Creator God--Plausibility and Substance

[Strange]

 

 

@ swanson: Are you trying to force me further past my bedtime (kidding)?

 

Seriously, it depends. If the person died in antiquity, you have to determine the facts. If the facts themselves are inconclusive (usually due to sheer volume, in increasing measure), you have to depend on the facts, and you have to trust something in order to state anything concerning what they said, or anything about what they said, and/or about what people say, who are his or her adherents. Anything beyond "I don't care."

 

So, rather like science, you test their statement against the evidence. You don't just accept it on faith.

[B. John Jones]

 

So, rather like science, you test their statement against the evidence. You don't just accept it on faith.

 

Yes. And you don't just accept statements on science. You test statements on faith.

[Strange]

 

Yes. And you don't just accept statements on science. You test statements on faith.

 

What does that mean? "Test statements on faith"?

 

 

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

[Memammal]

Because it's stacked against things for which there is no objective evidence. Belief is subjective evidence. Faith as evidence is like trying to argue that personal preference or opinion is fact.

 

Quite. I think it is important to stress that science doesn't dismiss those things because they are gods or whatever. But because there is not, and probably cannot be, objective evidence for them.

 

I'm not sure why this is a problem for people of faith. If you believe in God, why would you need science to validate that?

 

I am sticking to what I originally wrote. What we know today (scientifically speaking) is incompatible with most, if not all religious beliefs.

 

 

If someone states that Jesus is alive, you have to evaluate what they say, as evidence, if you have any right to preclude anything about Jesus, or about the Bible.

Case in point.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Memammal

[B. John Jones]

 

What does that mean? "Test statements on faith"?

 

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

 

You wouldn't trust someone you don't know with your new Porsche would you (or something comparable if there is such a thing)? You might trust them with a new bike if you weren't stingy and the person isn't shady. Same thing. At first, maybe a simple reluctant, but respectful, prayer, "Okay, you say you're a good God. Prove it to me today." That's it. Or your own (respectful, but demanding) version.

[Strange]

 

You wouldn't trust someone you don't know with your new Porsche would you (or something comparable if there is such a thing)? You might trust them with a new bike if you weren't stingy and the person isn't shady. Same thing. At first, maybe a simple reluctant, but respectful, prayer, "Okay, you say you're a good God. Prove it to me today." That's it. Or your own (respectful, but demanding) version.

 

That has nothing to do with evidence.

 

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Strange

[B. John Jones]

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

 

Very late. Almost 3 AM. Goodnight.

[Phi for All]

 

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

 

We see this claim a lot, yet never see it supported by relevant example. It seems to be one of those "kids these days" type arguments that have no actual basis in fact, and reflect a deep misunderstanding of basic scientific methodology.

 

"Modern science" is a phrase sometimes used to demonize it, the way the contemporary use of the word "natural" has come to demonize humans. I'm betting "modern science" is considered godless by the devout, who believe scientists used to be much more religious.

[swansont]

 

 

@ swanson: Are you trying to force me further past my bedtime (kidding)?

 

Seriously, it depends. If the person died in antiquity, you have to determine the facts. If the facts themselves are inconclusive (usually due to sheer volume, in increasing measure), you have to depend on the facts, and you have to trust something in order to state anything concerning what they said, or anything about what they said, and/or about what people say, who are his or her adherents. Anything beyond "I don't care."

 

 

 

Somebody who has just lied didn't die in antiquity, so I can't see this as anything but a red herring.

 

If someone declares themselves to be a frog, what do you do — look at them and see that they are lying, or do you pray for divine guidance? If an email says that a Nigerian prince has died and you can make a lot of money if you send them your banking information, do you research this or pray for divine guidance? etc., etc.

[Moontanman]

 

If you know that somebody has just lied, the sheer fact that they have lied is evidence that they are a liar. You have to evaluate what they said, as evidence, before you can judge their lie.

