appear only in one society, for it to be obeyed and praised or be condemed to everlasting hell... which makes god an extreme asshole; which he claims not to be, but all caring and all loving.

ALSO another logical consideration

I think we can all agree that other organisms apart from humans do not praise a god.
*and if you say that there was this one dog in America that barks to the sky, you're argument is invalid and silly*
I plunded this thought to a christian colleague who replied quite sharply and bluntly (as all religious believers do) "that animals are made for the sole purpose of serving humans and do not possess a soul"
However my pet cat obviously possess a soul, which can be identified through it's love towards me, my family and my other cat.
After questioning his false logic he sat down with someone else at lunchbreak, typical of a person in defeat.
So is it intelligence that defines religion? Religion is obviously not beyond the process of thought as we are the only species to believe in it.

FINALLY

If god is so above us humans in status, why does he require acknowledgement for his creation from us "servants" when he can do anything with ease?
Also how are we servants? If he is so mighty he wouldn't need servants.


That is my unique way on proving god is a myth.

This is my definition of religion...
"Religion is a thought made by an intelligent being (humans) to satisfy the curiosity [developed by this intelligence] of the unexplainable questions in life"


If you are pro-religion, please feel free to discuss any points I have raised. I assure you; you're logic does have a "down-to-earth" answer. No pun intended... maybe a little intended

 

[Teclis]

FINALLY

If god is so above us humans in status, why does he require acknowledgement for his creation from us "servants" when he can do anything with ease?
Also how are we servants? If he is so mighty he wouldn't need servants.


That is my unique way on proving god is a myth.

This is my definition of religion...
"Religion is a thought made by an intelligent being (humans) to satisfy the curiosity [developed by this intelligence] of the unexplainable questions in life"


If you are pro-religion, please feel free to discuss any points I have raised. I assure you; you're logic does have a "down-to-earth" answer. No pun intended... maybe a little intended

So my Church is this coming Monday the 30th November showing "Collision" COLLISION MOVIE - OCTOBER 27 - News the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson... and I'm sure you'll find some down to earth answers there...

The invite is open. Get your tickets from the Dendy. After there will be a discussion with noted atheist Peter Slezak (Senior Lecturer School of History and Philosophy at the University of NSW ) and Christian author Greg Clarke (A director of the new Centre for Public Christianity in Sydney and Director of the Macquarie Christian Studies Institute at Macquarie University.)