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]

QED said:

joer - the point of me raising the AP here is that it demonstrates the great potential for ambiguity in our appraisal of the universe or what some prefer to term "the creation". This latter set of people would consider the existence of God as an a priori proposition, feeling that the very nature of a universe so carefully set up for their existence is a justification for determining a deliberate act of creation through reason alone.

This is therefore a sort of spell that simply saying, "I maintain that the Bible is very much the word of man." won't break.

Well Doc (QED) it seems to me that the spell that you’re weaving will be harder to break, because it seems to be even more ambiguous than the ambiguity postulated by the AP itself. The AP is called into question by the same Wikipedia explanation in the statement, “Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy.” I believe this is exactly what has been born out to the common observer in your attempts to apply this principle in this case.

I do not understand why you’re doing it. It is obvious that all this ambiguity exists in our understanding of the universe as well as the scientific theories we construct from our ambiguous reason and logic to help us understand the ambiguous universe. I raised the string theory and the theory of God. My point is they are equally ambiguous but they are the best attempt we can make given all our ambiguous circumstances, to make sense of our universe and our existence.

So what would you propose? Perhaps it’s that we drop all our efforts at scientific advancement and attempted understanding of our universe because the results are ambiguous at best? That seems a little silly to me QED. The alternative your are suggesting is what? Is it that we continue to live in ignorance without attempting to make sense of our surroundings? Doesn’t that seem a little ludicrous to you to call those attempts at understanding into question? I’m sorry QED I find it quite ennobling of humankind making their feeble attempts in the face of total ambiguity to understand who we are and where we come from. Even if that means postulating dimensions outside of the time/space continuum on into eternity and beyond finite reality into infinity.

If that’s the spell I’m wrapped up in, the spell of scientific discovery, I much prefer it to the spell of defeatism and confusion that you engender in your attempted application of the Anthropic Principle in this instance.

Perhaps we can both accept the spell of scientific discovery regardless of any relationship it may bear to the Anthropic Principle and move forward? What do you think? Is there any chance of that?

By the way Cephus if you believe that what I am talking about is cute little bible stories, I’m glad you’re so easily entertained.

Gentleman, I await your intelligent, candid and unobscured responses.

[QED]

Well Doc (QED) it seems to me that the spell that you’re weaving will be harder to break, because it seems to be even more ambiguous than the ambiguity postulated by the AP itself. The AP is called into question by the same Wikipedia explanation in the statement, “Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy.” I believe this is exactly what has been born out to the common observer in your attempts to apply this principle in this case.

Perhaps you misunderstand my position on the AP. Allow me to attempt to clarify things. I mentioned the AP to draw attention to the ambiguities we are presented with when contemplating our existence in the cosmos. Not being able to "step outside of the system" and view it from an external perspective necessarily limits the knowledge we can have of the system. Of all the flavours of the AP (e.g. SAP, WAP, FAP) perhaps CR is the most suitable prefix as it underlines the fact that ultimately little can be proven through anthropocentric reasoning.

I do not understand why you’re doing it. It is obvious that all this ambiguity exists in our understanding of the universe as well as the scientific theories we construct from our ambiguous reason and logic to help us understand the ambiguous universe. I raised the string theory and the theory of God. My point is they are equally ambiguous but they are the best attempt we can make given all our ambiguous circumstances, to make sense of our universe and our existence.

That's fine, so long as we don't allow ourselves to be deceived by appearances. That's my only purpose in pursuing this line of argument.

So what would you propose? Perhaps it’s that we drop all our efforts at scientific advancement and attempted understanding of our universe because the results are ambiguous at best? That seems a little silly to me QED.

If we properly understand the necessary limitations imposed by our observational position then we can make progress. There is much that can be ascertained from observation this side of the horizon. We can even posit mechanism beyond the horizon and make valuable assessments from predictions emerging on our side of the horizon (e.g. Lee Smolins Cosmological Natural Selection). This holds out plenty of hope for the sort of continued enquiry you and I both desire.

[Cephus]

Actually Cephus it doesn't appear that anybody here is interested right now in understanding how the Word of God is interpreted out of the text of the Bible. As far as I'm concerned Cephus the demonstration of God's existence is all around you and through you but you can't even see it.

I'm sure plenty of people would be interested if you could actually demonstrate it, but you assume both the existence of God and that the Bible is God's word a priori. Pretty much what you're saying is "Look, I have blind faith in God, the Bible says it's the word of God, therefore, I'm right!"

No one is impressed. You have to actually be able to DEMONSTRATE things, not just make empty claims.

