Phi for All Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I have to ask this, so every time njaohnt drags out his "crap", and I might add the same "crap" every time, we have to go through it point by point to point out how his "crap" isn't evidence? That doesn't seem quite right to me... This is, unfortunately, the burden science has to bear. But since this is an online forum, we set limits on crap. They say that every crap-avalanche is started by that one last turd. 1
Klaynos Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 ! Moderator Note I would like to give njaohnt one more chance to answer the points put to him. I feel that is only fair. If he cannot present evidence when now it has been explained to him why what he has presented isn't evidence (it was only covered briefly before I think before the thread got side tracked) then the thread will close. Call me optimistic but I like to give everyone a few chances to learn. 1
Arete Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 No, it was in this topic. If you're intent on using the bible as evidence of God, please explain how you deal with circularity as described previously: Please address the circularity of the Bible - God proof described previously to you as quoted below or provide an independent sources of evidence to support your assertions: "the issue with using the bible as evidence of God is circularity. The authority of the bible comes from God. Proof of God comes from the bible. Without God, the bible is just another book, without the bible, there's no proof of God. Due to their co-dependence, you can't use one as an independent source of information on the other and attempting to do so results in a circular proof. 1
JustinW Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Arete, I haven't followed this thread too close, frankly due to confusion, but I will have to disagree with the circularity of the bible. If not for anything else then just this one reason. Proof of God doesn't come from the bible. Those who have faith would say that faith alone is proof of God. I know in a science forum physical evidence is the delecreme, but something that needs no physical evidence for those that have faith, emotional and speculative thinking is the closest you're likely to get. Maybe along with a tiny amount of accuracy when it comes to people, places, and events throughout history.
Arete Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Arete, I haven't followed this thread too close, frankly due to confusion, but I will have to disagree with the circularity of the bible. If not for anything else then just this one reason. Proof of God doesn't come from the bible. Those who have faith would say that faith alone is proof of God. I know in a science forum physical evidence is the delecreme, but something that needs no physical evidence for those that have faith, emotional and speculative thinking is the closest you're likely to get. Maybe along with a tiny amount of accuracy when it comes to people, places, and events throughout history. That's the point - he's stating the bible is evidence of the existence of God and then claiming that this results in his religious beliefs being equatable with acceptance of scientific theories. To believe the Bible is the word of God, you need to believe in God first. Therefore belief in God is external to the bible. Saying the bible is the infallible word of God, and it describes God, therefore it is proof God exists, is circular and precisely what njaohnt has inferred in previous posts. As such, njaohnt needs to provide either a) an explanation of how the circularity is dealt with b) an independent source of evidence or c) accept the faith based nature of religious beliefs and the fallacy of equating them to scientific theories. Edited February 14, 2012 by Arete
1=1 Posted February 14, 2012 Author Posted February 14, 2012 Can somebody give a direct answer to my question? I know there have been a few, but lets get this thread back on track shall we?
Tres Juicy Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Can somebody give a direct answer to my question? I know there have been a few, but lets get this thread back on track shall we? I will: There is no god. If there was and the fairy tale were true then he would, but it's not. Of course the theists will give excuses as to why an "all powerful" and "infinite" "god" can't or won't prevent evil, but their arguments are always full of holes and completely devoid of evidence. The fact is; humans are geared towards understanding things through a narrative, and in order to create a narrative about the universe you must first anthropomorphise it, giving it intention and purpose. That's where god comes from. It's a nice story, but nothing more. Edited February 14, 2012 by Tres Juicy
njaohnt Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Can somebody give a direct answer to my question? I know there have been a few, but lets get this thread back on track shall we? There isn't an answer, if you ask me. You are not God. You have seen what He has done, but you have not seen Him. You can't answer that question. There are a lot of assumptions. You're not Dovoda by any chance are you? If your are, then you would be a sockpuppet and the hounds are probably already on their way. I am really sure that that is incorrect. If you think of atheism as a religion, then you should also think of bald as a hair color and "not stamp collecting" as a hobby. Well, not a hair colour, but a type of hair. I don't see how stamp collecting, and "'not stamp collecting'" relate to atheism, and Christianity. If I was to believe you owed me a million dollars, would that be enough to make it true? No. If it did, then you would owe me one million dollars (so if you think just belieing something to be true makes it so, then pay up ). Now that you have said "you owed me a million dollars", let's say that you really mean it. There is evidence that I owe you 1 000 000 dollars, that post. Now that's not much evidence, but it is still evidence. If I deny that I owe you it, there is evidence against it. See what I mean. The Bible is evidence. No matter what you say. Are you saying that everything that you say isn't evidence, because of much of the reasons that you put evidence against God, is just something you put? Yes, you are putting evidence. So is the Bible. Were you with them while they wrote the Bible? No. You don't have much evidence that people even wrote the Bible. But lets look at yourself. If you wrote on average 1,000 words a day, it would only take you 770 days to reach the amount of words you have used as the example. 1,000 words a day might sound like a lot, but in this post I have already written 110 words (not counting numbers) and this only took me around 2 minutes to do. this means 1,000 words should only take me around 20 minutes to write the 1,000 words. Or to put it another way the 770,00 words would only take me around 10 days of continuous work. hmm, only 10 days. not a lot is it. If I wanted to fool people, that is not a lot of effort is it. Yea, but how many copies did they make. They didn't have photocopiers. Oh, I just looked at 999's profile. To bad Dovoda, try again.
