Omniscience

[POI]

I am moving along to topic number (4) with The Tanager. The first three were (justice, free will, and belief), as they spawned from the 'Carnivore thread' (viewtopic.php?t=42773). FYI, below were the climactic conclusions for the prior three topics...

1) viewtopic.php?t=42916 -- (ended at posts 65, 67, and 69)
2) viewtopic.php?t=42936 -- (ended at post 52)
3) viewtopic.php?t=42958 -- (ended at posts 9, 11, 16, and 20)

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

Omniscience is the state of possessing unlimited, infinite knowledge. Derived from the Latin words omnis ("all") and scientia ("knowledge"), it is most commonly associated with divine attributes, narrative perspectives, or advanced systemic technology.

For debate:

A) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write about, all on their own accord alone at the time. Meaning, something written which absolutely requires additional help (and/or) inspiration from a "higher" source?

B) If you think you can provide one, or more, we can certainly discuss and explore accordingly. But if you cannot produce a single piece of wisdom/information/other, for which humans could not have formulated upon their own accord(s) alone at the time, then why in the heck should anyone think or believe that the Bible was actually inspired by a 'higher power'?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How do you propose to objectively judge that couldn't have thought of it?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How do you propose to objectively judge that couldn't have thought of it?

Is this topic already over, and I can just move on to the next one; or are you going to engage?

I'll give you a very loose and random example... Maybe even one you've heard many times before from skeptics....

Aha! The Bible talks about "washing your hands with antibacterial soap before you place them in your mouth because microscopic germs exist which cannot be seen with the naked eye which can harm you". If something to this effect were written and advised, by the almighty, skeptics and doubters would have little to say. Sure, anyone can argue anything, but do we have anything relatively close to even this?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How do you propose to objectively judge that couldn't have thought of it?

Is this topic already over, and I can just move on to the next one; or are you going to engage?

I'll give you a very loose and random example... Maybe even one you've heard many times before from skeptics....

Aha! The Bible talks about "washing your hands before you place them in your mouth because microscopic germs exist which cannot be seen with the naked eye which can harm you". If something to this effect were written and advised, by the almighty, skeptics and doubters would have little to say. Sure, anyone can argue anything, but do we have anything relatively close to even this?

I am engaging you. Certainly we should have an objective way to measure the answer. I'm trying to get what that is. From the above it sounds like you are suggesting that if it doesn't have something like a scientific narrative in language used thousands of years after it was written, then it fails. If so, then why is that standard rational? If not, then please clarify.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How do you propose to objectively judge that couldn't have thought of it?

Is this topic already over, and I can just move on to the next one; or are you going to engage?

I'll give you a very loose and random example... Maybe even one you've heard many times before from skeptics....

Aha! The Bible talks about "washing your hands before you place them in your mouth because microscopic germs exist which cannot be seen with the naked eye which can harm you". If something to this effect were written and advised, by the almighty, skeptics and doubters would have little to say. Sure, anyone can argue anything, but do we have anything relatively close to even this?

I am engaging you. Certainly we should have an objective way to measure the answer. I'm trying to get what that is. From the above it sounds like you are suggesting that if it doesn't have something like a scientific narrative in language used thousands of years after it was written, then it fails. If so, then why is that standard rational? If not, then please clarify.

Dude, I'm asking you for a claim from the Bible which would require advanced knowledge. I gave you a random example, just to try and kickstart the exchange. You seem scared. Do you have anything? And no, the criteria does not HAVE to be 'science'. I just produced one which came to mind, to give you some context. However, the instruction, whatever it may be, needs to be specific enough; like the example I gave. With not enough specifics, it is too open for 'interpretation'.

[1213]

...
A) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write about, all on their own accord alone at the time. Meaning, something written which absolutely requires additional help (and/or) inspiration from a "higher" source?

Whatever would be said, "you could say, humans could have said that". Therefore this is not leading anywhere.

I don't believe humans would have written the Bible, if things would not have gone as told in the Bible. But, there is no way to prove it so that you could not deny it.

For me one of the convincing things are that atheists don't understand the Bible. If it would be just from the humans, there would not have so much difficulties, and they would not need to lie about the Bible.

And for me, parts that especially shows great knowledge, or non human thinking are:

1) Knowledge about original single continent and how modern continents were formed.
2) Knowledge about how Jews would be scattered and now gathered back.
3) The idea to love even enemies.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

Yes you are asking for a claim that requires advanced knowledge without clearly saying what counts as advanced enough. You need a clear definition of that, not an example. Your instruction is not specific enough and, therefore, is too open for interpretation making your question meaningless.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

Yes you are asking for a claim that requires advanced knowledge without clearly saying what counts as advanced enough. You need a clear definition of that, not an example. Your instruction is not specific enough and, therefore, is too open for interpretation making your question meaningless.

My guess is if you felt you had something, you would have presented it already. These 'excuses' are just that. excuses. Okay, I'll play along...

Demonstrating a claim, based on advanced knowledge, (often referred to as an argument of fact or an expert assertion), requires objective verification rather than subjective opinion. You must present specific, verifiable evidence alongside an explanation of how that evidence proves your conclusion.

This can be from the broad-brushed topic of 'science', prophecy, or other. You pick Tanager. Does anything come to mind which would make a skeptic go, "hmmm"?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #8]

You aren't moving this conversation forward rationally, so this one looks over, too. Go ahead and declare your lead moving to 4-0. In fact, save some time, count up the remaining questions you wanted to discuss and just declare yourself the winner of them all.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #8]

You aren't moving this conversation forward rationally, so this one looks over, too. Go ahead and declare your lead moving to 4-0. In fact, save some time, count up the remaining questions you wanted to discuss and just declare yourself the winner of them all.

You are creating a "barrier" to avoid the inevitable, in that the Bible likely does not produce even one claim, or one piece of instruction in which humans could not have manifested all upon their own, and with no help from the 'divine.'

And I do not blame you for throwing in the towel, as the exchange was already lost at the end of the Justice topic. Continuing to follow a god in which you yourself must reconcile is unjust seems bonkers to me. But hey, the power of belief preservation is quite strong; especially when it involves fundamental topics like religion and politics.

Thank you for your time.