Is the Bible and God worthy of their own paradigm?

[SimpleLayman]

In simple terms, a paradigm is a fundamental framework or model that shapes how a group of people understands and interacts with the world. It’s a set of beliefs, ideas, and theories that serve as a pattern or standard for how to think and act, like the rules of a game that define the boundaries of play.

I propose that Atheists have willfully chosen a false paradigm when debating the bible. This paradigm grants no extreme claims and denies the possibility of revelation or anything that can not be proven to be true through scientific processes. This is why they remain stuck on questions like how did God drown the world if he is indeed good and capable of no evil. They have convinced droves of people that you can not understand the moral character of God except through the same objective lens that you’d use to judge the moral character of any man. They even go so far as to insinuate or outright suggest Christians are forced to ignore certain acts by God through the lens that they have chosen for us; and this is a key point, as it is the correct lens for every rational skeptic looking from outside in to assess all claims.

According to them, It must be this lens because Christians claim that God is real, and not just a character in a book. If Christians make claims about what God is, the spiritual world, anything at all outside of the Atheists chosen paradigm, even if it is supported by scripture, it’s all woo woo and mumbo jumbo that absolutely must fall by the wayside until your analysis of God’s character and the actions in question are fully and thoroughly complete. This is willfully ignorant

My claim is that God is as described in the bible, and in order to assess the validity of those claims you must adopt the appropriate paradigm. You can not disregard for the purposes of debate fallen Elohim, fallen angels, the law of God, what the God is said to be, or even so much as any number of concepts; like a seared conscience, or a covenant that God does not break. You can't claim incoherence for the purpose of debate, that’s denying concepts like revelation. Revelation would be like a scientist receiving their hypothesis seemingly out of nowhere; A light bulb just went off, for lack of a better phrase. It has real-world value, as do many of the concepts atheists are forced to disregard.

This is common in science. The answer comes to them, they then fill in the rest of the hypothesis to show you they’ve come to their idea through the appropriate process. Scientists can’t say, it just popped into my head; end of hypothesis, and now onto the next step. They must stick to the paradigm even when false, and that’s the key point here. This too is the Atheist trying to debate God’s character by testing claims about God against certain acts by God in the bible; They must likewise stick to their paradigm even when proven inappropriate, because it is the strongest epistemology available to us when navigating the realm of ideas. It is not, however, the best way to ascertain if any biblical paradigm exists that answers your queries in a manner that grants God every title given to him in scripture.

This is why my second claim is Atheists have failed to prove that God can do evil, and Christians do not have to adopt their chosen paradigm for debate to appeal to discerning minds. Christians can go up on stage and say the craziest things imaginable. God literally washed you clean of sins through the blood of Christ that you called upon. Angels literally painted your walls red with the blood of Christ, because you asked for it. God sent to you a tidal wave of living water to wash out the demons from your home. It’s all insanely extreme, and Christians say such things. They say such things while claiming it’s biblical and atheists still claim the only way to test God’s character is through their lens, the only correct lens.

My final claim is that this makes such debaters charlatans. Choosing their own paradigm, sticking to mainstream doctrines that bolster certain claims, pointing out certain acts and calling them immoral while denying any paradigm but their own, even when proven inappropriate. The goal is not to find out what is the correct doctrine, correct paradigm, correct context. Finally, the goal of such debate is not to seek the truth of anything Godly, it is to win on the field of their choosing, at the time of their choosing, under the rules of their choosing, and anything else is disqualifying or minutiae.

[SimpleLayman]

[Replying to Haven in post #7] If you want us to factor in “demons,” fallen angels, fallen gods (which is what elohim means in Hebrew), you must demonstrate that such things exist using evidence. And even if you’re able to do this, you still have to explain why the presence of such ‘evil’ things means an all-powerful God had to brutalize innocent humans and non-human animals.


I believe that I suggested you are shutting down the debate before it even begins because you said, like any good Atheist, I must provide evidence for the literal existence of every claim in the bible before we can even entertain that any of it plays any kind of role in God's decision making process. This is what inspired my ad hominem attack. It was an attack against this position, and I suppose that I do believe your character or your chosen paradigm plays some role in that position.