[joer]

A priori
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the concept in constructed language, see a priori (languages).
A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former" or less literally "before experience". In much of the modern Western tradition, the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge meaning "after experience", which requires experience (In law, the term ex post facto replaces a posteriori).
For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
The natural and social sciences are usually considered a posteriori disciplines. Statements like "The sky is usually mostly blue", for instance, might be considered "a posteriori" knowledge.

Philosophical thought
One of the fundamental questions in epistemology is whether there is any non-trivial a priori knowledge. Generally speaking rationalists believe that there is, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is ultimately derived from some kind of experience (usually external), or else is in some sense trivial.
The use of the term gained foothold through rationalist thinkers, such as René Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz, who argued that knowledge is gained through reason, not experience. Descartes considered the knowledge of the self, or cogito ergo sum, to be a priori, because he thought that one needn't refer to past experience to consider one's own existence.
John Locke, in believing that reflection is a part of experience, gave a platform by which the entire notion of the "a priori" might be abandoned.
David Hume considered all a priori knowledge to be a Relation of Ideas, mentioning it several times in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Cephus, you must be confusing what you say I assume, “but you assume both the existence of God and that the Bible is God's word a priori.” with an assertion by QED when he said,

“what some prefer to term "the creation". This latter set of people would consider the existence of God as an a priori proposition, feeling that the very nature of a universe so carefully set up for their existence is a justification for determining a deliberate act of creation through reason alone.”

I have a de facto posteriori rational empirical relational experiential view of the existence of GOD and a comprehensive artistic literary spiritual theological dialectical phenomenological analytical view of the Word of God as expressed in the Bible by humankind to their fellow human beings then and now.

I mean this a priori explanation you guys are trying to pin on me, of my belief or faith in the word of God or the existence of God weather real or imagined is much to simplistic.

I don’t know if you guys are familiar with a group of writers that existed in a period of time where their writings influenced each other and their thinking. The development of their ideas was quite impacting on the sphere of human influence at that time. They were Heidegger, Hegel, Marx, Jung, Freud and Hesse to mention a few. Their writings precipitated a period of human history that generated ideologies and ideas like Communism, Socialism, Dialectical materialism, Universal consciousness and truths, that influenced the generation of modern forms and techniques of psychological analysis and thus through all these developments affected the direction of humanity’s ambitions and understanding of itself.

In Martin Heidegger’s What Is a Thing?, Heidegger suggests that we can get closest to understanding the essence of a thing by considering phenomenologically all of the ways in which that thing could be perceived AND anticipating, realizing and understanding that there are still unknown ways in which it can by perceived. And holding all of that in consideration in the understanding of that thing you come closest to understanding the essence or reality of that thing. But you can never understand it completely.

For example if you take a chair and contemplate it’s essence: it can be thought of as wood if it’s a wooden chair. Then it would carry all the connotations of wood. It could be thought of as a tree, the wood grain of a tree, fuel for burning thus a source of heat. It could be thought of as art if it was an artistic piece. Like a chair from medieval times, an elaborately decorated throne of a king. Etc. It could be thought of furniture as a form in which you can position yourself in what is known as a seated position and have your physical weight supported. You could think of the structural characteristics in terms of maximum weight supported. You could think of it as a seat of position as in government or at the right hand of God.

So the essence of the chair carries all of these connotations and those as of yet unperceived. So that would be the dialectical phenomenological way of understanding a chair. And everybody doesn’t perceive the chair the same. The essence of the chair is actually determined by the relationship between the observer and the chair. The fuller the perception of the chair by that observer the better the chair is understood by the observer.

So Cephus if we both see a chair if enough of our perceptions of what the chair is, match we might agree on what the chair is. But if enough of them differ we may disagree on what the chair is or what a certain aspect of the chair is.

Cephus, I don’t really get off saying, “you’re wrong and I’m right”. I am willing to say we might differ on what we think “something is” and that’s all right. It’s not an anomaly. It’s to be expected.

In addition IMHO if we want to better understand what that a thing “really is” we need to examine each other perceptions of it and in thus doing we get to a fuller understanding of that thing. And as I mentioned on another thread to Nick H. one thing my mind opened up to on this site is that I might really get to a better understanding of “GOD” by walking hand-in-hand (in a manner of speaking) with an Atheist.

Cheers Brothers and Sisters in Life.

QED said:

That's fine, so long as we don't allow ourselves to be deceived by appearances. That's my only purpose in pursuing this line of argument.

That’s sounds pretty good to me except that we may disagree on what is being “deceived by appearances”. I don’t mind functioning in a “relative reality” rather than an “absolute reality” which it seems we’re abundantly agreed on, is something we’re incapable of experiencing given our position in the universe presently as mortals of the realm of earth.

