Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
I'm simply suggesting for the sake of the argument that the Bible is a book - a collection of letters, histories, poems, etc. It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with. I man wrote a letter, we can use the historical method to derive a reasonable estimation as to when the letter was written whether that letter is from Paul, or Plato.
I'm not suggesting that because Paul said it in the Bible, it's true. I'm merely showing that based on the historical method, we can illustrate that this statement was common among Christians within a few years after Jesus' death.
If you understand the historical method then I'll ask that you refute my points from within that method rather than making illogical claims and generalizations. Otherwise, concede the point but tell me why it's irrelevant.
-Brodie
-
@box said:
I'm sorry, I see no point in continuing with this.
You believe that what is said in the bible is true, I believe it is the stories of many people and as such is written with an agenda.
We will have to agree to disagree.see above
-
@box said:
@box said:
I'm sorry, I see no point in continuing with this.
You believe that what is said in the bible is true, I believe it is the stories of many people and as such is written with an agenda.
We will have to agree to disagree.see above
I find your blatant intellectual dishonesty refreshing. It makes the pointless conversations much more short and sweet.
-Brodie
-
You are free to insult me, I have made my points clearly, I have not insulted your intelligence and I have bowed out of the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
-
It's illogical, Brodie, only because of your approach. You are still insisting on standing reason on its head.
You say "It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with."
That's not the case at all, in fact it's entirely the wrong way round. Those disputing with you don't start from the position of disagreeing with the Bible and thereby disbelieving what is in it. According to historical method, they will be cogniscent of it, but remain duly sceptical until such time as it can be corroborated from another source.
As Box has already indicated, from a historical perspective, parts of the Bible do appear to have some basis in historical/archaeological fact. Other parts are equally contrary to scientific evidence; and yet other parts are likely to remain forever entirely speculative.
Calling people intellectually dishonest because they refuse to engage in your peculiar brand of 'logic' is fooling no one. I too am done discussing with you.
-
@unknownuser said:
So ... we're backing up the claims made in the Bible by using ... the Bible? This has been an interesting discussion, but it seems we've entered the realm of the absurd now. I'm out.
Let us assume that there is no Bible, because many countries do not have it ...!
Let us suppose that we have no consciousness, because many persons ‘violate’ it…!…But the NATURE remains, and it says a lot…
Since the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that all of us are without excuse, on our attitude regarding the rejection of the Creator… -
@box said:
You are free to insult me, I have made my points clearly, I have not insulted your intelligence and I have bowed out of the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
Sorry Box, I'm a bit snarky today and that probably was said in frustration. I kind of felt like you bait and switched me a bit there by asking the question and referring to your knowledge of the historical method and then summarily rejecting a historical text after I'd put together what I feel was a thought out and reasoned response.
-Brodie
-
grumbles
Post removed. I was in a foul mood last night, apparently.
grumbles
-
@idahoj said:
@unknownuser said:
To my mind, that's a negation of faith's very core: the irrational act of actively embracing a concept one, by definition, cannot proof to be true or even completely understand.
An excerpt from an article I've read here: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/thomas.htm
@unknownuser said:
"What's less easy to understand is the thought-out, rational pursuit of God against one's better judgement. Loving God and seeking to serve God against one's interests, plus the sheer difficulty of the attempt to love one's neighbor, is, it seems to me, the best proof of religion."
or just plain faith, IMO.
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
Pretty well sums it up for me.
Cheers.
The whole idea off believing is not seeing it completely. If you see it, you don't have to believe. So, the intellect is not the way, and however smart U are, God is out of the range of your mind by definition. But, thanks to God, Human is much more than intellect! You have to consider this when showing evidences that there is no God, using only one small percent of our existance - the material one.
-
@srx said:
But, thanks to God, Human is much more than intellect! You have to consider this when showing evidences that there is no God, using only one small percent of our existance - the material one.
-
I think faith and science can actually meet...in fact they seem to exist perfectly satisfactorily in the clergyman/physicist in the link posted by Solo. I know quite a few other people like him; although it's a feat I have never, personally, been able to pull off. I know very many more who accept both sides because they simply don't allow themselves to push too hard at addressing the differences between the scientific account and the Biblical one...a kind of uneasy truce.
I doubt that there is actually much operational difference between those of quiet faith and those with none that both embrace the discoveries currently being made at the cutting edges of science. Both revel in the previously unimagined wonder and complexity of what we call reality; yet both draw somewhat different conclusions from it. Having been on both sides, it's really no biggee...as long as you believe that whichever stance you take helps you to be a better person.
It's a purely personal take on it, but I believe that those who feel their faith being threatened by the advance of science, really ought to re-examine the roots of that faith...because if that faith can't square up to reality, then there's something wrong with it.
As for those that go even further and attempt to denounce science and either ignore or rewrite the evidence currently emerging because it doesn't fit with their theology...Creationists by any other name...or fundamentalist Muslims...they are deluded. There is no other way of putting it.
-
@alan fraser said:
It's a purely personal take on it, but I believe that those who feel their faith being threatened by the advance of science, really ought to re-examine the roots of that faith...because if that faith can't square up to reality, then there's something wrong with it.
