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?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

[The Nice Centurion]

Do you have Evidence that demands a Verdict

That book is the laughing stock of millions

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

This is irrelevant. People have changed the world for good or ill, with or without this or that Holy Book. The very basis of Western culture and science - and I suspect - religion was based on people who believed in humanlike Gods living on mount Olympus.

I certainly do have a lack of faith - claims, as when you rely on those, you have to tell me what and which ones and why. There are millions who believe in other religions, and you don't care for their belief any more than I am persuaded by the Christian beliefs.

Evidence and reason. Let's see some of that, not appeal to fallacies like selected Faith and appeal to some numbers of people but not others.

[Data]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]
This is irrelevant. People have changed the world for good or ill, with or without this or that Holy Book. The very basis of Western culture and science - and I suspect - religion was based on people who believed in humanlike Gods living on mount Olympus.

I certainly do have a lack of faith - claims, as when you rely on those, you have to tell me what and which ones and why. There are millions who believe in other religions, and you don't care for their belief any more than I am persuaded by the Christian beliefs.

Evidence and reason. Let's see some of that, not appeal to fallacies like selected Faith and appeal to some numbers of people but not others.

The history of mankind can be summed up with three words: necessity to nonsense. So, yes, this is irrelevant (nonsense). People didn't change the world for good or ill, they created it, with or without science, Holy Books, Western Culture and all the rest. Humanlike gods living on Mount Olympus was only a small part of that nonsense just as your response is only a part of that. Everything we say and everything we do is nonsense from necessity.

You do not have any more or less faith than anyone else and your claims, by definition as a verb, to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof; and as a noun, an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt or a demand or request for something considered one's due, like anyone else's, are nonsense. Belief doesn't persuade anyone of anything, that's why they call it belief. So, when someone insists on evidence and reason what they really mean is confirmation bias.

Creation is necessity, for example, the resulting nonsense being ideology. Ideology is literally the science of ideas. Religion, belief, science, history, etc. are ideological which becomes nonsensical when given as an edict or diktat. Thus, the sociopolitical class struggle of religion vs science.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, there we are. It looks like a classig science -skeptic denial -fallacy. False because if we dismissed everything we thought we knew, and we could not trust anything, religious claims are the lerast trustworthy.

Yet we all do trust the findings of science in working form every day. It is the classic cherry pick. "I'l have some of that as it helps me to get to work, but I don't want any of that as it contradicts my faith".

Science and the material default is the basis of what is not 'nonsense' so far as we can work out. Dismiss it as you like, but you rely on it every day, as much as any of us.

[Clownboat]

The history of mankind can be summed up with three words: necessity to nonsense. So, yes, this is irrelevant (nonsense). People didn't change the world for good or ill, they created it, with or without science, Holy Books, Western Culture and all the rest. Humanlike gods living on Mount Olympus was only a small part of that nonsense just as your response is only a part of that. Everything we say and everything we do is nonsense from necessity.

You do not have any more or less faith than anyone else and your claims, by definition as a verb, to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof; and as a noun, an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt or a demand or request for something considered one's due, like anyone else's, are nonsense. Belief doesn't persuade anyone of anything, that's why they call it belief. So, when someone insists on evidence and reason what they really mean is confirmation bias.

Creation is necessity, for example, the resulting nonsense being ideology. Ideology is literally the science of ideas. Religion, belief, science, history, etc. are ideological which becomes nonsensical when given as an edict or diktat. Thus, the sociopolitical class struggle of religion vs science.

Why did you type so many words when you could have just been honest and admitted that you don't have any evidence or reason to believe in the gods?

You alluding to faith is nothing but a weak attempt to level the playing field. The problem is that faith should be avoided at all costs because faith is a necessary mechanism in order to believe in something that is false. Faith does not have the ability to suggest that a belief may be true.
Want to believe in Big Foot? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.
Want to believe in Nessy? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.
Want to believe in Allah? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.

Due to this, faith should be abhorred by all, yet all religions require it in order for humans to believe in all the different competing god concepts. Faith is what has brought us all the false gods and faith is used by many to pick one of these god concepts to believe is true while simultaneously rejecting the other options for not applying faith to them. The main mechanism that determines what god a person will apply their faith to is geography. Two nonsensical mechanism are at play for humans to form a god concept belief (fear often being a 3rd).