I will try to reply to every point and question in my next response later today.

[Difflugia]

An Atheist has no loyalty to any specific doctrine. At most they have an obligation to stick to what is said in the bible if the objective is to determine if any such paradigm exists where God can do these things, be these things, and not be host to evil or sin.

You're still conflating what the text says with your attempts to turn that into a set of claims about reality. As an atheist, my "obligation" is to treat the Bible as I would any other set of narratives by examining it in light of any cultural and historical significance. If someone thinks they can map those stories onto reality, then that's a separate issue and we can test those claims the same way we test other claims about reality. If God can "do these things," then we can test Him as a mechanism in the same way we test other ways to "do these things."

Instead, you take the Atheist approach, and by default he's subject to everything that we are, holiness isn't even possible; A worthless concept.

If you can define "holiness" in a way that we can detect it, then the concept ceases to be worthless.

You can not be apart from and separate from the world. It's all incoherent to Atheists. It's impossible, yet the Atheist insists this is the only paradigm based in reality,

I'm with you up to here.

therefore God is evil,

As far as we can tell, God's not real. That sort of precludes Him being "evil."

no understanding is even worth exploring.

Who said that? I'm a Bible nerd and love exploring the way we culturally interact with the Bible now,. I also try to read back out of the Bible what the original authors may have been trying to put in there. It's a literary and cultural exercise. I also like science fiction.

This is worthless.

I don't insist that you share my hobbies, but "worthless" is awfully judgemental.

Absolutely worthless to anyone willing to believe they may be trapped in a false paradigm that denies them the power for real and measurable change.

If you can measure it, then you don't need a new paradigm.

Even if they glimpse some vision of truth and holiness so high above them they will not believe they can reach it in this lifetime, the joy of God will fill their hearts and raise them up and set them on the right path; one where you can still bask in the grace of God before you even reach what you now begin to value for no earthly reason.

That sounds like a good show. Which streaming service is it on?

It is but a fantasy with no power in your mind, the shifting of a paradigm to something holy. You'll find it is your peers who are detached from reality in the face of this.

Not everybody enjoys the same hobbies. I'm not a sports guy, for example. I'm not so hubristic as to claim that football has no value, though, because I can see the joy that it does bring people that enjoy the game. Different strokes.

This is why Christianity is growing faster than Atheism.

This is measurable. Your claim is wrong.

Your paradigm does not work for them; but you can most assuredly claim victory in your own fashion if that's any conciliation.

In addition to studying the Bible, I also collect fountain pens and enjoy tea. If anyone wants to try to get the same joy out of those things that I do, I'm happy to explain my paradigm for enjoying them. I don't consider it a personal defeat if they don't, though.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #4] According to my paradigm, I grant all concepts relayed to me in scripture and I grant revelation as something that does occur, and it's akin to how a lightbulb just goes off in a scientists head before they even write out their full hypothesis. Things can exist separate and apart from the world, which is holiness. Truth that has the power to lift human beings up and change them profoundly, this can be one of those things. Concepts like proverbial rebirths through the shifting of a paradigm can be another, especially if the paradigm is outside of reality as you all claim. I grant the joy of God as something that is apart from and separate from the world when in scripture it talks of people who spiritually prosper in God in spite of the world and particular circustances that give a man every right to be a miserable POS. We can hold these things to be self-evident and place them higher than ourselves and benefit profusely from them. You can test them just the same as any theory.

It is not my fault that your paradigm ignores reality that you can't always measure or test without antecdote; the same reality that drives people closer to God. It is not my fault that every individual has their own status quo and you find the journey to high places and to God unworthy; because you do not seek a new status quo. It is not my fault that 100% of people can't agree on truth, or that God's grace is not denied to everyone but Christians. Lastly, it is of no consequence to me that you can't believe a thing unless we can reach consensus on it through the method of your choosing. These things are on your head, and you and your peers have declared to all that you have no intention of reasoning with God in the manner of his choosing. If you did, he'd conquer you and your life would be all the better for it. Your heart would glow at what you now perceive to be fantasy; as if we too should not see it this way and don't out of pure delusion.

