Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[POI]

Faith is the result of considering the evidence and accepting the logical conclusion.

Your definition of faith does not align with the Bible's defitnion. Are you good with that? (i.e.):

Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”"

You said you “believed” your girlfriend was being unfaithful. You BELIEVED based on evidence. Do you see that you don’t stick to your own definition? Only blind faith (foolish) has no evidence. Believers in Christ, alone among people of religious faith, stand on the evidence.

Not at all. I had blind faith. I had no evidence. I was in denial. I wanted it to be true, (that my girlfriend would never cheat on me), but it turns out it wasn't true. The evidence later steered me into truth. Denial is often the first step in grieving.

It also needs to be pointed out that you could not find any scripture where Jesus told them to believe sans evidence. I asked for one and you didn’t present any. I can present examples of God showing evidence so that they believe the truth.

I asked you what your definition of faith was. And it turns out your version does not align with the bible's version of faith. I supplied the definition above. I guess you pick and choose what you take from the Bible and what you reject or ignore.

What more can I add? The evidence is the same. It has been sufficient for billions of people down through time so the evidence is not the problem.

Third request... What points compelled you? We've both watched countless debates. What specific points compelled you the most?

[Mae von H]

Faith is the result of considering the evidence and accepting the logical conclusion.

Your definition of faith does not align with the Bible's defitnion. Are you good with that? (i.e.):

Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”"

This verse does not at all define faith as that choice to accept a matter sans evidence. When a jury considers evidence, they never saw the crime. Some evidence is not even material. When Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, he responded that they should look at the evidence. The biblical definition of faith is trust in the logical outcome of considering the evidence. Jesus gave ample evidence and many believed BECAUSE of the evidence. How can you honestly insist God doesn’t provide evidence?

You said you “believed” your girlfriend was being unfaithful. You BELIEVED based on evidence. Do you see that you don’t stick to your own definition? Only blind faith (foolish) has no evidence. Believers in Christ, alone among people of religious faith, stand on the evidence.

Not at all. I had blind faith. I had no evidence. I was in denial. I wanted it to be true, (that my girlfriend would never cheat on me), but it turns out it wasn't true. The evidence later steered me into truth. Denial is often the first step in grieving.

Yes, I agree that you, having honor, didn’t want to believe she was doing that. You did the right thing being slow to believe she was deceiving you. Never regret that choice or change that quality. It’s superior to quickly believing the worst of others. Took evidence to convince you believe the truth. But that is reasonable faith, not blind.

It also needs to be pointed out that you could not find any scripture where Jesus told them to believe sans evidence. I asked for one and you didn’t present any. I can present examples of God showing evidence so that they believe the truth.

I asked you what your definition of faith was. And it turns out your version does not align with the bible's version of faith. I supplied the definition above. I guess you pick and choose what you take from the Bible and what you reject or ignore.

You are incorrect as well as insulting. God offered evidence after evidence both in the old and new. Believing, in the Bible, is accepting what the evidence indicates is the truth.

You believed your girlfriend was cheating on you although you DID NOT SEE IT. You had the conviction of something NOT SEEN! Can you see how this is the same as faith described in the Bible now?

What more can I add? The evidence is the same. It has been sufficient for billions of people down through time so the evidence is not the problem.

Third request... What points compelled you? We've both watched countless debates. What specific points compelled you the most?

The preponderance of evidence of Him being exactly as described by those who wrote the Bible, The explanatory power the words they wrote provide in describing man and why we choose as we do. Those are the intellectual grounds. But I’m a scientist and I test theories in real life. Science plays great value on experiments but you dismiss them all as “experience” and therefore of no value. We only have experience in science, that is, testing theories in real life. So while these have been more than sufficient to show me what I believe matches the real world, they are of no value to you. So I see no point in sharing them.

Another cohort in your camp said all I’ve shared is experiences (yawn) and except for the lame sister who got up and ran around after prayer, I’ve shared no experiences at all. Problem is your side places no value on them.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to POI in post #231]

To be fair, there are A LOT of christians who think faith in God is blind. They have a very immature and ignorant faith that easily crumbles. I’m not that kind.

[The Tanager]

If you want to agree that these verses, along with the verses about "rape" and "homosexuality" were inspired by men alone and have absolutely nothing to do with a 'human loving' God, then we can be done right here. Otherwise, off into the weeds we go.

I don’t agree to that.

Why not?

You’ve given me no good reason to do so and I’m unaware of any good reason to do so. If you want me to agree with your option, rationally support it and shifting the burden isn't rational support.