Like Transponder said: "Evidence and reason. Let's see some of that, not appeal to fallacies like selected Faith and appeal to some numbers of people but not others."

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

How do these millions cope with the following fact

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

Unless one assumes divine intervention at every step along this thousand year plus process, there is virtually no possiblity of the Bible being "inerrant".

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

How do these millions cope with the following fact

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

Unless one assumes divine intervention at every step along this thousand year plus process, there is virtually no possiblity of the Bible being "inerrant".

Neither the authors of the Bible nor their writings claim the Book is inerrant. The claim is that it’s useful for teaching (truth), correction (moral behavior) and training in doing right. This it fulfills it’s part perfectly.

The inerrancy theory was probably invented to avoid the uncomfortableness of the actual claim.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because what it claims matches real life. I have tested it in the crucible of life and found it stands the test. I’ve read published scientific articles that couldn’t stand the test of being repeated or even critical thought.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

How do these millions cope with the following fact

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

Unless one assumes divine intervention at every step along this thousand year plus process, there is virtually no possiblity of the Bible being "inerrant".

Neither the authors of the Bible nor their writings claim the Book is inerrant. The claim is that it’s useful for teaching (truth), correction (moral behavior) and training in doing right. This it fulfills it’s part perfectly.

The inerrancy theory was probably invented to avoid the uncomfortableness of the actual claim.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because what it claims matches real life. I have tested it in the crucible of life and found it stands the test. I’ve read published scientific articles that couldn’t stand the test of being repeated or even critical thought.

These are just more faithclaims, or perhaps personal opinions. To which you are well entitled, but contain no reason whatsoever for anyone else to accept them.

The reason the Bible reflects life is because it was written by people who had lived it. It is not only not inerrant, it is often wrong (unless on denies human knowledge). Whatever you have found, I have tested the Bible against validated data, reason and internal coherence and it fails in all respects. We may disagree, but that means your case cuts no ice with me.

I am willing to subject it to critical thought. I have seen no such from you so far, but merely more faithclaims.

[Data]

The history of mankind can be summed up with three words: necessity to nonsense. So, yes, this is irrelevant (nonsense). People didn't change the world for good or ill, they created it, with or without science, Holy Books, Western Culture and all the rest. Humanlike gods living on Mount Olympus was only a small part of that nonsense just as your response is only a part of that. Everything we say and everything we do is nonsense from necessity.

You do not have any more or less faith than anyone else and your claims, by definition as a verb, to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof; and as a noun, an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt or a demand or request for something considered one's due, like anyone else's, are nonsense. Belief doesn't persuade anyone of anything, that's why they call it belief. So, when someone insists on evidence and reason what they really mean is confirmation bias.

Creation is necessity, for example, the resulting nonsense being ideology. Ideology is literally the science of ideas. Religion, belief, science, history, etc. are ideological which becomes nonsensical when given as an edict or diktat. Thus, the sociopolitical class struggle of religion vs science.

Why did you type so many words when you could have just been honest and admitted that you don't have any evidence or reason to believe in the gods?

You alluding to faith is nothing but a weak attempt to level the playing field. The problem is that faith should be avoided at all costs because faith is a necessary mechanism in order to believe in something that is false. Faith does not have the ability to suggest that a belief may be true.
Want to believe in Big Foot? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.
Want to believe in Nessy? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.
Want to believe in Allah? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.

Due to this, faith should be abhorred by all, yet all religions require it in order for humans to believe in all the different competing god concepts. Faith is what has brought us all the false gods and faith is used by many to pick one of these god concepts to believe is true while simultaneously rejecting the other options for not applying faith to them. The main mechanism that determines what god a person will apply their faith to is geography. Two nonsensical mechanism are at play for humans to form a god concept belief (fear often being a 3rd).

Like Transponder said: "Evidence and reason. Let's see some of that, not appeal to fallacies like selected Faith and appeal to some numbers of people but not others."

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to tax your search for evidence and reason. Perhaps you could just skip to the part where I say when someone insists on evidence and reason what they really mean is confirmation bias.