For example I posit that atheist and believers alike may have agreed that the Titanic was unsinkable at the time of the start of it’s maiden voyage. But after it sank and with the tragedy of the loss of human life. I believe both sets of people would be much less likely even with the substantial improvement in ocean going vehicles today, to make such an assertion. We function under the illusion of a certain reality as if it’s real until it ceases to be useful to function that way. Then we adjust our reality to the changes inherent in our experiences. Then we continue to function under this new reality until it becomes useless to do so.

QED also said:

If we properly understand the necessary limitations imposed by our observational position then we can make progress. There is much that can be ascertained from observation this side of the horizon. We can even posit mechanism beyond the horizon and make valuable assessments from predictions emerging on our side of the horizon (e.g. Lee Smolins Cosmological Natural Selection). This holds out plenty of hope for the sort of continued enquiry you and I both desire.

I don’t know if you think I “properly understand” those limitations. But I think I understand them enough for the purposes of discussion on the threads of this site. I’m certain you can remind me if I forget my “position” in the universe in “the sort of continued enquiry you and I both desire.” I think I would definitely enjoy the journey even if we have to back out of dead ends or examine the details of certain points. I look forward to it.

Cephus by the way I like your Avartar. It seems like the like the Lion is covering eyes thinking "Oh No! I can't believe he just said that!" It cracks me up. So now you see how easily I'm amused.

[Cephus]

I have a de facto posteriori rational empirical relational experiential view of the existence of GOD and a comprehensive artistic literary spiritual theological dialectical phenomenological analytical view of the Word of God as expressed in the Bible by humankind to their fellow human beings then and now.

Which is about as useful as people who say they're Napoleon.

I mean this a priori explanation you guys are trying to pin on me, of my belief or faith in the word of God or the existence of God weather real or imagined is much to simplistic.

No, I'm saying that you cannot even address the question "Is the Bible the word of God?" until you've addressed the question "Is there a God?" You are simply assuming that there is not only *A* god, but *YOUR* God. You cannot demonstrate this to the satisfaction of others taking part in the debate, hence it is a faulty assumption. The same goes for all the other doubtable assumptions that I pointed out. It's all faith, based on nothing but guesses, heresay, conjecture and wishful thinking. There is no rational reason to believe any of it, yet you not only believe it blindly, you reject similar situations from other religions.

Cephus by the way I like your Avartar. It seems like the like the Lion is covering eyes thinking "Oh No! I can't believe he just said that!" It cracks me up. So now you see how easily I'm amused.

No, more like "Holy crap, are these people serious?"

[joer]

Cephus said:

Which is about as useful as people who say they're Napoleon.

Actually if you cared to make a little more effort at trying to understand what I was trying to communicate to you, you might see that it could make a little more sense than someone calling themselves Napoleon. I have noticed if you don’t really want to address something you make a little derisive quip and dismiss it. Avoidance??? Laziness? Anger? I don’t know. You tell me if you want to.

Cephus said,

No, I'm saying that you cannot even address the question "Is the Bible the word of God?" until you've addressed the question "Is there a God?"

Are you complaining about that fact that if I don’t address the question of “Is there a God” first, I can’t truthfully answer the question, "Is the Bible the word of God?"

Or are you just restating that that’s what I have to do?

Cephus Said,

You are simply assuming that there is not only *A* god, but *YOUR* God.

Nope your statement is in error. I’m am not assuming that there is a God.

I believe there is *A*God and my just my God but “YOUR” God and everybody’s GOD. But for the purposes of this debate because I’m NOT assuming there is a GOD. I am stating that the theory "that God exists" is as viable as any other theory that is being scientifically studied today and thus worthy of recognition as theory not as a fact as you suggest. If you review the discussions I’ve had with QED they deal with that point.

Cephus said,

You cannot demonstrate this to the satisfaction of others taking part in the debate, hence it is a faulty assumption. The same goes for all the other doubtable assumptions that I pointed out.

Cephus what if I said you can’t demonstrate the Sun and the Sky exist, therefor it’s faulty to assume they exist. Suppose you put a picture of the sun and sky in your post to prove it. Then I say I put a plant by the picture of the sun and it didn’t grow. I tested the picture of the sky for composition of Nitrogen and Oxygen and other elements and all I found were red green and blue pixels. Therefore you didn’t prove it to my satisfaction. Therefore it is false, they don’t exist just because you say they do.

Then you say I can’t demonstrate it to the satisfaction of others taking part in the debate. If you consider that the majority taking part in the debate were believers I would say you would be wrong. If the majority were atheist you might be right.

Since it can go either way depending on the composition of the participants I would say it would not be a valid method of determination God exists or not. We would have to find a method of determination that wasn’t affected by the participant’s bias. Wouldn’t you agree?

Cephus said,

It's all faith, based on nothing but guesses, heresay, conjecture and wishful thinking. There is no rational reason to believe any of it, yet you not only believe it blindly,

Your right! It is Faith and belief. But your wrong about it all being "based on guesses, hearsay, conjecture and wishful thinking." I understand why you would think that because not many people are willing to entertain the idea of God beyond using those criteria.

Cephus said,

You reject similar situations from other religions.

Wrong again. You seem to wish to equate my views to others who also believe in God. But if you actually read anything about how I view God, You would find my ideas are in many aspects quite different than those whose ideas you are equating to mine.

Please be more careful in your generalizations. I may not think I’m Napoleon but I do think I have unusual understandings of Religious concepts. I believed they are affected by and consistent with modern scientific advancements. Please feel free to test my perceptions with what you call guesses, hearsay, conjecture and wishful thinking from a book that is called by many “The Word of God”. Thanks Cephus

No, more like "Holy crap, are these people serious?"

That works for me too. LOL

[Cephus]

Are you complaining about that fact that if I don’t address the question of “Is there a God” first, I can’t truthfully answer the question, "Is the Bible the word of God?"

How do you propose to truthfully answer the question "Is the Bible the word of God" if you can't even support the existence of God? It makes about as much sense as arguing "The Bible is the word of blue aliens from the planet Zenon". How can you determine if it is the word of some entity without addressing the actual existence of said entity?

I believe there is *A*God and my just my God but “YOUR” God and everybody’s GOD. But for the purposes of this debate because I’m NOT assuming there is a GOD. I am stating that the theory "that God exists" is as viable as any other theory that is being scientifically studied today and thus worthy of recognition as theory not as a fact as you suggest. If you review the discussions I’ve had with QED they deal with that point.

Nope, sorry. Now if you had said "hypothesis", you'd be fine, but God is not a "theory" in the scientific sense because God has no evidence to support him. God is just a guess, to-date unsupported by objective evidence or logical arguments. What theists tend to do is say "I think God is real" and then jump to "Since God is real..." but it doesn't work that way. They miss the whole "demonstrating the claim" stage.

And BTW, are you suggesting that Krishna and Ahura Mazda and Ea and Enki and all the other gods man has come up with are real? Because otherwise, you're certainly not talking about *everybody's* gods, are you?

[joer]

On Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:11 pm Joer said:

I mean really if you want to consider if the Bible is 100% the word of God, wouldn’t you first want to establish the existence or non-existence of God? Because if God doesn’t exist "The Bible" would be 0% the word of God.

On Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:11 pm Cephus said:

How do you propose to truthfully answer the question "Is the Bible the word of God" if you can't even support the existence of God? It makes about as much sense as arguing "The Bible is the word of blue aliens from the planet Zenon". How can you determine if it is the word of some entity without addressing the actual existence of said entity?

Well Cephus I’m glad you finally agree with me. So are you ready to start that discussion? Or do you want to just keep putting spin on the question without really addressing the issue: Does God exist or not?

You present your argument why God doesn’t exist. And I’ll present mine of why God does exist. And we’ll let the readers decide for themselves which argument is worth it’s salt. Straight Up. Are you game my friend?

QED and I came to an understanding that the Anthropic Principle would render whatever arguments we come up with “untrue” in a cosmological sense but worth pursuing with the understanding as QED said:

If we properly understand the necessary limitations imposed by our observational position then we can make progress. There is much that can be ascertained from observation this side of the horizon. We can even posit mechanism beyond the horizon and make valuable assessments from predictions emerging on our side of the horizon (e.g. Lee Smolins Cosmological Natural Selection). This holds out plenty of hope for the sort of continued enquiry you and I both desire.

To be truthful Cephus my biggest task so far has been to find a starting point from which WE (You and I or QED and I or all three of us or any other serious seeker of “truth” even if it’s a relative agreed upon temporary truth) can start. I mean what’s the use of pursuing the question if everything boils down to as you’ve abundantly pointed out: “You say God exists and I say God doesn’t exist and so I’m right and your wrong!”

What’s the use of pursuing the argument if we’re not honestly going to consider the posits of each side? And considering doesn’t mean agreeing with your opponent it means pointing out what's wrong with your opponent’s argument as well of acknowledging any truth found in it. That way we can benefit from each other’s perception and position on the issue. I’m not communicating with you to convince you or anyone else that God exists. I’m doing it to get closer to and increase my understanding of my truth of God. Believe it or Not!