 

If someone states that Jesus is alive, you have to evaluate what they say, as evidence, if you have any right to preclude anything about Jesus, or about the Bible.

 

Actually, where the Christian church is most richly multiplied by new believers, tends always to be where diversity is concentrated. For just the first of many examples to follow: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A5-13%2C+41&version=NLT [observe the second section, where 3,000 people from very diverse cultures, including Arabic, were added to the church, in one day, at it's birth].

 

I will try to continue here, et al, tomorrow. 'Tis late here in Hawaii (Aloha!)

 

 

I can prove that the abrahamic god as described in the holy books of that "god" is either false or a liar.

 

All you have are arguments from ignorance, baseless assertions, and arguments based on popularity. None of this is evidence of anything but the theistic panic when they realize they have no place to stand.

 

Also your assumption that there is only one god is kind of pitiful, why is your god the only possible god? Why is your god more likely than any other concept of god? To assert you have evidence of your god over any other god needs to be backed up or retracted...

 

Yes. And you don't just accept statements on science. You test statements on faith.

 

 

Please tell us what you mean by this? Faith is not a part of science...

 

Not a presupposition. "A" Creator God is in English. The English term, "God," capital-G, is established on the Judeo-Christian notion of God. The Hebrew (Jewish) basis is "El," or "Elohim," being a term used interchangeably for the same God. "Elohim," is singular in meaning, plural in form. The Judeo-Christian (notion of) God is manifest in several forms--for example, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; singular in meaning; one unity; one nature; one God. So, if we're going to have a discussion in English, there have to be some such assumptions.

 

 

 

No, the language used to discuss god has nothing to do with the concept of god, gods, or goddesses! There are something like 7 billion people on this planet, less than half give your ideas about god any credence what so ever. And yes, people who worship various pantheons of gods also speak english...

[B. John Jones]

 

 

Because it's stacked against things for which there is no objective evidence. Belief is subjective evidence. Faith as evidence is like trying to argue that personal preference or opinion is fact.

 

Show me one mark of evidence against the Biblical God and I promise you, I'll prove that your mark is sheer evidence at best. Show me 7, and I'll promise you more.

[Moontanman]

 

Show me one mark of evidence against the Biblical God and I promise you, I'll prove that your mark is sheer evidence at best. Show me 7, and I'll promise you more.

 

 

The Bible it's self shows the biblical god is either made up or a liar, are you afraid of dealing with me? Or do you already know the bible is wrong about everything it asserts about "the nature of" reality?

 

 

Edited for accuracy...

Edited June 23, 2016 by Moontanman

[B. John Jones]

 

 

The Bible it's self shows the biblical god is either made up or a liar, are you afraid of dealing with me? Or do you already know the bible is wrong about everything it asserts about "the nature of" reality?

 

 

Edited for accuracy...

 

Afraid of who? A person? I honor you as a person, but I pay no special respect to any sheer person, let alone fear. Show me a single inconsistency between the Bible and nature. I will give strong evidence supportive that you are in error.

Edited June 23, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Moontanman]

 

Afraid of who? A person? I honor you as a person, but I pay no special respect to any sheer person, let alone fear. Show me a single inconsistency between the Bible and nature. I will give strong evidence supportive that you are in error.

 

 

There was never a world wide flood, men cannot live in the stomach of a fish, the earth is not a flat disc covered by a crystal dome that the sun moon and stars are attached to. A man cannot fight with stars, the universe nor the earth were created in six days, putting a striped stick in front of a pregnant goat will not cause it have stripped young, the moon is not a light, there could not have been day or night before there was a sun and rotating earth. Should I go on?

[Strange]

 

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

 

 

Please provide some support for this claim.

[swansont]

 

Show me one mark of evidence against the Biblical God and I promise you, I'll prove that your mark is sheer evidence at best. Show me 7, and I'll promise you more.

 

 

 

How did we transition from faith the God exists should count as evidence to demanding evidence that she doesn't exist? Can God make goalposts so big that she can't move them?

