Existence of Evil and Contradictions in the Bible as evidence (or not) of God

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

doG,

 

 

Yes, it's a story book full of fables. You should take a look at it some time.

 

For the purpose of showing, I ask is a thing evidence ? And if a thing is evidence then the bible is thing and evidence.

 

 

It's no ones task here to disprove your claims, it is your to support them. Your claims are meaningless without support.

 

I have not asked anyone to prove anything they have not claimed. This was posted earlier. I needed moderator permission to add to the supporting evidence I already posted.

 

 

Why respond to someones intent to annoy others? Several people brought it up and you simply ignored them and continued doing it anyhow.

 

I have the choice to do what I think is right, people may disagree and people have not been right in the past, I'm not here to annoy anyone and if anyone becomes annoyed it may be their fault not mine.

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[doG]

For the purpose of showing, I ask is a thing evidence ? And if a thing is evidence then the bible is thing and evidence.

Just because a thing is a thing does not make it evidence. The bible is a thing and you could say it is evidence that there are such things as books. It is not evidence of a supernatural entity or deity. A rock is also a thing and you could say it is evidence that rocks exist. You could not say it is evidence of the existence of books though.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

doG,

 

 

What defintions?

 

You did not post all the definitions of the word "Evidence" in letters in this forum.

 

Documents from the bible are hearsay stories, not testimony. They are not evidence. I have already posted previously that even the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not testimony. They are hearsay. Hearsay is not testimony and it is not evidence because it cannot be presumed true and has not been proven true with other evidence.

 

Are the gospels evidence of hearsay ?

 

Some people have claimed they are not hearsay, people may be wise to study all the evidence for themselves. Why should anyone trust you are right ?

 

There's plenty to study of the gospels, including the early church father commentaries of ancient time, lots of pages to gain maximum knowledge.

 

I've posted part of them in the forum.

 

The bible is a collection of story books written over centuries, nothing more. It is not evidence of anything.

 

I have asked some questions about the bible, a thing and evidence, You have answered partly, I'm waiting for the others.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[doG]

Are the gospels evidence of hearsay ?

 

Some people have claimed they are not hearsay, people may be wise to study all the evidence for themselves. Why should anyone trust you are right ?

 

There's plenty to study of the gospels, including the early church father commentaries of ancient time, lots of pages to gain maximum knowledge.

Yes they are. The consensus among biblical scholars is that there is little or no first person testimony in the bible. People should look into this themselves and not take anyone's word that the books of the bible are evidence of anything unless they can dig up supporting evidence.

 

Commentaries may make nice reading material but they are really just commentaries about hearsay stories so they'd be a waste of time to evaluate the books of the bible as actual evidence.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

May be one of the moderators will move part of the top half of this post to the forum People who believe in God are broken. If they choose not to that's alright.

 

Then again maybe not...

 

 

 

What are the signs of a broken person ?

 

In this context broken is referring to believing in something with no evidence, using faith to make decisions about reality.

 

Are they all believed to be christians or are other people in more need of things like food and acceptable quality shelter and someone to serve them in taking them away from slavery to pleasure of drugs or alcohol or suffering from excess body weight ?

 

What does any of these things have to do with the existence of Evil or contradictions in the bible?

 

Do you trust anybody ?

 

Of course I do, when they've earned my trust.

 

 

 

Is proving that God does not exist not possible ?

 

No it is not, to prove such a thing you would have to have god like knowledge.

 

If you say its possible and it is ever believed by a scientist that they have evidence to prove God does not exist, why may they not want to put it in peer review journal ?

 

If a scientist had proof of the existence or non existence of god they would indeed publish this evidence.

 

If you say it won't ever be possible to prove the existence or non existence of God then a person calling themselves an atheist and scientist is wrong because aren't all things in science claimed to be proven by evidence ?

 

Do like arguing against strawmen? To be an atheist does not mean you have evidence god does not exist, it means you see no evidence that god does exist. To be a scientist does not mean you do not believe in god, you seriously need to do some research, so far you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of your own assertions.

 

Are not all assertions by definition of certainity if they contain the word not or not ?

 

Asserting something is not evidence it is correct.

 

So if any claim is of certainty why is it claimed some assertions are not acknowledged by parts of the scientific body ?

 

Simply claiming or asserting something is not evidence it is true.

 

Are assertions like the The White House of Washington which the president of the United States uses is not in Brazil of south America not proven and acknowledged in science, is it doubted by scientists ?

 

Such an assertion is easily falsified...

 

So you may be doubtful of God existing because you put "cannot exist as described in the bible" and so you may think you have knowledge of how God exists.

