The Old Testament

[Djevv]

Djevv, thanks for the link on Satan’s fall from grace.

Here’s that infamous exchange which led to of all possibly wondrous things, the fig thong:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


I understand where you’re coming from and I’m also big on the concept of taking responsibility for one’s actions. However, from that brief exchange above I don’t see one iota of evidence that would suggest Eve was intellectually capable of properly assessing her situation, rationally weighing up her options or making an informed decision.

As I said in my previous post Eve appears at best to be childlike and at worst intellectually disabled. And as for Adam, …well that big lug remained as mute as a tailor’s dummy throughout.

To Eve’s credit, she is seen to pretty much parrot what God had commanded of her (as a child or simpleton might) but that slippery serpent’s simple contradiction of God’s commandment coupled with the image that the tree and its fruit - and I love this - looked good (now there’s a serious justification for ignoring your creator threat of death) and that its fruit offered the potential to be wise was enough for Eve, in the blink of an eye, to change her mind and follow the serpent’s recommendation.
Woman’s prerogative, eh?

If Eve was fully aware of the gravity of her situation and intellectually equipped by God to deal with Satan, God’s powerful nemesis, where is the evidence in the text?
Where's the neuron activity?

This is why I say God is flawed, and we’ve only just started Genesis - God fails to provide a safe and secure environment for Adam and Eve. And God fails to educate them on the very real dangers they were in.

Exchange the apples for candy and the promise to be wise for toys and you’ve got a school yard pedophile. Now, what do we teach our children regarding strangers with gifts?

Can you see how one might think God’s negligence here is on biblical scale?

Perhaps more information on Adam and Eve is introduced later in the story. I don't know.

OK that's your opinion of the text and that's fine. In my view people today still blame God for our predicament(s) when it is realistically in our power to change things.

Like I said in a previous post not everything is in the text - only the things considered most important. God may well have warned Adam and Eve. The 'conning' of Eve may have been proceeding for some time - we have nothing about how long they were in the garden. There is nothing in the text to suggest Eve was in any way intellectually disabled - but she was an innocent at that point regarding evil. I agree that God did allow her to be tempted but that is the key issue and had to come at some point. - do you follow God's way or do your own will?

Anyway I think we are getting bogged down in the story and probably need to move on - I have given the Christian's perspective at any rate. Where are you up to with your reading?

 

[Rosy]

What happened to Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit?

 

[Djevv]

The possibility for sin to exist simply has to have been created by God. He created humans and their emotions, from which all sin is born. If He'd created us with different emotions then sin (or evil) could have been entirely impossible.

I agree that evil (or the concept of evil) cannot create itself. For evil to exist it requires the creator to have allowed it amongst the things our free will can conceive of and achieve.

I'm not actually sure why this is a bone of contention anyway. It seems quite clear that God is attributed with the creation of evil in scripture:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

The only sticking point I see is the definition of a creator of evil as somehow perfect.

The scriptures above concern judgement so in as much as judgement would seem like evil to the judged then yes God is the author of this 'evil'. Much in the same way as a Judge visits the guilty with prison and nobody thinks the worse of him for it.

Sorry Disco I really am not getting you surely it is ridiculously simple: if you have free will to choose Gods way or not then a decision against God can in no way be attributed to Him, surely? Yes God could have made man without freewill, but then we would be automatons, not men!

Must say this thread is giving me Deja Vu!! Maybe we should move on..............................

 

[jayfox]

Define "spiritual experience". You and I have the same sensory faculties....with all their inherent flaws.

An absolute feeling of the presence of God and assurance of His existance (which the Bible says is given to believers), God answering prayer in miraculous ways etc.

But this begs the question of explaining your infinitely complex God, when other, simpler explanations do so without such a onerous requirement.

No it doesn't. If something is infinitely complex then how can it be explained by a people with limited faculties? The 'simpler' explanations do not fill in all the gaps anyway, so they are incomplete until proven otherwise, so may still yet be proven incorrect as other evidence presents.

Far fewer than in the past. Areas where your God supposedly held sway are now firmly understood in the terms of a material world. Why cling to the remaining gaps? Science doesn't make unsubstantiated claims about such gaps (hence them being gaps) unlike religion, which relies on them.

