A proof of God's self-evidence

[Didymos Thomas]

You ask a great many questions which are just as easily asked of you; remember that.

Can you prove that the authors did not mean for the Bible to be taken literally?

What do you mean prove? As you say, we cannot ask them.

Instead we have to ask ourselves what role these stories played in the lives of the people who invented them and wrote them down; after all, men did invent these stories. A history of creation was beyond their capacity - a man could not know what happened in the world before man came into existence. Genesis is not a factual history but allegory.

When taken as allegory, the stories are meaningful. When taken literally, they are confused and archaic.

Why is it so specific then?

Gilgamesh is specific, Wu Cheng'en's the Monkey King is specific, Dante's Divine Comedy is specific. These are all as specific as the Bible. We do not imagine these texts should be taken literally. To arbitrarily chose the Bible among the vast volumes of literature as being literally true is hasty to say the least.

How come archaeologists keep finding evidence that supports the Bible?

Again, Gilgamesh is a good example here. Archaeologists have found Ur - which is about as much support as archeology can provide. Archaeologists cannot provide any evidence about what was really said between Moses and God - or even that Moses ever lived. Archaeologists have discovered the sight of historic Troy - but no one suggests that Homer is literally true.

You can explain away anything by saying it was made up to solve a contradiction.

Okay - how does this support the theory you presented? I'm open to the idea, but extremely skeptical. The Gospels in question make no mention of the lineages being traced from different sides of Jesus' family, so what gives you the impression that this is the case?

We have to look at the most likely explanation. In this case, it is far more likely that the two different authors, writing decades apart from one another, gave contradictory accounts of his genealogy. Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain, essentially the same sermon. Two different memories of the same event.

How do you know that about the authors? Did they say that to you personally?

No, it's called scholarship - and there no lack of Biblical scholarship.

I believe because I so desperately want to believe, you disbelieve because you so desperately want to disbelieve.

Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I am a Christian.

The misconception among fundamentalists is that if the Bible is not literally true, if the Bible makes contradictory statements, that the whole volume is worthless, that the Christian tradition is bankrupt. Couldn't be further from the truth. Again, fundamentalism is a minority opinion, especially throughout the course of history. The faith tradition obviously doesn't rely on literal interpretations if the faith tradition did not begin with literal interpretations.

Ok, since from that singularity space-time came about, how did that singularity start? Everything in the universe has to have a beginning, so, if there was no space-time before the singularity started expand...how did it expand? My interpretation may be wrong, so explain this again for me

I'm not a scientists, and as I recall, explanations as to why that singularity began to expand are being discussed and no one suggestion seems to have much favor over another.

Though, I'm not sure what this matters. The scientific account of the origin of the universe and the allegorical accounts are of no relation - they serve entirely different purposes.

[Holiday20310401]

If evidence of God were at all present it would not be through the bible. The bible as explained from another thread, "Who could possibly rationalize this- Bible" - or whatever it was called, is silly when trying to correlate the morality of God.

If I were to believe in God it would be away from literature, because literature is of bias. God is from pure introspection of what can not be proven by any other means.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You ask a great many questions which are just as easily asked of you; remember that.



What do you mean prove? As you say, we cannot ask them.

Instead we have to ask ourselves what role these stories played in the lives of the people who invented them and wrote them down; after all, men did invent these stories. A history of creation was beyond their capacity - a man could not know what happened in the world before man came into existence. Genesis is not a factual history but allegory.

When taken as allegory, the stories are meaningful. When taken literally, they are confused and archaic.



Gilgamesh is specific, Wu Cheng'en's the Monkey King is specific, Dante's Divine Comedy is specific. These are all as specific as the Bible. We do not imagine these texts should be taken literally. To arbitrarily chose the Bible among the vast volumes of literature as being literally true is hasty to say the least.



Again, Gilgamesh is a good example here. Archaeologists have found Ur - which is about as much support as archeology can provide. Archaeologists cannot provide any evidence about what was really said between Moses and God - or even that Moses ever lived. Archaeologists have discovered the sight of historic Troy - but no one suggests that Homer is literally true.



Okay - how does this support the theory you presented? I'm open to the idea, but extremely skeptical. The Gospels in question make no mention of the lineages being traced from different sides of Jesus' family, so what gives you the impression that this is the case?

We have to look at the most likely explanation. In this case, it is far more likely that the two different authors, writing decades apart from one another, gave contradictory accounts of his genealogy. Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain, essentially the same sermon. Two different memories of the same event.



No, it's called scholarship - and there no lack of Biblical scholarship.



Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I am a Christian.

The misconception among fundamentalists is that if the Bible is not literally true, if the Bible makes contradictory statements, that the whole volume is worthless, that the Christian tradition is bankrupt. Couldn't be further from the truth. Again, fundamentalism is a minority opinion, especially throughout the course of history. The faith tradition obviously doesn't rely on literal interpretations if the faith tradition did not begin with literal interpretations.



I'm not a scientists, and as I recall, explanations as to why that singularity began to expand are being discussed and no one suggestion seems to have much favor over another.

Though, I'm not sure what this matters. The scientific account of the origin of the universe and the allegorical accounts are of no relation - they serve entirely different purposes.

Sorry for my misinterpretation of you.

I seriously do not have enough faith to believe in a non-creationist account of how the universe came into being...I'd rather believe that a self-existent creator created the universe out of nothing then believe that a singularity somehow underwent rapid expansion --tell me, if that was true, how come we observe so much order and specified complexity around us-?--.