You and your peers are blind to your own obstinance. O' God, where art though? I can't see you or feel you. This is what I hear from you obstinate people who deny all reality and lay siege to truth itself by tearing down the pillars of hope and of love in your minds. If you can not love God from a low place, what makes you think you can do so from a high place of honor that your heart should already be glowing for in reflection? You who claim to know the bible and God better than believers. You Atheists have walled yourselves in and call truth delusion, and vice versa. Is it any wonder that your heart does not overflow with gladness and is instead filled with want and doubt? You who refuse to reflect on the glory of God and of the high places that he desires to bring you.

I digress.

Your response completely ignored the question that was submitted to you and was reported to the mods for violating this forum's rules. We occasionally encounter your type of theist in this forum, and they usually get themselves banned for exhibiting such intellectually dishonest behavior.

[Incognito]

The guy has a point or two. If God doesn't even exist though, what does the context within the book itself matter? It's irrelevant if people on this platform are pointing out specific examples of things God did and asking christians specifically to justify it under Atheist rules. He flooded the world because that's what the goat herders who wrote it would have done, clearly. If there's a more nuanced discussion to be had, go do it with other Christians, right? I'd like to thank the moderater for banning this theist. We don't need any woo woo to discern why a biblical character did anything. There is no other paradigm but the one where goat herders liked killing people in other tribes. SimpleLayman was indeed a simple minded fool. R.I.P.

[bluegreenearth]

It's irrelevant if people on this platform are pointing out specific examples of things God did and asking christians specifically to justify it under Atheist rules.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that at least a few of the interlocutors in this thread are trying to persuade the theists to conduct an internal critique, not under atheist rules.

[Incognito]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #15] Yes, and I don't disagree that there may be some interpretation out there that makes sense to theists, there are a lot of concepts out there that might paint his actions in a more favorable light. If you can't prove the first step, which is the existence of God in a manner that can be replicated and peer reviewed, we're literally forced to view it as it appears. It's of no value to an Atheist.

[Haven]

[Replying to Incognito in post #14]

Atheist isn’t a proper noun. It’s not a religion, but a position of skepticism on religious claims.

As for morality and metaethics, that has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism. Ethics is an empirical question, dealing with facts about the world and agents within it.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Incognito in post #14]

Atheist isn’t a proper noun. It’s not a religion, but a position of skepticism on religious claims.

As for morality and metaethics, that has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism. Ethics is an empirical question, dealing with facts about the world and agents within it.

I'm wondering if you also noticed the interesting coincidence that this new interlocutor happened to join the forum almost immediately after the other interlocutor was banned?

[Haven]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #18]

The style of just preaching is kind of a giveaway. I’ve notified the mod team.

Btw, you’d think these types of evangelicals would change tactics after a while. If preaching hasn’t convinced me in 15+ years of skepticism, why would it do so now? I was raised evangelical. I’ve heard enough preaching and baseless religious claims to last a metaphorical eternity. I’m still waiting for actual evidence any of it is true…and I have a feeling I’ll die waiting, even if I live another 50 years.

[William]

I’ll bite.

No, I don’t think religious claims, including the god of your literalist brand of Christianity, deserve their own paradigm. They should be evaluated on their own merits like anything else.

If you want us to factor in “demons,” fallen angels, fallen gods (which is what elohim means in Hebrew), you must demonstrate that such things exist using evidence. And even if you’re able to do this, you still have to explain why the presence of such ‘evil’ things means an all-powerful God had to brutalize innocent humans and non-human animals.

You mentioned that elohim means “fallen gods” in Hebrew. Have you ever considered that the Hebrew itself doesn’t actually carry that meaning? Elohim is simply the plural of el (god) and is used in different ways in the Bible — sometimes for the God of Israel (with singular verbs), sometimes for other nations’ gods, sometimes for divine beings, and even for human judges. The idea of rebellious or fallen angels really comes later, especially in traditions like the Book of Enoch, which expands Genesis 6 into a drama of Watchers descending and corrupting humanity. That book had huge influence on later Jewish and Christian thought, but it was never part of the Hebrew or most Christian canons. So when we say “fallen gods,” we’re not really talking about what the Hebrew word means — we’re talking about a later interpretation layered on top of it.