Far fewer but there are still many there. I don't cling to the gaps. I don't believe that anything science has discovered has disproved the existence of God.

Hey, if you want to believe that science holds all the answers and can't possibly be wrong about any of it, even though there are gaps and that you can't disprove the possibility of a God, then that is fine. I don't see why you seem so determined to try to get me to see things your way? From a Christian's perspective we believe in an afterlife so we want you to know God so that you can experience a wonderful afterlife. So why are you so determined?

Why is it the only plausible option? Have you honestly looked? Or is your current view sufficiently satisfying to make doing so uncomfortable? Of course it is reaffirmed. That was the point I made in my earlier post. When you view the world through such a 'theist prism' you can explain things and affirm your beliefs through the mundane.

Because I simply don't believe that a world this structured and complex could have happened by chance. I believe that we, as a creation, have an inbuilt desire to try to get to know God (that is why Billions of people around the world believe in a God of some kind). I have an absolute certainty in my heart and mind that He exists. I have had prayers answered at the exact time that I needed them in the exact way I needed them (some I didn't realize until later were answered exactly how I needed them but not exactly how I wanted them). I see Him in all things in creation. I have the Bible which tells us about Him and is evidence of him sending His Son to Earth for us. I believe that the God of the Bible, when properly understood, is an incredible God of amazing love and sacrifice beyond anything we can really imagine.

You don't see the self-reinforcing nature of making faith a virtue? You don't see how that contributes to making religion immune to scrutiny from its adherents?


If you think it is harder to believe in something based on faith, than you have never really put any real effort into trying to understand the universe we live in. Now THAT is work. I think it is far easier to believe in something that promises eternal reward, if only you sacrifice your critical faculties, than to make an effort to really look at your beliefs and try to understand WHY you believe.

So, as a scientist, you are saying that it is easier to believe in something that is unseen rather than something that is seen? That really surprises me. I thought that you were the type of person who refused to believe in the absence of physical evidence, making believing in something unseen nigh on impossible?

 

[Djevv]

What happened to Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit?

They were cursed:

Eve with pain in childbirth
Adam with hard labor
The Earth with lack of productiveness
The serpent lost his/her legs

They were also cast out of the garden, so they could not eat from the 'tree of life'.

They also began to wear clothes .

 

[jayfox]

The possibility for sin to exist simply has to have been created by God. He created humans and their emotions, from which all sin is born. If He'd created us with different emotions then sin (or evil) could have been entirely impossible.

I agree that evil (or the concept of evil) cannot create itself. For evil to exist it requires the creator to have allowed it amongst the things our free will can conceive of and achieve.

I'm not actually sure why this is a bone of contention anyway. It seems quite clear that God is attributed with the creation of evil in scripture:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

The only sticking point I see is the definition of a creator of evil as somehow perfect.

You will get no argument from me that God 'allowed' evil to exist. Evil is doing anything against God's will for us. In order for us to have free will we had to be able to choose whether or not to go against God's will.

My Bible's translation (NIV which is probably the most common;y used translation in modern, easier to understand terms) of that passage is slightly different to the one you have above. It replaces "evil" with "disaster" making the verse read - "I bring prosperity and create disaster". My Study Bible notes explain in this way - "Why would God create disaster? The best answer might rest in the image of God as a loving parent, who offers care but insists on obedience. The specific disaster in the minds of the readers was the captivity of the Jews, which was clearly intended as a lesson for Israel, one that would draw them into greater obedience."

 

[jayfox]

Do you not look at your belief system as a whole? I was stating the conclusions that you have made in different areas and juxtaposing them to point out the inherent contradiction.

By stating that you are a Christian you are already making many firm assertions in regard to the nature of your 'mysterious God'.

I said that "I think that Christians need to be very, very careful saying that they know God's will with 100% certainty. We can think we know His will but then something else happens and we end up realizing that His will was something different altogether. Instead, I think Christians should 100% seek His will."

 

[Rosy]

They were cursed:

Eve with pain in childbirth
Adam with hard labor
The Earth with lack of productiveness
The serpent lost his/her legs

They were also cast out of the garden, so they could not eat from the 'tree of life'.

They also began to wear clothes .

I suffered pain in child birth, I work pretty hard, the drought has rendered our farm unproductive and our snakes have no legs. I knew those who told me an apple a day keeps the doctor away were leading me down the garden path. :blah

Seriously - Did they have a chance to repent and/or apologise? Did they believe in God and worship him either before or after eating the apple? Did they go to Hell?

 

[jayfox]

That is an unfalsifiable assertion that just supports your beliefs. It has no support from your doctrines or scripture. Why do you believe it? Perhaps because of your axiom of the existence of the Christian God.

Wow, you are overtly negative about pro-belief comments aren't you. It does have support from our "doctrines and scripture" in that the Bible teaches us that God reveals things to us in His timing and there are very few details of things 'pre-man' in the Bible. Clearly there is a whole lot of stuff that God thinks we don't need to know yet and will be revealed to us when we go to be with Him.

 

[Djevv]

Just reading the replies to my posts it seems to me that posters like Panther and Evo seem to think that since faith is not Science or Philosophy it is not a valid 'way of knowing'. I think that just as Science and Philosophy are useful in their own way at understanding the nature of reality so faith also. No one of these in isolation will give the full picture.

Just looking at the Adam and Eve story there are many positive things which seem to be being missed. Man was originally created both good and perfect - indeed in the very image of the God of the universe! Even though sin has marred us, we still retain much of what God imbued us with originally. We have the Godlike ability to make our own choices and are, to some extent masters of our own destiny. God loves us, otherwise why go to the trouble of making us? God protects and watches over us by giving us the Earth to live on - we must protect and care for it in turn. God made us male and female for companionship and protection as well as procreation. When God promised that a decendant of Eve would stamp on the head of the serpent he was promising a future redeemer who would return us to the original close relationship with God.

 

[Djevv]

I suffered pain in child birth, I work pretty hard, the drought has rendered our farm unproductive and our snakes have no legs. I knew those who told me an apple a day keeps the doctor away were leading me down the garden path. :blah

:hihi. I hope you wear clohes as well!

Seriously - Did they have a chance to repent and/or apologise? Did they believe in God and worship him either before or after eating the apple? Did they go to Hell?

I believe Adam and Eve repented and went to heaven, but once sin had been released on the Earth there was no stopping it. It has infected the whole world and Jesus is the only remedy .

 

[evo]

Just reading the replies to my posts it seems to me that posters like Panther and Evo seem to think that since faith is not Science or Philosophy it is not a valid 'way of knowing'.

Deep down I sense you believe this is true too. Otherwise why else would expend a considerable amount of energy investigating philosphers of religion, such as Plantinga; investigating how evolutionary science can be explained from a creationist perspective; and debating with Pantera, Duckman et al ?

It seems clear to me you are trying to validate your faith from an academic,scientific,philosophic and rational perspective(which is good)

I think that just as Science and Philosophy are useful in their own way at understanding the nature of reality so faith also. No one of these in isolation will give the full picture.

The first two are two different methods of doing the same thing. They are rigurous and follow rules.

Whereas "faith" just says "I believe" then uses the other two to attempt to validate said belief.

Just looking at the Adam and Eve story there are many positive things which seem to be being missed. Man was originally created both good and perfect - indeed in the very image of the God of the universe! Even though sin has marred us, we still retain much of what God imbued us with originally. We have the Godlike ability to make our own choices and are, to some extent masters of our own destiny. God loves us, otherwise why go to the trouble of making us? God protects and watches over us by giving us the Earth to live on - we must protect and care for it in turn. God made us male and female for companionship and protection as well as procreation. When God promised that a decendant of Eve would stamp on the head of the serpent he was promising a future redeemer who would return us to the original close relationship with God.

These are just assertions. They are meaningless without supporting reasoning/ logic or empirical validation.

I can make them too....


- All Collingwood supports are pricks.

- The womans place is in the home.

- All coppers are ******

etc.

How do I know this? i read it in a book.

They don't really gives us a clearer view of reality at all.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

An absolute feeling of the presence of God and assurance of His existance (which the Bible says is given to believers), God answering prayer in miraculous ways etc.

These can be explained in ways that don't require divine intervention. I have yet to see a prayer answered in a "miraculous way". Coincidence does not equal miracle. Why do such miracles always have other possible explanations?

No it doesn't. If something is infinitely complex then how can it be explained by a people with limited faculties? The 'simpler' explanations do not fill in all the gaps anyway, so they are incomplete until proven otherwise, so may still yet be proven incorrect as other evidence presents.

You are the one claiming to know the will of the "infinitely complex", even with your limited faculties. The point I was making was that postulating an infinitely complex creator raises more problems than it solves.

You are right when you state that we don't know everything, that gaps still exist in our knowledge. Yet, many of those gaps that were once explained in religious or supernatural terms are now understood along with their perfectly natural explanations. Did religion mess that up? Or is it possible that religion only has reign over the unknown?

As I have stated ad infinitum of course the scientific explanation of this universe is incomplete and is able to change as we learn more. That is the power of the method, not a weakness. Bronze age explanations of this world fall far short of our current understanding and contribute nothing to furthering that understanding.

Far fewer but there are still many there. I don't cling to the gaps. I don't believe that anything science has discovered has disproved the existence of God.

I agree. The idea of a God cannot be unequivocally disproved. However many of science's discoveries have made the idea of such a god superfluous and unlikely.

Hey, if you want to believe that science holds all the answers and can't possibly be wrong about any of it, even though there are gaps and that you can't disprove the possibility of a God, then that is fine. I don't see why you seem so determined to try to get me to see things your way? From a Christian's perspective we believe in an afterlife so we want you to know God so that you can experience a wonderful afterlife. So why are you so determined?

For starters, that is a ridiculous strawman of an opening statement. Science provides us with the best approximate of the world around us based on the available evidence. If you think science is wrong about something point it out, publish it. However you must be prepared to defend your position with intellectual rigor.

As for why I am so determined, I am just pointing out the flaws I see in your belief system. You believe what you want to believe. There has been plenty of debate on this forum. You can choose to participate and defend your position or not.

From an atheist's perspective I believe that this life is our only one and should be lived and enjoyed to the fullest. I also believe that a realistic picture of this world is essential for the future health of ourselves and our descendants. You, Djevv and most other Christians I have both spoken to state that they believe that Christ will return in the near future and paradise will be established. If you truly believe that than you have no vested interest in protecting this planet and ensuring it is habitable for countless generations to come. Further, because you believe in a benevolent creator, you also believe that we are somehow protected, that this world was created with humans in mind (God wouldn't allow the world to become uninhabitable!). This is plainly false. Estimates suggest that 99.9% of all species that have lived on this planet are now extinct. Instead of using your rational faculties to try to avoid potential future catastrophes you believe that God's grace will ensure your protection and anyway, this planet only has to sustain us for a short period longer, as the second coming is not so far away!

So you ask why I care? It is because a realistic view of the world is essential for the future health of our species. The widespread religious views are counterproductive in this effort, either through faith that one is protected from such matters, or in its most insidious form, actively hoping for Revelation-style apocalypse to hearken in the second coming.

Your faith-based assertions have no evidential support in the real world. So, believe what you like, but I will point out where I see the flaws, contradictions and inconsistencies in your position. I doubt that you will take notice, but perhaps others will?

Because I simply don't believe that a world this structured and complex could have happened by chance. I believe that we, as a creation, have an inbuilt desire to try to get to know God (that is why Billions of people around the world believe in a God of some kind). I have an absolute certainty in my heart and mind that He exists. I have had prayers answered at the exact time that I needed them in the exact way I needed them (some I didn't realize until later were answered exactly how I needed them but not exactly how I wanted them). I see Him in all things in creation. I have the Bible which tells us about Him and is evidence of him sending His Son to Earth for us. I believe that the God of the Bible, when properly understood, is an incredible God of amazing love and sacrifice beyond anything we can really imagine.

Chance? Why must theists always state that the complexity on this planet occurred by chance? A mechanism that represents the exact opposite of chance (natural selection) has been around for 200 years and explains how complexity can be generated by natural forces. This has been confirmed by numerous lines of evidence.

The inbuilt desire that you refer to is fatally flawed as well. Isn't it interesting that religions have a very strong cultural basis (ie. where you were born plays a huge role in determining your religious affiliation)? It is apparent that the human psyche is driven to many areas of 'woo', but that provides no evidence to support such beliefs.

The rest of that post is just you stating that you see what you want to see, that is that your beliefs are true. Again, through your theist prism, that is no doubt true.

So, as a scientist, you are saying that it is easier to believe in something that is unseen rather than something that is seen? That really surprises me. I thought that you were the type of person who refused to believe in the absence of physical evidence, making believing in something unseen nigh on impossible?

Of course it is easier to make up an explanation that is immune to critical analysis than to do the hard work involved in establishing facts that can stand up to rigorous examination.

I would think that in most areas you also don't believe things that aren't supported by evidence.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I will say that the "other ways of knowing" defence is one of my least favourite.

I think evo pointed out the flaws in such a position perfectly.

 

[glantone]

Anyway I think we are getting bogged down in the story and probably need to move on - I have given the Christian's perspective at any rate. Where are you up to with your reading?

And we all thank ye and jay for it. Your and Jay's participation are crucial to this debate. Thanks! :clap
It certainly gives me and who knows perhaps others encouragement to read the bible.

As far as my reading progress goes, not far Djevv, an unproductive combination of obsessing over some perceived oddity and/or suddenly falling asleep seem to be slowing me down. I’m still only part of the way through Genesis but loving it.

What I’m obsessing over now is how thoughtful Satan really was (a point often overlooked by the clergy) in choosing a serpent through which to seduce Eve, rather than say a turtle, a camel or a sheep.

Just about any other land loving animal I can think of would look just plain silly without legs.

 

[jayfox]

These can be explained in ways that don't require divine intervention. I have yet to see a prayer answered in a "miraculous way".

How many times have you genuinely asked God for miraculous intervention and truly believed that He was capable of it? If the answer is none, then it is no surprise that you haven't seen it.

You are the one claiming to know the will of the "infinitely complex", even with your limited faculties. The point I was making was that postulating an infinitely complex creator raises more problems than it solves.

Do you read my posts? I have said twice in this thread now -

"I think that Christians need to be very, very careful saying that they know God's will with 100% certainty. We can think we know His will but then something else happens and we end up realizing that His will was something different altogether. Instead, I think Christians should 100% seek His will."

You can generally get an idea of what God's will is from reading His word and getting to know Him and you can certainly pray that he would show you and lead you towards doing His will but you can't 100% know what it is ahead of time.

I think believing in a infinitely complex creator actually makes things less complex but that's just me.

You are right when you state that we don't know everything, that gaps still exist in our knowledge. Yet, many of those gaps that were once explained in religious or supernatural terms are now understood along with their perfectly natural explanations. Did religion mess that up? Or is it possible that religion only has reign over the unknown?

The Bible hasn't messed anything up. Some beliefs by religious people may have been found to be incorrect (i.e. flat earth etc.) but you will find that those kind of theories get no support from the Bible. There is nothing that science has found today that disproves that the Bible is a correct account of Human history.

As I have stated ad infinitum of course the scientific explanation of this universe is incomplete and is able to change as we learn more. That is the power of the method, not a weakness. Bronze age explanations of this world fall far short of our current understanding and contribute nothing to furthering that understanding.

I disagree. "Bronze age" explanations as you call them tell us a great deal of where we have come from and many recent archaeological findings support the claims made in the Bible. The Hitites are a good example of a people that science thought was fictitious until their remains were discovered recently.

I agree. The idea of a God cannot be unequivocally disproved. However many of science's discoveries have made the idea of such a god superfluous and unlikely.

Hasn't science learnt over the years that 'unlikely' does not mean 'impossible' or 'disproven'?

As for why I am so determined, I am just pointing out the flaws I see in your belief system. You believe what you want to believe. There has been plenty of debate on this forum. You can choose to participate and defend your position or not.

That explains what you are doing, not why.

From an atheist's perspective I believe that this life is our only one and should be lived and enjoyed to the fullest. I also believe that a realistic picture of this world is essential for the future health of ourselves and our descendants. You, Djevv and most other Christians I have both spoken to state that they believe that Christ will return in the near future and paradise will be established. If you truly believe that than you have no vested interest in protecting this planet and ensuring it is habitable for countless generations to come. Further, because you believe in a benevolent creator, you also believe that we are somehow protected, that this world was created with humans in mind (God wouldn't allow the world to become uninhabitable!). This is plainly false. Estimates suggest that 99.9% of all species that have lived on this planet are now extinct. Instead of using your rational faculties to try to avoid potential future catastrophes you believe that God's grace will ensure your protection and anyway, this planet only has to sustain us for a short period longer, as the second coming is not so far away!