DT, I believe that Christianity is not just a religion and tradition, but a worldview and philosophy...if there are unresolvable contradictions in one, it must be rejected. 2 Tim 3:16 implies that Scripture is free from error and contradiction, as well as Prov 30:5-6 and 1 Cor 2:12-13. Although all these verses would legally be considered hearsay.

I personally find that all of this specified discussion to be stonewalling on the part of both sides...both of us will simply find more evidence to prove our points, and the question will never be resolved. I have faith in infalliability, do you?

I believed that Adam and Eve passed down the story of Creation through their children to Moses, who wrote it down, and each time is was copied perfectly due to the Holy Spirit's preservation (Matt 5:18, NASB). This portion of the dialectic is really not helping either of us; should we drop it, and free up our minds for discussing other aspects of the philosophy of Christianity. Don't flame me for cowardice, please

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

If evidence of God were at all present it would not be through the bible. The bible as explained from another thread, "Who could possibly rationalize this- Bible" - or whatever it was called, is silly when trying to correlate the morality of God.

If I were to believe in God it would be away from literature, because literature is of bias. God is from pure introspection of what can not be proven by any other means.

I agree. God cannot be proven; His existence must be taken on faith, although logic and ontology theories can make His existence more probable.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

logic and ontology theories can make His existence more probable.

Exactly. Some people are willing to have a pure faith, but some would rather see the light, that logic is a very good premise to finding the truth, even for something unprovable, you can only say it isn't when you try to reason first.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Exactly. Some people are willing to have a pure faith, but some would rather see the light, that logic is a very good premise to finding the truth, even for something unprovable, you can only say it isn't when you try to reason first.

Exactly...faith is the bridge b/w the world as it is and the bible. And, all theories to account for the universe are contrary to one another...they can't all be right, but they can all be false. Including Christianity, but that's where my faith takes over from my logic. My motto is "faith seeking understanding".

[Zetetic11235]

Specified complexity is answered by the fact that simple laws elicit complexity as is exeplified in the study of cellular automata. That a set of very basic rules can engender great and seeminlgy unpredictable and non patterned complexity is a well known fact among computer theorists and a long held belief for physicists and mathematicians. you can take a set of rules for costruction like the Mebelbrot Set and voila! An infinitely intricate set infinitely subdividable and repeating when magnified at the correct point. A set which in essence contains itself structualy but not spacially(the repating structure is equally dense but at the same time and infinite subset) can be so easilly constructed by a man made set of rules that it debunks the argument from structural complexity.

Believe only what is reasonable to you and you will find new depth to your self through skepticism and ultimately find where you truely stand and what you can accept as a base on which to build your ideals and your morals and yourself ultimately. It is an intersting plunge to take, adopting the role of the skeptic. It brings you right back up with stronger foundations if you are suited for it and can bear the shift in worldview. That is what I did, and I feel that it was correct for me and for some but not all.

You will find that the rational argument of god is indeed nonsense due to that it is essentially ideologically an infinite loop. Take the very basic precepts of reality on faith and adjust them when a challenge to them you can accept it presented. This is how worldview is established.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Specified complexity is answered by the fact that simple laws elicit complexity as is exeplified in the study of cellular automata. That a set of very basic rules can engender great and seeminlgy unpredictable and non patterned complexity is a well known fact among computer theorists and a long held belief for physicists and mathematicians. you can take a set of rules for costruction like the Mebelbrot Set and voila! An infinitely intricate set infinitely subdividable and repeating when magnified at the correct point. A set which in essence contains itself structualy but not spacially(the repating structure is equally dense but at the same time and infinite subset) can be so easilly constructed by a man made set of rules that it debunks the argument from structural complexity.

Believe only what is reasonable to you and you will find new depth to your self through skepticism and ultimately find where you truely stand and what you can accept as a base on which to build your ideals and your morals and yourself ultimately. It is an intersting plunge to take, adopting the role of the skeptic. It brings you right back up with stronger foundations if you are suited for it and can bear the shift in worldview. That is what I did, and I feel that it was correct for me and for some but not all.

You will find that the rational argument of god is indeed nonsense due to that it is essentially ideologically an infinite loop. Take the very basic precepts of reality on faith and adjust them when a challenge to them you can accept it presented. This is how worldview is established.

I know believe that the existence of YHWH or --any supreme being, for that matter-- cannot be proven. Even my own existence cannot be proven. Perhaps YHWH created those simple rules, and let things happen. But I perfer to give YHWH all the credit He can get, so I still believe in a literal 24hr day, seven day creation account as in Genesis. This dialectic has strengthened a belief I have held since time immemorial, namely that Christianity is primarily faith, reason second --a close second, but still second--. James 1:3

[Zetetic11235]

This is good. God is a thing which cannot be touched by mortal definition, and yet all definitions are of god by definition!

Whatever you feel centers you and is good and true for you, you will hold true reguardless of any challenge. Know that any challenge to what you hold true only holds wieght for you if it strikes an internal truth, and you shall come to realize that you are off center in your actions and beliefs. No idea can change you fundamentally.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

This is good. God is a thing which cannot be touched by mortal definition, and yet all definitions are of god by definition!

Whatever you feel centers you and is good and true for you, you will hold true reguardless of any challenge. Know that any challenge to what you hold true only holds wieght for you if it strikes an internal truth, and you shall come to realize that you are off center in your actions and beliefs. No idea can change you fundamentally.

Do you mean "you all", or "you singular", as in me?