You are jumping to conclusions on a lot of issues the passage doesn’t address. It doesn’t say anything about consequences or no consequences if a slave is no longer deemed useful. It doesn’t condone just throwing them aside, beating them one last time and then sending them free.

But you are not "jumping to the conclusion" that God was trying to slowly steer them away from slavery?

No, because I am drawing my conclusion from the wider philosophical and theological context in what it says about God, versus only focusing on one (minority) psychological motivation.

I'm not speaking about the male Hebrews who were in debt. I'm speaking about the chattel slaves. They weren't cheap labor?

What Bible verse are you saying tells Israelites to treat chattel slaves as cheap labor?

Are you then denying that masters whipped their slaves on the back?

Of course not. I’m talking about these being laws to give ‘official permission’ to whip slaves on the back without punishment, to keep them in line to remain fully productive. You are psychologizing and, even in that, only offering the worse (and minority) psychological motivation.

As I alluded to in my prior response... When the civil war broke out, slavery was quite the thing, and was not going anywhere. It wasn't until it was abolished that things changed. God never offers this resolution. God instead sanctions it. Humans went against God's command, (that it is okay), and instead stated it is not okay to own others as slave property for life.

As I directly stated in my prior response…God influenced Christian society (even though it still had its problems, for sure, because we humans are selfish creatures who think we know better) had already moved towards more decent treatment of people in general, which made society more ready for ending slavery, along with God influenced Christians leading the charge to end slavery directly because of passages I’ve already mentioned that were offered by God.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #231]

To be fair, there are A LOT of christians who think faith in God is blind. They have a very immature and ignorant faith that easily crumbles. I’m not that kind.

Again, Faith (also belief and trust) is a blunderbuss word and it's meaningd before words of course.

The way I use the words (and capitals and quotes to denote nuance) is:

Belief. based on good evidentially real reason. E.g that Japan exists even though I have never been there.

Trust in someone else for what you hope are good reasons. e.g The Andromeda mnebula is a galaxy like ours even though I have never seen it.

Faith, crediting a claim without good reason or even in spite of it. e.g ghosts are real.

All this is arguable and largely based on whom we trust - 'scientists' and Experts or anyone with a spooky anecdote or Faithclaim.

Faith without good evidence and even in despite of it is a fascinating history, and particularly now and will one day be the subject of study, and particularly the American phenomenon., where flat earth became a cult (and may become so again), Flying saucers (and crop circles) became a cult and darn near a religion (space brothers) and of course creationism which was based on genesis literalism.

There was also the science - skeptic 'chariots of the gods' fad that was a threat to science even before Creationism. Accepted history and science was said to be wrong and there was a lot of 'evidence', though it was a mix of anecdotal, false correlation, puzzles like 'ancient technology' (1) and misrepresentation which was not evident at the time. For instance the Palenque slabs was supposed t be an astronaut in a space rocket, but now Maya can be read we know it isn't and was misidentified, not to say misrepresented. All the claims but a few were shown wrong and either based on ignorance or deception. This is very much like the techniques used by Wyatt to peddle his evidence of the Bible (sites and artefacts) and (as usual) we can't be sure these were done out of honest faith or deliberate fraud.

So Belief (in what 'science' tells us as no -one else does the research), trust in those results and interpretations or Faith vs. science - denial and anecdotal claims of everything from Flying Saucers to Flat earth or from Ancient technology to conspiracy theories of various kinds.

Uncannily it is like an election - the people have to decide whom they trust - those who talk anti - science like the Durupinar Ark or Bamboo in Election forms or those who say the evidence of Evolution is compelling and vaccines do prevent the 'vid. There are those who have Faith and dismiss the evidence: even what the Bible says is before their eyes (just make something up) and when the GoP nominee contradicts himself, those who accept evolution (with or without Bible - belief) mainly because science says so, but the entertaining vids are available and most have a rough idea, and those who dismiss it - not because of some doubts and questions or even because Creationists spread misinformation, but because Religion requires it be rejected on Faith, and if science disagrees, the science has to be rejected, too. It's almost been a meme "If reality contradicts the Bible, Reality is wrong" and the notorious 'If the Bible said 2+2 = 5, I wouldn't disbelieve it but try to work out how it could be true". This not just 'blind' faith but denialist faith.

Genesis literalism vs.Evolution and deep time geology is the obvious example, but trusting the NT vs those who doubt it, and science doesn't often want to fight the Bible. That has to be done by amateurs, mostly and media control is so important in getting the undecided voters to choose. Like Daaniken's Chariots of the gods, the doubts and questions have to get out there and the masses have to know how the faithclaims fail (and they do) and (if they are not Faithsold on Christianity) they will see the evidence is actually against the Bible, from start to finish.