 

I see no evidence of any god or gods existing, not just the myths of the Holy bible.

 

May be the test in the bible is if someone knows what is good and what is evil so occurrences of harm or injustice may be true or false and a person may choose.

 

The bible is a book about mythology, tales about what bronze age men though god was.

 

If God cannot exist as described in the bible how may he be both described as just and a injust in the bible ?

 

because it's fiction and fiction can say anything you want?

 

Is the God of the bible injust and just sometimes ?

 

The god described in the Holy Bible is a pathological monster...

 

May be the unjust parts are false.

 

Maybe all of it is.

 

I wasn't surprised to the claim of people being well versed in religious texts, some people may have some knowledge and not have the wisdom.

 

And some people have neither.

 

I doubt your claim it made for a very poor argument because you have not used the wording of my evidence to show how its false, I don't know how much you understand of the wording in it. So I doubt you can do that and you won't disprove it.

 

I can show much of the bible to be false, can you show any of it to be true? The bible is not proof of anything it is full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things.

 

I didn't ask you the question. It was made for someone else to see what they know and prove their words false.

 

you asked a question in the thread, anyone can post and answer...

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

doG,

 

 

Just because a thing is a thing does not make it evidence.

 

Have you got evidence of anything to prove that ?

 

 

The bible is a thing and you could say it is evidence that there are such things as books.

 

 

Is the bible evidence ? "You could say" is not certain. Possible answers are Yes, the bible is evidence, no the bible is not evidence, I'm not sure the bible is evidence or some other answer.

 

It is not evidence of a supernatural entity or deity.

 

Some claim it is, so far I'm not convinced you're trustworthy.

 

A rock is also a thing and you could say it is evidence that rocks exist. You could not say it is evidence of the existence of books though.

 

That doesn't prove biblical text was not caused by God or that He doesn't exist.

 

Sometime in the future I may stop replying to you.

 

 

 

 

[doG]

Sometime in the future I may stop replying to you.

That could be a godsend

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

doG,

 

Yes they are. The consensus among biblical scholars is that there is little or no first person testimony in the bible. People should look into this themselves and not take anyone's word that the books of the bible are evidence of anything unless they can dig up supporting evidence.

 

I don't believe scholars are superior to everyone else, they may have and may make errors in judging the truth of things. Some works of the early church fathers, many pages, are supporting evidence of many parts of the bible.

 

Commentaries may make nice reading material but they are really just commentaries about hearsay stories so they'd be a waste of time to evaluate the books of the bible as actual evidence.

 

Still untrustworthy.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Moontanman]

doG,

 

 

 

 

Have you got evidence of anything to prove that ?

 

Is the bible evidence ? "You could say" is not certain. Possible answers are Yes, the bible is evidence, no the bible is not evidence, I'm not sure the bible is evidence or some other answer.

 

More word games Thomas?

 

 

Some claim it is, so far I'm not convinced you're trustworthy.

 

So far everyone here has treated you honorably, to suggest otherwise with no reason other than he doesn't agree with you is a bit disingenuous don't you think?

 

 

That doesn't prove biblical text was not caused by God or that He doesn't exist.

 

Again, your assertion is the positive one, i simply see no reason to believe, no evidence of god, no belief in god, I do not claim there is no god, i say there is no evidence for god. So far you have shown no evidence for god, only in your belief in your particular god myth. If there is no evidence something exists the default position is that it does not exist. Evidence that stood up to skeptical inquiry would immediately change that stance but the writings of men about god are not evidence of the existence of god. If you insist they are then you have to show why the writings of your particular god are true and all the others are not.

 

Sometime in the future I may stop replying to you.

 

I suggest you quite making childish threats no one is interested in and do some research into reality...

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

Moontanman,

 

Then again maybe not...

 

Maybe maybe not.

 

In this context broken is referring to believing in something with no evidence, using faith to make decisions about reality.

 

The context is Existence of Evil and Contradictions in the Bible as evidence (or not) of God. So what I and you have posted is all part of a broken person and contradictions in the bible. I may explain more after the next quote.

 

Faith is a part of your being and you make decisions about reality because of it. You believe in somethings with no evidence. Your words in this topic have shown that and maybe you will look at one of the definitions of the word faith.

 

One example from bottom of topic.

 

The bible is not proof of anything it is full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things.

 

So the bible is not proof of "full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things" as you put it ?

 

What does any of these things have to do with the existence of Evil or contradictions in the bible?

 

The contradictions in the bible are made of true and false stories of harmful things and beings and so is the world which surrounds the suffering, unaware, broken people.