[B. John Jones]

 

How did we transition from faith the God exists should count as evidence to demanding evidence that she doesn't exist? Can God make goalposts so big that she can't move them?

 

As follows [in quotes]:

 

Because it's stacked against things for which there is no objective evidence. Belief is subjective evidence. Faith as evidence is like trying to argue that personal preference or opinion is fact.

 

There's no such thing as subjective evidence. Subjection is by the will of the one subjecting. All evidence is objective. There's nothing subjective in the evidence itself, ever. As one who is certain about truth, I subject the evidence you offer as scientists to truth, and to Scripture. I render some evidence as faulty, not on the basis that any certain section of Scripture seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the interpretation of the evidence.

 

The only fair and honest way for a scientist to treat the Scripture is to subject the Scripture to science, rendering Scripture as faulty, not ever on the basis that any certain scientific principle or observation seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the Scripture itself, if ever possible.

 

In either case, the only fair rebuttal must address the charge against the standard used by those rebutting (If science validates what a "Creationist" charges as error in science, opponents should answer, in terms of Scripture, nature and/or science . If Scripture validates what opponents charge as error in Scripture, opponents should answer, in terms of science, nature, and/or Scripture).

 

Instead, you assume error when it's apparent--then those still united in science move on, as science, or lock or trash the dialogue, not on principle, but because you can. Yet soon, science will turn very sour, short of repentance. Modern, wholesale convenience is short-lived. As with material kingdoms and economies, diminishing returns always apply, as natural law.

 

 

Show me one mark of evidence against the Biblical God and I promise you, I'll prove that your mark is sheer evidence at best. Show me 7, and I'll promise you more.

 

 

 

There was never a world wide flood, men cannot live in the stomach of a fish, the earth is not a flat disc covered by a crystal dome that the sun moon and stars are attached to. A man cannot fight with stars, the universe nor the earth were created in six days, putting a striped stick in front of a pregnant goat will not cause it have stripped young, the moon is not a light, there could not have been day or night before there was a sun and rotating earth. Should I go on?

 

Everything you've just stated hinges on one faulty assumption: that Almighty God does not precede every is and is not, can and cannot, will and will not, could and could not. The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Accepting it or rejecting it determines the basis of your understanding or deception (respectively).

Edited June 23, 2016 by B. John Jones

[swansont]

There's no such thing as subjective evidence. Subjection is by the will of the one subjecting. All evidence is objective. There's nothing subjective in the evidence itself, ever.

So how is it your faith differs from mine? If it's not subjective, it must be the same for everyone. But we already know it's not, so this strikes me as just being disingenuous.

 

The only fair and honest way for a scientist to treat the Scripture is to subject the Scripture to science, rendering Scripture as faulty, not ever on the basis that any certain scientific principle or observation seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the Scripture itself, if ever possible.

Which has happened. There's plenty of testing as to the age of the earth, when life appeared, how it changed over time, whether there was a worldwide flood and a bottleneck in genetic diversity, among other things. Scripture fails all of these tests.

 

In either case, the only fair rebuttal must address the charge against the standard used by those rebutting (If science validates what a "Creationist" charges as error in science, opponents should answer, in terms of Scripture, nature and/or science . If Scripture validates what opponents charge as error in Scripture, opponents should answer, in terms of science, nature, and/or Scripture).

Wait, what? This sounds like you are saying that if scripture predicts something and science disagrees, the solution is to go back and reread the scripture.

 

Instead, you assume error when it's apparent--then those still united in science move on, as science, or lock or trash the dialogue, not on principle, but because you can. Yet soon, science will turn very sour, short of repentance. Modern, wholesale convenience is short-lived. As with material kingdoms and economies, diminishing returns always apply, as natural law.

Yes, we will rue the day. Whatever. You've been asked for details on the failures of modern science and we've gotten very little in response.

 

Everything you've just stated hinges on one faulty assumption: that Almighty God does not precede every is and is not, can and cannot, will and will not, could and could not. The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Accepting it or rejecting it determines the basis of your understanding or deception.

And that's the difference between science and ideology. Science is free to be modified in light of new evidence. Once you have bought into an ideology, though, you have to contort facts to fit the narrative.

 

You can keep it.

[Strange]

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

 

 

Please provide some support for this claim.

[Arete]

Everything you've just stated hinges on one faulty assumption: that Almighty God does not precede every is and is not, can and cannot, will and will not, could and could not. The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Accepting it or rejecting it determines the basis of your understanding or deception (respectively).

 

This sounds like a logically devoid game of "Simon says".

 

As in, if you say "Pigs can fly" we can reject it as proven incorrect by data, but if you say "God/the Bible says that pigs can fly" we are expected to unquestionably accept it in the face of contradictory observation.

 

I for one find that a rather unsatisfactory position. It basically gives you a logical loophole to make any spurious claim you want to and demand it be valid.

[Moontanman]

 

As follows [in quotes]:

 

 

There's no such thing as subjective evidence. Subjection is by the will of the one subjecting. All evidence is objective. There's nothing subjective in the evidence itself, ever. As one who is certain about truth, I subject the evidence you offer as scientists to truth, and to Scripture. I render some evidence as faulty, not on the basis that any certain section of Scripture seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the interpretation of the evidence.

 

The only fair and honest way for a scientist to treat the Scripture is to subject the Scripture to science, rendering Scripture as faulty, not ever on the basis that any certain scientific principle or observation seems to refute it, but only ever on the basis of a latter discovery of error in the Scripture itself, if ever possible.

 

In either case, the only fair rebuttal must address the charge against the standard used by those rebutting (If science validates what a "Creationist" charges as error in science, opponents should answer, in terms of Scripture, nature and/or science . If Scripture validates what opponents charge as error in Scripture, opponents should answer, in terms of science, nature, and/or Scripture).

 

Instead, you assume error when it's apparent--then those still united in science move on, as science, or lock or trash the dialogue, not on principle, but because you can. Yet soon, science will turn very sour, short of repentance. Modern, wholesale convenience is short-lived. As with material kingdoms and economies, diminishing returns always apply, as natural law.

 

 

 

 

Everything you've just stated hinges on one faulty assumption: that Almighty God does not precede every is and is not, can and cannot, will and will not, could and could not. The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Accepting it or rejecting it determines the basis of your understanding or deception (respectively).

 

 

Quite the contrary I neither accept or reject the almighty assertion, I simply state up front there is no evidence there is any truth to it. Nonetheless my assertions of the invalidity of the Bible and therefor god as described in the bible do not hinge on the story of creation being true, or the flood story or jonah and the fish or whale. I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that these things are nothing more than parables or morality tales. I am willing to pass on the evidence that these stories are simply plagiarized from earlier pagan religions.

 

There are things that cannot be anything but evidence that god is a deceptive jinn or mythology. Pi is not equal to 3, the bible states clearly that Pi is equal to 3, no one with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry would make such a claim, exposing pregnant goats to striped sticks will not and cannot cause the kids to be born striped. No one who knows anything about genetics would claim such a thing. The Bible clearly states the Earth is a flat disc covered with a crystal dome surrounded by water with the sun, moon, and stars inside that crystal dome.

 

There are a great many moral issues as well, anyone who follows the moral code of the Bible would be at least imprisoned or a criminal on the run in any nation on earth. Jesus either lied or had no clue as to things like germs and the importance of cleanliness, Jesus claimed that he would return before the generation of his day had passed, he made this assertion at least three times. Jesus told slaves to obey their masters as they would obey god, even the cruel masters.

 

God's army that he backed with his omnipotent power was defeated because his enemy had chariots of iron... is god an elf who's power is negated by ferous metals?