So you ask why I care? It is because a realistic view of the world is essential for the future health of our species. The widespread religious views are counterproductive in this effort, either through faith that one is protected from such matters, or in its most insidious form, actively hoping for Revelation-style apocalypse to hearken in the second coming.

Now that is a load of utter rubbish. As misguided a post as I have read since I've been posting on this site. Djevv has posted many times, including in this thread, that the Bible clearly states that God has made us in charge of caring for this planet and it's creatures. I don't know a single Christian who thinks "stuff the planet, Jesus is coming back soon". That would be foolishness in the extreme for several reasons including - 1. It is disrespectful to God in that He has not only given us a great place to live but instructed us to look after it. 2. No man knows the date of Christs return and whilst we may speculate that we think it could happen soon, we may also be completely wrong and it may not be for another 1000 years! 3. You are making a worse world for our children to live in which is not in anyone's interests.

I also listed a while back many of the Christian charities and included in that were many that were set up to look after the planet and it's creatures.

Your faith-based assertions have no evidential support in the real world. So, believe what you like, but I will point out where I see the flaws, contradictions and inconsistencies in your position. I doubt that you will take notice, but perhaps others will?

Funny, I feel the same way in reverse about people coming to know God.

Chance? Why must theists always state that the complexity on this planet occurred by chance? A mechanism that represents the exact opposite of chance (natural selection) has been around for 200 years and explains how complexity can be generated by natural forces. This has been confirmed by numerous lines of evidence.

Yes but what about before natural selection had a chance to get started? You can't deny that, from Science's point of view, the absolute original origins of our universe, planet and life happened by chance?

The inbuilt desire that you refer to is fatally flawed as well. Isn't it interesting that religions have a very strong cultural basis (ie. where you were born plays a huge role in determining your religious affiliation)? It is apparent that the human psyche is driven to many areas of 'woo', but that provides no evidence to support such beliefs.

The Bible speaks a lot of heritage and we have done to death the fact that you can have never heard the name of Jesus and still go to heaven.

Of course it is easier to make up an explanation that is immune to critical analysis than to do the hard work involved in establishing facts that can stand up to rigorous examination.

I disagree. I think it is far easier to truly believe in something that you can see with your own eyes. Your lack of belief is great evidence to this fact. If God presented himself before you in all His glory you would believe would you not?

I would think that in most areas you also don't believe things that aren't supported by evidence.

True but I believe that I have all the evidence I need to believe in God.

 

[Djevv]

Deep down I sense you believe this is true too. Otherwise why else would expend a considerable amount of energy investigating philosphers of religion, such as Plantinga; investigating how evolutionary science can be explained from a creationist perspective; and debating with Pantera, Duckman et al ?

It seems clear to me you are trying to validate your faith from an academic,scientific,philosophic and rational perspective(which is good)

Yes, and it stacks up very well!

The first two are two different methods of doing the same thing. They are rigurous and follow rules.

Whereas "faith" just says "I believe" then uses the other two to attempt to validate said belief.

These are just assertions. They are meaningless without supporting reasoning/ logic or empirical validation.

The Bible can be used rigorously with supporting reasoning and logic - it's called 'Theology'. I know that people focus on the disagreements but most Christians believe more or less the same things. This means that the Bible can be used as a coherent text on life, morality and the nature of God when correctly interpreted. I expect you can probably say the same about other Faiths.

As a 'way of knowing' faith stacks up too IMO. The person to whom the faith revelation has come is examined by the community of faith to whom he/she belongs. If there is agreement within the faith community that the writings represent a genuine revelation they can be accepted and added to 'scripture' otherwise not. Examining the new with respect to other scripture, wrt the persons lifestyle and if prophecy, whether it actually happens, provide other potential crosschecks. In a sense it is not dissimilar to peer review!

I can make them too....


- All Collingwood supports are pricks.

- The womans place is in the home.

- All coppers are ******

etc.

How do I know this? i read it in a book.

They don't really gives us a clearer view of reality at all.

All of the statements I made are the logical oucome of the creation story. I can back them with reason and scripture if forced to defend them.

Oh, and I forgot one:

The brotherhood of man, since we all come from the same source and are made in the image of God, there is no excuse for racism or other kinds of prejudice.

 

[Djevv]

You are the one claiming to know the will of the "infinitely complex", even with your limited faculties. The point I was making was that postulating an infinitely complex creator raises more problems than it solves.

:-\

Panther, being a bit of a 'Dawkins' disciple keeps committing the same error as his mentor:

God is simple, not complex!

Simplicity of God

God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. Physical or real composition is either substantial or accidental -- substantial, if the being in question consists of two or more substantial principles, forming parts of a composite whole, as man for example, consists of body and soul; accidental, if the being in question, although simple in its substance (as is the human soul), is capable of possessing accidental perfections (like the actual thoughts and volition of man's soul) not necessarily identical with its substance. Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts -- a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God.

Neither can there be that kind of composition which is known as metaphysical, and which results from "the union of diverse concepts referring to the same real thing in such a way that none of them by itself signifies either explicitly or even implicitly the whole reality signified by their combination." Thus every actual contingent being is a metaphysical compound of essence and existence, and man in particular, according to the definition, is a compound of animal and rational. Essence as such in relation to a contingent being merely implies its conceivableness or possibility, and abstracts from actual existence; existence as such must be added before we can speak of the being as actual. But this distinction, with the composition it implies, cannot be applied to the self-existent or infinite being in whom essence and existence are completely identified. We say of a contingent being that it has a certain nature or essence, but of the self-existent we say that it is its own nature or essence. There is no composition therefore of essence and existence -- or of potentiality and actuality -- in God, nor can the composition of genus and specific difference, implied for example in the definition of man as a rational animal, be attributed to Him. God cannot be classified or defined, as contingent beings are classified and defined; for there is no aspect of being in which He is perfectly similar to the finite, and consequently no genus in which He can be included. From this it follows that we cannot know God adequately in the way in which He knows Himself, but not, as the Agnostic contends, that our inadequate knowledge is not true as far as it goes. In speaking of a being who transcends the limitations of formal logical definition our propositions are an expression of real truth, provided that what we state is in itself intelligible and not self-contradictory; and there is nothing unintelligible or contradictory in what Theists predicate of God. It is true that no single predicate is adequate or exhaustive as a description of His infinite perfection, and that we need to employ a multitude of predicates, as if at first sight infinity could be reached by multiplication. But at the same time we recognize that this is not so -- being repugnant to the Divine simplicity; and that while truth, goodness, wisdom, holiness and other attributes, as we conceive and define them express perfections that are formally distinct, yet as applied to God they are all ultimately identical in meaning and describe the same ultimate reality -- the one infinitely perfect and simple being.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

 

[evo]

Apologetics seems to me the more accurate and truthful descriptor.

The person to whom the faith revelation has come is examined by the community of faith to whom he/she belongs.

But that is no examination at all in regard to the nature of reality. It is just engaging in bias confirmation.

It is like members of UFO conference all looking at the latest photos of a UFO.

If there is agreement within the faith community that the writings represent a genuine revelation they can be accepted and added to 'scripture' otherwise not. Examining the new with respect to other scripture, wrt the persons lifestyle and if prophecy, whether it actually happens, provide other potential crosschecks. In a sense it is not dissimilar to peer review!

Hehe, or not.

All of the statements I made are the logical oucome of the creation story. I can back them with reason and scripture if forced to defend them.

Yes,but you haven't demonstrated that the creation myth is true. As I've pointed out to you a few times ,in philosophy and logic --the field of critical thinking-- it is known as "begging the question" It is fallacious reasoning.

The brotherhood of man, since we all come from the same source and are made in the image of God, there is no excuse for racism or other kinds of prejudice.

Well except for the part where you guys are the only ones who REALLY knows what God wants.

Those crazy Hindus, Moslems, Mormons etc haven't got a clue.

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

I believe Adam and Eve repented and went to heaven, but once sin had been released on the Earth there was no stopping it. It has infected the whole world and Jesus is the only remedy .

There's a growing bunch of foreign ratbags saying the same sort of rubbish over here in Thailand now.