 

Of course I do, when they've earned my trust.

 

I'm not certain of that.

 

No it is not, to prove such a thing you would have to have god like knowledge.

 

God like knowledge exists in the early church fathers literature.

 

If a scientist had proof of the existence or non existence of god they would indeed publish this evidence.

 

The world might end and stop a scientist from proving the existence of God.

 

Do like arguing against strawmen? To be an atheist does not mean you have evidence god does not exist, it means you see no evidence that god does exist. . .

 

A person is not right to call themself atheist and scientist, no evidence has disproved God and there is no evidence He ever will be disproved.

 

If a person doubts the existence of God they may be a scientist also.

 

If a person doubts the existence of God they may be called agnostic.

 

Not seeing evidence of God's existence is not evidence of God not existing

 

To be a scientist does not mean you do not believe in god,

 

I didn't put that.

 

you seriously need to do some research, so far you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of your own assertions.

 

I have more knowledge and wisdom than you.

 

Asserting something is not evidence it is correct.

 

These words are part of an assertion of something as evidence and correct.

 

Simply claiming or asserting something is not evidence it is true.

 

I simply claim these are words of asserting as something as evidence and true.

 

Such an assertion is easily falsified...

 

So is that.

 

I see no evidence of any god or gods existing, not just the myths of the Holy bible.

 

Does God not exist ?

 

The bible is a book about mythology, tales about what bronze age men though god was.

 

In this post near the bottom you put "The bible is not proof of anything" so does that disprove the mythology ?

 

because it's fiction and fiction can say anything you want?

 

In this post near the bottom you put "The bible is not proof of anything" So is it not proof of the fiction ?

 

The god described in the Holy Bible is a pathological monster...

 

Have you ever proven the contradictions in the Old Testament were not and are not used to test ?

 

Maybe all of it is.

 

I'm defending its not all false.

 

And some people have neither.

 

And some have neither of an all knowing wise God.

 

I can show much of the bible to be false,.

 

I can't.

 

can you show any of it to be true?

 

The bibles are more than one version and that is true.

 

The bible is not proof of anything it is full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things.

 

So the bible is not proof of "full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things" as you put it ?

 

you asked a question in the thread, anyone can post and answer...

 

You didn't win and its not wise to want to.

 

I never reasoned of you as credible and I may stop posting to you.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Prometheus]

I'm going to weigh in on Thomas Kelly guessed's side. I want the practice, and i think he'll appreciate some help. I will have to, however, disregard everything thus far said on this thread, as i don't understand a word. Sorry about that, but i'm not sure it's my fault.

 

So, i understand the contradiction in question is that if god is all loving and god is all powerful, then these two qualities are at odds with each other, given we see so much evil in the world?

 

This rests on the assumption that just because god is all loving he will therefore always prevent evil from happening (which is in his power). This is akin to the mollycoddling parent, denying a child the full spectrum of life, including the bumps and bruises. By denying us exposure to evil, we would be denied an opportunity to practice goodness and to develop.

 

Regardless of god's motive, i suggest that because god is all loving does not necessarily mean he would intervene whenever evil occurs. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[doG]

If a person doubts the existence of God they may be called agnostic.

Yes, it's possible that they could be an agnostic atheist but for the sake of clarity I will point out that those that doubt the existence of god(s) are atheist, i.e. not-theist. True, they may also have the belief that man can never know the absolute truth and that would make them agnostic as well but simply doubting the existence of god(s) says nothing about an individual being agnostic or not since agnosticism is not a point on the axis of theism.

 

The bibles are more than one version and that is true.

 

You'd make a good game show contestant...

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thomas,

In 2 pages, you still don't appear to have a point. I am wondering if you could possibly enlighten us as to what that is without a). preaching and b.) insulting people or making silly threats.

Additionally, when someone asks you a question, providing them with an irrelevant answer that doesn't address the question really isn't the way to do things. We call that a straw man and it's against our rules.

You're beginning to cut things very fine here. Please have a read over our rules before posting in the future; if you continue to ignore them, you will end up suspended.

[seriously disabled]

The bible is full of contradictions and immorality. If God commits genocide then it's alright but when weaker mere mortals commit genocide then it's a punishable sin?

 

Just comes to show the hypocrisy and two-facedness of theists.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

seriously disabled,

 

 

The bible is full of contradictions and immorality. If God commits genocide then it's alright but when weaker mere mortals commit genocide then it's a punishable sin?

 

Just comes to show the hypocrisy and two-facedness of theists.

 

You may find a topic in this forum about The Old Testament containing contradictions in it to test peoples judgement.

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed