The Bible is not the word of God

[DrProctopus]

A bunch of people who believed that God was talking to them wrote down what they believed God was saying.

The more relevant or successful scriptures were kept and eventually composed into the OT.

Something similar happend after Jesus did his thing, and the NT was produced.


Nowhere in this process do I see any reason to believe that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Why should I believe someone when they claim to speak for God?

So, the point of debate is this:

Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?

[joer]

Hi QED and Hugh. Nice to hear from you both.

QED. Your right I am looking for participation in taking our discussion up a notch so to speak. One thing everybody complains about is, "just because you say it doesn't it make it so." So I'm proposing that we test what were saying and see if what we're saying is held up by the test.

So I proposed you test one thing you said and implied that you we're correct about "spirit" using game theory

And I'll test my concept about spirit using Prayer.

Hugh if it's God's Will that we test this thanI expect sucess. One thing about prayer and God's will. We may not pray for the right thing but what recieve via God's Will is the right thing.

I'll be gone this weekend. See you all May1st. Thank You! Have a good wekend one and all.

QED I agree with you about soe of the things you said about John P.

[Cephus]

Here's a test for you Joer. Why don't you pray to God and have him give you my wife's middle name. You have until May 7th (which gives you a week, in case God is slow on the uptake). Since you have absolutely no other way of finding out, if you can correctly tell us what it is, then we'll have to acknowledge that prayer works. Otherwise, you have to admit that prayer is a crock.

Deal?

[McCulloch]

Here's a test for you Joer. Why don't you pray to God and have him give you my wife's middle name. You have until May 7th (which gives you a week, in case God is slow on the uptake). Since you have absolutely no other way of finding out, if you can correctly tell us what it is, then we'll have to acknowledge that prayer works. Otherwise, you have to admit that prayer is a crock.

Deal?

But what if it not God's will that Joer know your wife's middle name? A negative result of this test would prove either

1. prayer does not work for Joer
2. God does not want Joer to know your wife's middle name by supernatural means

At the end of the test, we are no further ahead than when we started.

[Cathar1950]

I have a test.
We put a bunch of sticks in a pile. Put lighter fluid on it and every one pray to his or her god and which ever god lights the fire is the winner.
Is that fair?

[Cephus]

Here's a test for you Joer. Why don't you pray to God and have him give you my wife's middle name. You have until May 7th (which gives you a week, in case God is slow on the uptake). Since you have absolutely no other way of finding out, if you can correctly tell us what it is, then we'll have to acknowledge that prayer works. Otherwise, you have to admit that prayer is a crock.

Deal?

But what if it not God's will that Joer know your wife's middle name? A negative result of this test would prove either

1. prayer does not work for Joer
2. God does not want Joer to know your wife's middle name by supernatural means

At the end of the test, we are no further ahead than when we started.

Which is just very convenient, isn't it? In fact, we're not back where we started, we've shown that, at least for Joer, prayer doesn't work and it's a major plank that has to be removed from the "God is real" platform. Now if we keep repeating this test with a lot of people, we have to conclude that either God doesn't know, or God doesn't exist.

BTW: I've handed this test to dozens of theists over the years and not one of them has ever gotten it right.

[McCulloch]

Which is just very convenient, isn't it? In fact, we're not back where we started, we've shown that, at least for Joer, prayer doesn't work and it's a major plank that has to be removed from the "God is real" platform. Now if we keep repeating this test with a lot of people, we have to conclude that either God doesn't know, or God doesn't exist.
BTW: I've handed this test to dozens of theists over the years and not one of them has ever gotten it right.

We may have removed the "God is real because He answers prayer" argument. But that argument has never held up anyway. It is non-falsifyable. Only naive theists would ... oh well, never mind.

[Cephus]

We may have removed the "God is real because He answers prayer" argument. But that argument has never held up anyway. It is non-falsifyable. Only naive theists would ... oh well, never mind.

Then if you're going to remove the test on the basis that God might not care to do anything, then you've removed the possibility of proving the existence of God altogether. At that time, I figure you've gotten rid of falsifiability, hence you've just made God irrelevant and a failed hypothesis.

So debating whether or not the Bible is the word of an unproven deity is really pretty silly.

[McCulloch]

So debating whether or not the Bible is the word of an unproven deity is really pretty silly.

OK. But even assuming a God, is there any reason to believe that the Bible has been verbally inspired by such a being as the Christian conception of God?

[joer]

I see you've been having fun while I've been gone. Very Good. I'm back now. My daughter had a great time with her team in the Far Western Regional Volleyball Tournament. Her team finished about middle of the pack of 180 16 year old teams.

So back here on the home front, you guys have proven Prayer false while I was gone. Interesting. Quite convenient

Actually I wasn’t interested in debating Prayer. I was interested in seeing "Proofs" or demonstrable “tests” of the "tenets of Spirit" that QED and I posited in this thread. I did it in the interest of proving the existence of GOD. QED claimed that "spirit" is “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

If you review a few pages back you’ll see:

QED said:
At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

Then I said:
And as you so aptly describe instances in the concept of evolution in the physical realm. So to can you easily see the parallel to evolution of the concept of GOD in the Spiritual realm. From totems and spirits inhabiting water, stone, trees, to Gods of the sun moon planets etc. on to today where the concept of God is evolving to the initiator essence of all that is know and the unknown.

I mean I don’t really see a lot of difference in the processes of evolution. Only in the subject matter the evolutionary process in theory is being applied to. Do you see any difference other than that OED?
QED said:
Quote:
I'm just as much a sucker for a really good hunch as the next guy.

Good that keeps us game.
QED said:
Quote:
Just so long as it isn't contradicted by any simple observation.


And that remains too be seen. Perhaps we can soon get into what is getting contradicted, by what observation and how simple the observation really is. I wouldn’t mind that. The empirical data observed and gathered from the test we apply.

I’d like to see if we can agree on something to test. I’d liked to see what we could come up with for an experiment.

QED said:
This spirit has not being channeled down from above the clouds, it has lain in wait in logic for ever. Make of that what you will

Joer said:
This is interesting maybe we can develop some tests for "spirit". Maybe you can come up with a test of Spirit through game theory and I can come up with a test of Spirit through invocation via Prayer. Than we’d have to try to setup some blinds for each test and regulate the observation to the tightest controls we can muster without to much difficulty. Spirit in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving as being controlled by “the large neo-cortex (the part of the brain that does all the planning and reflecting).” To perhaps counter the effects of the amygdala, which you say, “ provides instinctive reactions like aggression, nurture, fear and desire”.

What do you say QED? Want to test your Game Theory of Spirit against the God Theory of Spirit to compare and contrast the results and compile data form those results?

All of this discussion on “Spirit” developed originally from what seems like an “a priori” acceptance by McCulloch and QED of the existence of Santa Claus…Maybe Hugh DP can say if this looks like an “a priori”

According to: Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. states:

Santa Claus does exist in this capacity: “most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”

McCulluch said:

If believers in God believed in God like you believe in Santa Claus, then I would not have any difficulties with it.

QED said:

I absolutely agree with McCulloch

.

So the discussion of Spirit is a building block to step up to the existence of GOD. Which is necessary to validate any discussion this thread on whether or not The Bible is the Word of God. Even Cephus agreed with me on that as you can see in the previous pages so I don’t have to keep bringing everything forward to clarify. Any post by an atheist about the percentage of the Bible being the Word of God would be null because they don’t even believe in GOD. So we can work on the preliminary proofs here as we have been or move it somewhere else and make this a Believers Only thread since it would only be valid for them as believers in the existence in God to post. Isn’t that logical?

Personally if QED or others are willing to continue the establishment of whether:

“spirit” is, “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

OR
As I said:

“Spirit”, “in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving…”

OR

BOTH.

OR

Something all together different.

So QED or anyone else care to show me “proof” or demonstrate “spirit” “as quantified in game theory?” I’d like to try to see if there’s anything in your demonstration that I can relate the “Spirit” of God to. So I can attempt to make it relevant to atheists as well as believers. I might end up alienating both believers and atheists but that’s the risk for finding a common denominator. I’m willing to take it, if an atheist is willing to work with me backing up their point of view. That way I can have their part of the equation that needs to be resolved. And we can do something other than lip service to the complaint:

One thing everybody complains about is, "just because you say it doesn't it make it so."

Thank you for your participation.

[QED]

Joer, I have started a new topic for debate titled The nature of 'spirit'. Let's take this detour from the current topic over there.