Then Faith means what I define it as - belief in something without good evidence and even despite the evidence.

I could go on, but that's plenty long enough and gets the point -and the problems - over.

(1) ancient stonework, claims of advanced metalwork, free interpretation of old legends as advanced technology and the Piri Reis map,

[POI]

If you want to agree that these verses, along with the verses about "rape" and "homosexuality" were inspired by men alone and have absolutely nothing to do with a 'human loving' God, then we can be done right here. Otherwise, off into the weeds we go.

I don’t agree to that.

Why not?

You’ve given me no good reason to do so and I’m unaware of any good reason to do so. If you want me to agree with your option, rationally support it

Proven fact: All organized documents written about 'morals' are written by humans.
Unproven fact: Some of them are also inspired by a 'higher power'.

We know humans write stuff. We do not know that any 'higher power' also aids in such writings? What is more likely and why?

a) Such ancient writings were given by men alone?
b) They were also aided from 'above'?

Aside from selecting option a) for the logical reason that it is just another human written document alone, by addressing the mere odds being that countless documents are written by humans, I also select option a) because, as the video also points out, such given 'laws/instruction/permission/etc' resemble other circulating and existing ones from the same era. Kind of convenient. They also look to conform with the views these men already had. You argue this is because God knew they were too stubborn to change, but the video addresses that challenge, in mentioning Ezekiel alone, among other things in the video. You have to ask yourself, if you did not hold a bias towards the Bible, and applied the same level of scrutiny, as you apply to other God claimed documents, for which you do not hold such a bias, would you still believe it came from 'above'? How possible is it that you apply a 'special compartment' for this collection of books, for which you would not apply to one of its rivals?

Okay, so why do you likely instead selection option b)?

No, because I am drawing my conclusion from the wider philosophical and theological context in what it says about God, versus only focusing on one (minority) psychological motivation.

As I told you, many responses ago, lets start with slavery. We can certainly get into all the others after we conclude this specific topic. I'm saying the God you believe in is okay with slavery, and you are not. The God you believe in applies differing rules for differing folks (i.e.) the free, the enslaved, Israelites, non-Israelites, men, women, parents, children, etc.

What Bible verse are you saying tells Israelites to treat chattel slaves as cheap labor?

Please stop evading the obvious. Slaves have little to no rights. The only rights they have, per Exodus 21, is that they are not to be killed or have their eyes/teeth removed. Which is fine because a blind or dead slave is a worthless slave. Just don't hit them in the face because it's more likely they cannot work the fields as well. They are also the expressed property of their masters, via the Bible as well. Likely no labor laws or unions protect them. Are slaves cheap labor, or not?

Of course not.

Great. We agree that slave masters whipped their slaves on the back. Hence, the laws issued in Exodus 21 no longer become relevant in your argument.

I’m talking about these being laws to give ‘official permission’ to whip slaves on the back without punishment, to keep them in line to remain fully productive. You are psychologizing and, even in that, only offering the worse (and minority) psychological motivation.

Well, you theists state there exists no morals without God. God states no punishment is to be applied to the master, if the slave survives the beating. If this was not much of a thing, then God would not have had to step in and regulate it

As I directly stated in my prior response…God influenced Christian society (even though it still had its problems, for sure, because we humans are selfish creatures who think we know better) had already moved towards more decent treatment of people in general, which made society more ready for ending slavery, along with God influenced Christians leading the charge to end slavery directly because of passages I’ve already mentioned that were offered by God.

And as I stated in my previous response, the slave owners appealed to the exact same collection of books to keep slavery. As I also stated, does God ever mention the abolition of slavery? I'll answer for you. No, he does not. We did that without God's help, and also in spite of God being okay with it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The basic theist error is assuming that Bible truth is the default. Plus denial of the 'materialist' default, which is the evidence - based and logical one.

The fact is as you implied - we know that humans invent myths, devise moral codes, and come up with hypotheses, which science has improved or replaced with better ones (denigrated by science -skeptics as 'science is always changing its' mind').

Materialist science has earned its' credit and explained how things work - and without a god being necessary, and in myth, if Christians don't accept the other gods and scriptures, why should anyone accept theirs?

But Bible - apologists never, never, ever, see it that way and cannot apparently do so. They always assume God/Bible/Christianity is the Default theory that needs to be totally disproved, and logically and evidentially, that is not how it works.

Thus, even on an even-handed basis, they try for "my theory is as valid as yours". But belief in one theory over another (which after all, is only what Faith is) would not be justified, and in fact human myth - making and natural origins is the default, though Believers start from the illogical basis that 'Goddunnit' is the default unless 100% disproven. And even if that could be done, we know they'd dismiss the proof and opt for Faith.

Thus, on logic and evidence, they lost decades ago and their case is totally based on denial, and denial of that denial,



Of course, the Bible exists and (on the face of it) looks more historically - based than any other. It actually isn't, but this is not generally known, and (in my view) not even the experts seem to know how badly it fails. But they will. I have Faith

[POI]

When a jury considers evidence, they never saw the crime. Some evidence is not even material. When Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, he responded that they should look at the evidence. The biblical definition of faith is trust in the logical outcome of considering the evidence. Jesus gave ample evidence and many believed BECAUSE of the evidence. How can you honestly insist God doesn’t provide evidence?

What would you define the phrase "belief without evidence", without using the word 'faith' in the definition, or, the term not being directly synonymous with the term 'faith'? (i.e.)

Blind faith? Hope? Other?

Does a logical person state I have faith that 1+1=2? Likely not.

*****************************************************

(U) But that is reasonable faith, not blind.

POI Does 1+1 equaling 2 still require any version of faith? See above. No one states I have faith in math answers.

(U) You believed your girlfriend was cheating on you although you DID NOT SEE IT. You had the conviction of something NOT SEEN! Can you see how this is the same as faith described in the Bible now?

POI Nope. Faith is not applicable, using logic. I demonstrated above.

(U) The preponderance of evidence of Him being exactly as described by those who wrote the Bible,

POI According to who or what exactly? How is this trustworthy?

(U) Another cohort in your camp said all I’ve shared is experiences (yawn) and except for the lame sister who got up and ran around after prayer, I’ve shared no experiences at all. Problem is your side places no value on them.

POI If unvetted anecdotal stories were to be taken seriously, I would also be inclined to believe in haunted houses, Big Foot, alien abductions, Xenu, etc... Your Bible God's stories are really no different.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to POI in post #231]

To be fair, there are A LOT of christians who think faith in God is blind. They have a very immature and ignorant faith that easily crumbles. I’m not that kind.

Again, Faith (also belief and trust) is a blunderbuss word and it's meaningd before words of course.

The way I use the words (and capitals and quotes to denote nuance) is:

Belief. based on good evidentially real reason. E.g that Japan exists even though I have never been there.

Trust in someone else for what you hope are good reasons. e.g The Andromeda mnebula is a galaxy like ours even though I have never seen it.

Faith, crediting a claim without good reason or even in spite of it. e.g ghosts are real.

All this is arguable and largely based on whom we trust - 'scientists' and Experts or anyone with a spooky anecdote or Faithclaim.

Faith without good evidence and even in despite of it is a fascinating history, and particularly now and will one day be the subject of study, and particularly the American phenomenon., where flat earth became a cult (and may become so again), Flying saucers (and crop circles) became a cult and darn near a religion (space brothers) and of course creationism which was based on genesis literalism.

There was also the science - skeptic 'chariots of the gods' fad that was a threat to science even before Creationism. Accepted history and science was said to be wrong and there was a lot of 'evidence', though it was a mix of anecdotal, false correlation, puzzles like 'ancient technology' (1) and misrepresentation which was not evident at the time. For instance the Palenque slabs was supposed t be an astronaut in a space rocket, but now Maya can be read we know it isn't and was misidentified, not to say misrepresented. All the claims but a few were shown wrong and either based on ignorance or deception. This is very much like the techniques used by Wyatt to peddle his evidence of the Bible (sites and artefacts) and (as usual) we can't be sure these were done out of honest faith or deliberate fraud.

So Belief (in what 'science' tells us as no -one else does the research), trust in those results and interpretations or Faith vs. science - denial and anecdotal claims of everything from Flying Saucers to Flat earth or from Ancient technology to conspiracy theories of various kinds.

Uncannily it is like an election - the people have to decide whom they trust - those who talk anti - science like the Durupinar Ark or Bamboo in Election forms or those who say the evidence of Evolution is compelling and vaccines do prevent the 'vid. There are those who have Faith and dismiss the evidence: even what the Bible says is before their eyes (just make something up) and when the GoP nominee contradicts himself, those who accept evolution (with or without Bible - belief) mainly because science says so, but the entertaining vids are available and most have a rough idea, and those who dismiss it - not because of some doubts and questions or even because Creationists spread misinformation, but because Religion requires it be rejected on Faith, and if science disagrees, the science has to be rejected, too. It's almost been a meme "If reality contradicts the Bible, Reality is wrong" and the notorious 'If the Bible said 2+2 = 5, I wouldn't disbelieve it but try to work out how it could be true". This not just 'blind' faith but denialist faith.