@alan fraser said:
As for those that go even further and attempt to denounce science and either ignore or rewrite the evidence currently emerging because it doesn't fit with their theology...Creationists by any other name...or fundamentalist Muslims...they are deluded. There is no other way of putting it.
in Islam, people are told and taught to seek knowledge, hikmah (philosophy) and develop science. thus there were Al Jabbar, Al Kindi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rusy, etc. before the people of mysticism era came along.
for those who claim the teaching was otherwise, they obviously stand and move against God and His Messengers themselves.Cheers.
[ed] God creates everything for human and everything else side by side. and He certainly would like to have human know what they are and how to utilise them for better live and living. they need knowlegde, philosophy of them, and build science based on them.
-
@unknownuser said:
It's illogical, Brodie, only because of your approach. You are still insisting on standing reason on its head.
I've given a very specific example of my approach and thus far the response has amounted to 'it's in the Bible therefore it's not true.' There has been no refutation of my claim that this statement in 1 Corinthians is an early Christian creed based on historical means.
@unknownuser said:
You say "It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with."
That's not the case at all, in fact it's entirely the wrong way round. Those disputing with you don't start from the position of disagreeing with the Bible and thereby disbelieving what is in it. According to historical method, they will be cogniscent of it, but remain duly sceptical until such time as it can be corroborated from another source.
I think you're missing the point. There aremultiple sources that corroborate that Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected. My point is that this is the earliestsource which points to this fact. There's can't be multiple earliest sources.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
Brodie wrote:
It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with.So you believe in Middle Earth?
No. But if you'd like to make a historical case for its existence, I'm all ears. I've never heard the case that Tolkien thought he was writing anything other than fiction.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
I think you're missing the point. There are multiple sources that corroborate that Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected.
Umh! yes, you could simply ask one...given that it's in the Creed.
That's all settled then. The Bible is confirmed as historically accurate. Therefore Genesis is true. Therefore God created the universe. End of thread.
-
Amen.
(there's no middle earth?)
-
@alan fraser said:
@unknownuser said:
I think you're missing the point. There are multiple sources that corroborate that Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected.
Umh! yes, you could simply ask one...given that it's in the Creed.
That's all settled then. The Bible is confirmed as historically accurate. Therefore Genesis is true. Therefore God created the universe. End of thread.If I might resurrect this thread [...ooo, see what I did there? clever]...
That wasn't my aim from one small argument of course. I was simply trying to establish that the claimof Jesus' resurrection, at least, began very early on. This counters the common argument that such a 'myth' developed many years later like a game of telephone. Alone, the argument certainly by no means proves that the event being claimed actually happened, but it seemed like an appropriate place to start.
I didn't anticipate so much falderal on the matter, however. I guess there's no use continuing on to any other points though as everyone seems to have given up on me.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
This counters the common argument that such a 'myth' developed many years later like a game of telephone.
Not really. Perceptions can change within hours of witnessing an event and it doesn't take long for that perception to change to such a degree that it bears little resemblance to the reality of the original events - this is a problem with all eye-witness testimony and not limited to the supposed eye-witness accounts recalled many years after the fact in the Gospels.
Add to that the agenda of the Gospel authors and you can't objectively accept the events of the resurrection without any non-biblical documentary evidence (something which is tellingly in short supply).
-
@hieru said:
Not really. Perceptions can change within hours of witnessing an event and it doesn't take long for that perception to change to such a degree that it bears little resemblance to the reality of the original events - this is a problem with all eye-witness testimony and not limited to the supposed eye-witness accounts recalled many years after the fact in the Gospels.
It's one thing for someone to remember a shorter person as being tall or a red car as being green. It's quite another to mis-remember a dead man as having appeared to you. Eye-witness testimony isn't infallible and the historical method doesn't assume so. But within the historical method we have documents reporting on events sometimes hundreds of years prior to their written recording that we accept as credible accounts. It would seem that by your standards we couldn't trust even first hand eye witness accounts which would essentially make any historical study nonsensical. That's why I'm trying to adhere to accepted historical method. These aren't myrules for determining historical accuracy, these are methods developed by historians and scholars.
@unknownuser said:
Add to that the agenda of the Gospel authors and you can't objectively accept the events of the resurrection without any non-biblical documentary evidence (something which is tellingly in short supply).
In ancient times EVERYONE writing a historical record had a bias. People didn't do these things for fun. They were difficult and often costly. The historical method takes these factors into account by looking at what there biases were (not ifthey were but what) and factoring that into the equation. Josephus for example was a Jewish historian employed by Rome and yet we regard the majority of his accounts as quite reliable. Here, in 1 Corinthians we might ask what people had to gain by claiming Jesus to have been resurrected?
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
It's one thing for someone to remember a shorter person as being tall or a red car as being green. It's quite another to misremember a dead man as having appeared to you.
You would be surprised at the way people can drastically misperceive what they have seen. Even large groups of people can mistakenly believe that they have seen some kind of exotic phenomena.
Obviously the historical method takes account for this fallibility, but along with the problem of bias it's also the reason that historians prefer not to draw conclusions based on a single source - especially when we are dealing with incredible claims - and will seek out corroborating evidence from various sources or even other fields. When it comes to the resurrection there is no evidence outside of the NT and our empirical understanding of medicine tells us that it's impossible for someone to come back to life after clinical death.
Applying the historical method we can't lend claims regarding the resurrection any more weight than say the claims of the Heaven's Gate cult.
@unknownuser said:
Here, in 1 Corinthians we might ask what people had to gain by claiming Jesus to have been resurrected?
Every cult needs a hook to draw the punters in.
Advertisement