So if in our discussion others are moved one way or the other, so be it.

Cephus said:

Nope, sorry. Now if you had said "hypothesis", you'd be fine, but God is not a "theory" in the scientific sense because God has no evidence to support him. God is just a guess, to-date unsupported by objective evidence or logical arguments. What theists tend to do is say "I think God is real" and then jump to "Since God is real..." but it doesn't work that way. They miss the whole "demonstrating the claim" stage.

O.K. Cephus let’s start out with a "hypothesis". We’ll pretend that the thousands of years of empirical data in the form arguments for and against the existence of God don’t exist, and we'll create our own empirical data as we proceed. Agreed?

Cephus said:

And BTW, are you suggesting that Krishna and Ahura Mazda and Ea and Enki and all the other gods man has come up with are real? Because otherwise, you're certainly not talking about *everybody's* gods, are you?

As you would say Cephus, "Nope, sorry". I stated what I believed Cephus. Not what was “Real” for you, me or anyone else. You have to pay attention to the details Cephus. “Believe” not “Real”.
So what everybody else calls GOD or any part of God or even that there is no god, doesn’t matter to me. That’s their own bag. They’re going to find their own truth and I’ll find mine. Now if in their own search for truth they want to test their ideas against mine and allow me to test mine against theirs, I would gladly do so with an open mind and heart.

Cheers Cephus, and thanks for the conversation.

[HughDP]

Are you complaining about that fact that if I don’t address the question of “Is there a God” first, I can’t truthfully answer the question, "Is the Bible the word of God?"

How do you propose to truthfully answer the question "Is the Bible the word of God" if you can't even support the existence of God? It makes about as much sense as arguing "The Bible is the word of blue aliens from the planet Zenon". How can you determine if it is the word of some entity without addressing the actual existence of said entity?

To be truthful Cephus my biggest task so far has been to find a starting point from which WE (You and I or QED and I or all three of us or any other serious seeker of “truth” even if it’s a relative agreed upon temporary truth) can start. I mean what’s the use of pursuing the question if everything boils down to as you’ve abundantly pointed out: “You say God exists and I say God doesn’t exist and so I’m right and your wrong!”

What’s the use of pursuing the argument if we’re not honestly going to consider the posits of each side? And considering doesn’t mean agreeing with your opponent it means pointing out what's wrong with your opponent’s argument as well of acknowledging any truth found in it. That way we can benefit from each other’s perception and position on the issue. I’m not communicating with you to convince you or anyone else that God exists. I’m doing it to get closer to and increase my understanding of my truth of God. Believe it or Not!

Issues such as those mentioned above quite often plague religious debates, which is why I can understand certain forums being 'closed' to objections from opposing faiths (discussed recently in another post) and why the idea of creating another sub-forum here is being considered.

The sticking point between athiests and theists will always be Does God exist? and a high proportion of debates at some point touch on that question.

I think religious debates can sometimes benefit from the sort of approach scientific papers take, which is that the 'a priori' assumptions are stated at the start and the discussions must be contained within those assumptions.

Anything that falls outside really constitutes a separate debate. Of course, people do track off in various directions from debate and that's often healthy and stimulating, so a certain amount of 'drift' always needs to be tolerated and it needs to be handled sensitively, but when the 'drift' takes the discussion into a blind alley which has little to do with the original question, it can be brought back within the 'a prioris' again.

What I've found useful in the past is to state such 'a priori' items as:

- We accept a god exists.
- We accept a particular kind of god exists (ie. timeless or everlasting, omnipotent or contained, omniscient or restricted).
- We accept that some popular interpretation of a god exists (i.e. the Christian God, the Muslim Allah).
- We accept that certain scriptures represent the undisputed 'word' of a particular god.
- We accept that a certain interpretation of those scriptures is the correct one.
- etc., with each new item further qualifying the one above it.

Of course the person opening the debate can use an open or restricted set of such assumptions as they wish. Sometimes one might simply want to debate whether or not God (or a god) exists.

It always difficult to come into a debate and accept assumptions which go against something one believes is a critical theological point, but I think it can be an educational and interesting challenge.

[Cephus]

You present your argument why God doesn’t exist. And I’ll present mine of why God does exist. And we’ll let the readers decide for themselves which argument is worth it’s salt. Straight Up. Are you game my friend?

You know it is impossible to prove a negative, hence I have nothing whatsoever to prove. You, claiming that God does exist, must present evidence to support that claim.

Get to work.