doG Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 There has been something that has been bothering me for an hour or so now. The bible says that god.... Define 'god'! It's hard to debate the existence of something that is not exactly defined to begin with.
Moontanman Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 See what I mean. The Bible is evidence. No matter what you say. Are you saying that everything that you say isn't evidence, because of much of the reasons that you put evidence against God, is just something you put? Yes, you are putting evidence. So is the Bible. Were you with them while they wrote the Bible? No. You don't have much evidence that people even wrote the Bible. Yea, but how many copies did they make. They didn't have photocopiers. Oh, I just looked at 999's profile. To bad Dovoda, try again. njaohnt, let make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You are saying that the fact that such a complex manuscript was written and copied so many times, so long ago, and that the effort of doing so was so great that this is reason to suspect it's true?
iNow Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Not that it really matters, but out of curiosity njaohnt, would I be correct in assuming that you are somewhere between age 11 and 14?
Phi for All Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Well, not a hair colour, but a type of hair. Are you saying that the bottoms of my feet, which are bald, have a "type of hair" on them? I don't see how stamp collecting, and "'not stamp collecting'" relate to atheism, and Christianity. Theists believe, atheists don't. Stamp collectors collect stamps, not stamp collectors don't. The atheist doesn't even think about God until someone brings it up, much like the guy who doesn't collect stamps doesn't think about collecting stamps. If you had a belief system revolving around turning lead into gold, and I didn't, why on Earth would you say my belief system revolves around NOT believing in alchemy? Now that you have said "you owed me a million dollars", let's say that you really mean it.There is evidence that I owe you 1 000 000 dollars, that post. Now that's not much evidence, but it is still evidence. If I deny that I owe you it, there is evidence against it. This is COMPLETELY INCORRECT. I don't care how much Edtharan believes you owe him $1M, him saying you do is NOT evidence. It's hearsay, and not even admissible in a court. You denying it is also hearsay, but since Edtharan is the one making the outrageous claim, it's up to him to provide witnesses and contracts that can be examined to determine their authenticity. The Bible fails those kinds of tests in many places, which at the very least proves that it is NOT inerrant. See what I mean. The Bible is evidence. No matter what you say. Are you saying that everything that you say isn't evidence, because of much of the reasons that you put evidence against God, is just something you put? Yes, you are putting evidence. So is the Bible. Were you with them while they wrote the Bible? No. You don't have much evidence that people even wrote the Bible. No one here has any evidence against the existence of God. There is plenty of evidence that the Bible has errors, and plenty of evidence that there was no worldwide flood, and NONE OF IT IS MERELY PEOPLE SAYING THINGS. We can look at geological records to see when severe flooding has happened, and there seems to be evidence of a massive local flood from the Black Sea (we can tell when the Black Sea was freshwater based on freshwater fossils, and when it suddenly became inundated by salt water from the Mediterranean) but none of the evidence supports a global flood, and there are also several reasons why the world couldn't be covered completely with water. Yea, but how many copies did they make. They didn't have photocopiers. They had lots of monks and lots of ink and lots of parchment and lots of time.