 

God demands genocide, rape, pillage and even the taking of little girls as sex slaves. Unruly children are to be stoned to death at the edge of town, the god of the bible is a homicidal monster, anyone who would worship such a being if he existed is morally bankrupt...

[disarray]

John Jones stated that "The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1-"

 

This seems to me to be something of a circular argument, wouldn't you say? (Logic 101).

 

Perhaps an equally relevant passage is " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." from John 1:1.

 

But hey, we can see the same sort of claim in other religious, allegedly divinely inspired scriptures, e.g., "And Allah by His words [kalimati] doth prove and establish His truth, however much the sinners may hate it!"

Qur'an 10:082

I think that the proper sequence to show that everything in the Bible is true and/or divinely inspired is to

First prove (or at least provide reasonable evidence) that such a God exists.

Then prove (or provide reasonable evidence) that he divinely inspired those who wrote the Bible

Then prove (or provide reasonable evidence) that other Gods don't exist and that other religious scriptures weren't divinely inspired (as the scriptures of various religions often contradict each other....so that really only one can be the (one, true) Word of God.

Edited June 25, 2016 by disarray

[B. John Jones]

So how is it your faith differs from mine? If it's not subjective, it must be the same for everyone. But we already know it's not, so this strikes me as just being disingenuous.

 

Well, faith in peanut butter and jelly for lighting, would fail you, as, I would say, faith in Buddha would fail you. Faith in a generic brand of light bulb is fairly useful faith. Faith that the sun will rise and set is substantial faith. Faith in an eternal light by a certain offensive name is perfect faith. My own faith in him is subject to my own estimation, making the evidence (his broken and redeemed body) subject to my own reason. If I were to subject my own reason to the Muslim religion or to science, then the evidence would have subjected me. I would not be studying or worshiping subjectively or objectively. I would have been subjected.

[ajb]

Well, faith in peanut butter and jelly for lighting, would fail you, as, I would say, faith in Buddha would fail you.

In what sense 'fail'?

 

Faith that the sun will rise and set is substantial faith.

Okay, but this is not 'blind faith'. We understand the mechanics here, we can make accurate predictions and test these. We have no reason to think that the Sun will not raise and fall tomorrow.

 

 

Faith in an eternal light by a certain offensive name is perfect faith. My own faith in him is subject to my own estimation, making the evidence (his broken and redeemed body) subject to my own reason.

We would call that 'blind faith'.

 

Anyway, this seems to be falling off topic.

[B. John Jones]

 

John Jones stated that "The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1-"

 

This seems to me to be something of a circular argument, wouldn't you say? (Logic 101).

 

Perhaps an equally relevant passage is " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." from John 1:1.

 

But hey, we can see the same sort of claim in other religious, allegedly divinely inspired scriptures, e.g., "And Allah by His words [kalimati] doth prove and establish His truth, however much the sinners may hate it!"

Qur'an 10:082

I think that the proper sequence to show that everything in the Bible is true and/or divinely inspired is to

 

The point that I was making with Genesis 1:1, is that you have to believe this verse to believe anything else in the Bible. I thought that was pretty clear. You can't believe John 1:1 or anything else in the Bible, in unity with Jewish or Christian faith, without Genesis 1:1.

 

First prove (or at least provide reasonable evidence) that such a God exists.

 

Only God can prove this to the believer. I was answering this by stating that your estimation of any part of the Bible depends on your estimation of Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, for the unbeliever, this is not an obfuscation.

 

Then prove (or provide reasonable evidence) that he divinely inspired those who wrote the Bible

 

 

It was proven to the crowds, to the public, almost (sic) 2000 years ago. You and I are accountable to the human account of these events.

 

Then prove (or provide reasonable evidence) that other Gods don't exist and that other religious scriptures weren't divinely inspired (as the scriptures of various religions often contradict each other....so that really only one can be the (one, true) Word of God.

 

Unfortunately, as has been said severally in these forums, science has had this discussion and determined they are not worth their while: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95869-creator-god-plausibility-and-substance/?p=927085