Genesis literalism vs.Evolution and deep time geology is the obvious example, but trusting the NT vs those who doubt it, and science doesn't often want to fight the Bible. That has to be done by amateurs, mostly and media control is so important in getting the undecided voters to choose. Like Daaniken's Chariots of the gods, the doubts and questions have to get out there and the masses have to know how the faithclaims fail (and they do) and (if they are not Faithsold on Christianity) they will see the evidence is actually against the Bible, from start to finish.

Then Faith means what I define it as - belief in something without good evidence and even despite the evidence.

I could go on, but that's plenty long enough and gets the point -and the problems - over.

(1) ancient stonework, claims of advanced metalwork, free interpretation of old legends as advanced technology and the Piri Reis map,

"Then Faith means what I define it as - belief in something without good evidence and even despite the evidence."

There is a problem in a discussion when you take the liberty of deciding yourself what words mean in place of what they mean to everyone else. Only blind faith is as you describe above. Otherwise faith in general is a conclusion based on the evidence. This is the general definition. But I can see why you feel you need to define it differently than everyone else. We do not, however, have to accept your personal opinion as to what the word means.

Example: when a man has faith in his wife, it is not a belief in her "without good evidence or even in spite of the evidence." That does him and her no honor at all. There are lots and lots of such examples were faith is something that one does in honor of the character of the other, not totally ignorant of it. It is still clearly faith.

[The Tanager]

We know humans write stuff. We do not know that any 'higher power' also aids in such writings? What is more likely and why?

a) Such ancient writings were given by men alone?
b) They were also aided from 'above'?

Oh, this is what you meant. This whole thread is based on assuming God has revealed Himself through these writings and questioning the way He did so. This is an entirely different critique. This is moving the goalposts.

You have to ask yourself, if you did not hold a bias towards the Bible, and applied the same level of scrutiny, as you apply to other God claimed documents, for which you do not hold such a bias, would you still believe it came from 'above'? How possible is it that you apply a 'special compartment' for this collection of books, for which you would not apply to one of its rivals?

You have no basis for this accusation because I am following the assumption this thread’s critique is built off of.

No, because I am drawing my conclusion from the wider philosophical and theological context in what it says about God, versus only focusing on one (minority) psychological motivation.

As I told you, many responses ago, lets start with slavery. We can certainly get into all the others after we conclude this specific topic.

What I said above has nothing to do with talking about the other specific topics rather than slavery. It is specifically addressing your reasoning concerning slavery, which was to read a minority psychological motivation into a specific text. I did not do anything like that, instead taking in the wider philosophical and theological context since the specific verse doesn’t address the question you are asking of me.

Please stop evading the obvious. Slaves have little to no rights. The only rights they have, per Exodus 21, is that they are not to be killed or have their eyes/teeth removed. Which is fine because a blind or dead slave is a worthless slave. Just don't hit them in the face because it's more likely they cannot work the fields as well. They are also the expressed property of their masters, via the Bible as well. Likely no labor laws or unions protect them. Are slaves cheap labor, or not?

Yes, they are going to be cheaper labor, but my point is they had more rights than you are giving them credit for in Israel’s law. Part of that passage in Exodus 21 outlaws slave trading (v. 16) and also focuses on various kinds of personal injury, including on one’s servants. It is not a section outlining all the rights servants and slaves have. It calls for their freedom for losing a tooth, which isn’t just literally about losing a tooth, as though they only cared about teeth or that they need their face to work well, but a way to talk about the severity in general.

Great. We agree that slave masters whipped their slaves on the back. Hence, the laws issued in Exodus 21 no longer become relevant in your argument.

What is the logical connection to make that move?

Well, you theists state there exists no morals without God. God states no punishment is to be applied to the master, if the slave survives the beating. If this was not much of a thing, then God would not have had to step in and regulate it

God states there is no punishment (beyond what they’ve lost in work from the servant because of the owner’s action) if the severity is small. God wanted to make sure the Israelites were treating their slaves and servants well because they were once slaves themselves and knew how bad it could be. God was trying to curb any attempts to use their new positions of power to oppress others.

And as I stated in my previous response, the slave owners appealed to the exact same collection of books to keep slavery. As I also stated, does God ever mention the abolition of slavery? I'll answer for you. No, he does not. We did that without God's help, and also in spite of God being okay with it.

Yes, they appealed to the same books, so we must look at the reasoning. Slave owners read the Bible hyper literally, while abolitionists read more critically and contextually. I’ve already said God doesn’t abolish all forms of servitude (although Exodus 21:16 does forbid slave trading). We Christians, with God’s help, led the charge for abolition.