1=1 Posted February 15, 2012 Author Posted February 15, 2012 There isn't an answer, if you ask me. You are not God. You have seen what He has done, but you have not seen Him. You can't answer that question. There are a lot of assumptions. I am really sure that that is incorrect. Well, not a hair colour, but a type of hair. I don't see how stamp collecting, and "'not stamp collecting'" relate to atheism, and Christianity. Now that you have said "you owed me a million dollars", let's say that you really mean it. There is evidence that I owe you 1 000 000 dollars, that post. Now that's not much evidence, but it is still evidence. If I deny that I owe you it, there is evidence against it. See what I mean. The Bible is evidence. No matter what you say. Are you saying that everything that you say isn't evidence, because of much of the reasons that you put evidence against God, is just something you put? Yes, you are putting evidence. So is the Bible. Were you with them while they wrote the Bible? No. You don't have much evidence that people even wrote the Bible. Yea, but how many copies did they make. They didn't have photocopiers. Oh, I just looked at 999's profile. To bad Dovoda, try again. I have to agree that the bible is evidence, very minor evidence and not very compelling either, but evidence nether the less. Also, just because there is a large cumulation of incorrect data, it doesn't make it correct.
Arete Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 The Bible is evidence. No matter what you say. I guess I'm talking to myself in here. Please address the circularity of using the bible as proof of God. Otherwise this argument has as much merit as using the works of Tolkien as evidence of Hobbits. 2
njaohnt Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 njaohnt, let make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You are saying that the fact that such a complex manuscript was written and copied so many times, so long ago, and that the effort of doing so was so great that this is reason to suspect it's true? It's enough evidence for me. Not that it really matters, but out of curiosity njaohnt, would I be correct in assuming that you are somewhere between age 11 and 14? Yes. 1. Are you saying that the bottoms of my feet, which are bald, have a "type of hair" on them? 2. Theists believe, atheists don't. Stamp collectors collect stamps, not stamp collectors don't. The atheist doesn't even think about God until someone brings it up, much like the guy who doesn't collect stamps doesn't think about collecting stamps. If you had a belief system revolving around turning lead into gold, and I didn't, why on Earth would you say my belief system revolves around NOT believing in alchemy? 1. No, but if someone ask you "what type of hair is on the bottom of your feet", you would say "the bottom of my feet are bald". 2. OK, let's say I had that belief system. You don't. You believe that you can't make gold out of lead. If someone ask you, "how do you believe that njaohnt makes lead into gold", you would say, "I don't believe that". It is a type of belief. -1
Moontanman Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 It's enough evidence for me. If that is the case then what about other ancient religious texts? Some of them are far older and more complex than the holy bible. Do you give them the same credence as you do the bible?
iNow Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Not that it really matters, but out of curiosity njaohnt, would I be correct in assuming that you are somewhere between age 11 and 14? Yes. Thank you for being so polite and replying to my question. Your response gives me great hope, and I do appreciate it.
Phi for All Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 1. No, but if someone ask you "what type of hair is on the bottom of your feet", you would say "the bottom of my feet are bald". How arrogant of you to assume you know what I would say! I would NOT say this. I would say, "There isn't ANY hair on the bottom of my feet, there never has been and I don't ever expect there to be". 2. OK, let's say I had that belief system. You don't. You believe that you can't make gold out of lead. If someone ask you, "how do you believe that njaohnt makes lead into gold", you would say, "I don't believe that". It is a type of belief. Again, I would NOT say that. My stance is that you can't turn lead into gold, you've never been able to prove you can, so why on Earth would anyone ask me why I believe you can?
njaohnt Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 If that is the case then what about other ancient religious texts? Some of them are far older and more complex than the holy bible. Do you give them the same credence as you do the bible? I have only heard about one that did something. Something a box that didn't have food, and then after they prayed, there was food in it. I've heard of many, and seen many things that God has done. Haven't you? How arrogant of you to assume you know what I would say! I would NOT say this. I would say, "There isn't ANY hair on the bottom of my feet, there never has been and I don't ever expect there to be". Again, I would NOT say that. My stance is that you can't turn lead into gold, you've never been able to prove you can, so why on Earth would anyone ask me why I believe you can? Pretend that there's evidence. -3
Tres Juicy Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Pretend that there's evidence. Ah, the religious argument
Moontanman Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I have only heard about one that did something. Something a box that didn't have food, and then after they prayed, there was food in it. I've heard of many, and seen many things that God has done. Haven't you? Reading about it or hearing about it most certainly doesn't make it true and there are many religious texts of religions other than yours, about many gods and pantheons of gods other than yours, how do you decide which one is real? Edited February 16, 2012 by Moontanman
Phi for All Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Pretend that there's evidence. That's your job, not mine.
Moontanman Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Pretend there is evidence... IMHO think this discussion has run it's course... 1
Klaynos Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Pretend there is evidence... IMHO think this discussion has run it's course... ! Moderator Note I agree. 1=1, sorry that this thread got pretty side tracked. There are a few answers along the way. No one's going to tell you off for reintroducing the question, this wasn't your fault. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts