Why????

[POI]

If a God exists, and this God wants us to know He really exists, and also wants us to know what He wants, then why doesn't He just tell us Himself? If the Christian God is true, He is either pleased, or at least content, with the publication of the Bible.

Many will argue the Bible is not inerrant. Many may also argue context, when reading. Others might argue it is literal, and the perfect word of God. How do we really know what Jesus did and did not say, being He bothered not to write/preserve any of it Himself? Etc... Regardless of one's position on the matter, I have to ask, why??? Meaning.....

For Debate:

1. Why didn't God/Jesus write the final canon Himself, and also preserve it in a way for which it could not later be completely corrupted?
2. How could we know it was from an actual divine source, you ask? Well, it could have been written/preserved in a way in which humans could not do at the time, or even now. Thus, at best, I guess skeptics could still argue it came from aliens/other. But certainly not from earthly men ALONE

[POI]

I am convinced there is no proof the universe is billions of years old, while there might be REASON to suggest the universe is billions of years old there is no proof... We could get into the specifics... Like we say we have seen light from galaxies billion of years away... While there might be reason to believe it, there is no proof.

Sounds like you think the earth, and universe, are very young? And by young, you mean ~6-10K years old?

Besides reading Genesis, where would you get this answer? Other religious organizations, like Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute maybe?

On the contrary, you could exclude astronomy completely, but then you would still have to also excuse a heap of other findings, from all other fields in science, to remain in your conclusion (case/point): For instance, the three primary methods for measuring the earth's age are: radiation measurement, stratigraphic superposition, and the fossil record

If all independent forms of discovery all converge to a common conclusion, then it's reasonable to conclude the earth is approximately this age -- (to a small margin). To instead throw it all out, in favor of your personal translation of Genesis, seems unreasonable.

you really are not taking the roots of skepticism seriously... I am more inclined to believe in something proven to me then ten scientist agreeing to something that is not proven

Just more apologetic spin here.... I've already addressed this. Your responses are either poisoning the well, muddying the waters, stating we cannot really prove anything, and/or now we can also add a strawman.

[otseng]

I am astonished at what must be either a total lack of understanding, willful incompetence, or worse. I'll settle for blaming myself for not being clear enough so that even the dullest person in the room might understand.

Moderator Warning



An indirect personal attack clothed in "humility" is still an attack. Just leave out the comments such as this and proceed with the rest of your post.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to POI in post #134]

Good, then you agree that if God is real, he doesn't reveal himself to everyone in such a way that everyone believes.

Please replace the word 'God' above, with the word fairies.
Then Allah...
Then Vishnu...

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - Brunumb

[Clownboat]

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #134]

Good, then you agree that if God is real, he doesn't reveal himself to everyone in such a way that everyone believes.

Please replace the word 'God' above, with the word fairies.
Then Allah...
Then Vishnu...

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - Brunumb

Absolutely. It is the eternal invalidating assumption that clobbers all Theist apologetics - "If" and 'which god'. That is, if we start by assuming God is real and true and the Bible is right then anything can be explained away, as in fact it is. Even slavery (the biggie of the OT, even more that Genesis being wrong) can bve explained, fiddled or just ignored, IF it is asumed to be true, just as unexplained problems with materialist science are assumed to have an explanation, even if we don't know what.

At the outset of my dipping a trepidacious toe into forum debates, one Theist actually said it: "Let's start by assuming that God exists; then...." (1) If one assumes a god, or in fact a particular god, then anything can be theorised, dismissed or just Faithed away. But it does not prove a god, let alone a particular one, which is what you said. Effectively the 'which god?' response. The fallacy being the leap of faith from a possible creator to the one in the religion. Never mind getting the denomination right.

I was looking just the other day at a strong attempt elsewhere to make mathematics an inexplicable mystery that implied a cosmic mind. It is a thing to think of, that it isn't a human construct like music or grammar but seems to exist in nature. But there is this element of 'the unexplained is unexplained, not evidence for a god'. If and when we understand why mathematics works (after all, geometry does and we would laugh if someone suggested that the square on the hypotenuse only works because God waves a magic wand and Said So, it could be explined in terms of natural physical laws.

So I suspect that the reason that mathematics works is the reason logic works - it is based on the real world and physics. Nevertheless, like a lot of these unexplaineds of science or philosophical constructions, even if they did amount to evidence for a Cosmic Mind, Religion still has it all to do before a particular religion or god (never mind denomination) is the right one.

Still, I know what the Plan is here - get the 'god' - label accepted, and then a pretty fair case can be made for the gospel -story when compared to any other god or religion, other than perhaps Islam and Buddhism, both of which have comparable historical claims.

(1)I also got into a fight with a theist who insisted that Not assuming the existence of a god was an assumption or Claim and would not accept that making no claim or assumption meant that the god -claim (or assumption) carried the burden of proof.

[POI]

Unless one is waiting for an angelic chorus every time one touches it, it makes absolutely no difference if God wrote his own book or he commissioned a human to do it: the book would STILL have to stand or fall on it content.

Yes it does make a difference. I explained why in the OP. If we could RULE OUT humans alone writing it, we are then reduced to something OTHER THAN a HUMAN ALONE writing it -- (with no aid or help from an external force or agency).

And as for it standing or falling on it's content, I guess you could argue that it stands, IF you (ignore or explain away) all the claims which are likely false. You know, like this thread alone (viewtopic.php?t=40622).

[Miles]

If a God exists, and this God wants us to know He really exists, and also wants us to know what He wants, then why doesn't He just tell us Himself? If the Christian God is true, He is either pleased, or at least content, with the publication of the Bible.

Many will argue the Bible is not inerrant. Many may also argue context, when reading. Others might argue it is literal, and the perfect word of God. How do we really know what Jesus did and did not say, being He bothered not to write/preserve any of it Himself? Etc... Regardless of one's position on the matter, I have to ask, why??? Meaning.....

For Debate:

1. Why didn't God/Jesus write the final canon Himself,?

God did "write" it.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives."

and also preserve it in a way for which it could not later be completely corrupted?

How do you know it was corrupted? Perhaps god simply wasn't all that good at expressing himself. After all, he has admitted to making several mistakes.

2. How could we know it was from an actual divine source, you ask? Well, it could have been written/preserved in a way in which humans could not do at the time, or even now. Thus, at best, I guess skeptics could still argue it came from aliens/other. But certainly not from earthly men ALONE

Well, if you hold god to be divine, plus the fact that god gave all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), logic leads us to such knowledge.

God is divine
God is the source of the Bible
___________________
The Bible is from a divine source

.

[TRANSPONDER]

If a God exists, and this God wants us to know He really exists, and also wants us to know what He wants, then why doesn't He just tell us Himself? If the Christian God is true, He is either pleased, or at least content, with the publication of the Bible.

Many will argue the Bible is not inerrant. Many may also argue context, when reading. Others might argue it is literal, and the perfect word of God. How do we really know what Jesus did and did not say, being He bothered not to write/preserve any of it Himself? Etc... Regardless of one's position on the matter, I have to ask, why??? Meaning.....

For Debate:

1. Why didn't God/Jesus write the final canon Himself,?

God did "write" it.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives."

and also preserve it in a way for which it could not later be completely corrupted?

How do you know it was corrupted? Perhaps god simply wasn't all that good at expressing himself. After all, he has admitted to making several mistakes.

2. How could we know it was from an actual divine source, you ask? Well, it could have been written/preserved in a way in which humans could not do at the time, or even now. Thus, at best, I guess skeptics could still argue it came from aliens/other. But certainly not from earthly men ALONE

Well, if you hold god to be divine, plus the fact that god gave all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), logic leads us to such knowledge.

God is divine
God is the source of the Bible
___________________
The Bible is from a divine source

.

Well, there's the problem. The Bible is clearly from men not from God, because it is wrong, incoherent and contradictory. And popping on my theist hat, it advises me not to touch the 'Maybe God was not good at communicating' wormcan with a ten foot can opener.

Thus the Bible apologist that it is fairly reliable, never mind the word of Jesusgod, is under pressure and we have seen has to make faithclaims, or impudently false assertions, fiddle, wangle and invent to try to make things work (as we saw with the death of Judas) and in the end get denialist, not to say abusive. I have had a fair share of ad hom accusations dumped on me recently by Bible apologists who have nothing better. But I welcome such traductions (said he , adjusting the rakish tilt of his martyr's crown) as it makes them look bad, not me.

[Miles]

If a God exists, and this God wants us to know He really exists, and also wants us to know what He wants, then why doesn't He just tell us Himself? If the Christian God is true, He is either pleased, or at least content, with the publication of the Bible.

Many will argue the Bible is not inerrant. Many may also argue context, when reading. Others might argue it is literal, and the perfect word of God. How do we really know what Jesus did and did not say, being He bothered not to write/preserve any of it Himself? Etc... Regardless of one's position on the matter, I have to ask, why??? Meaning.....

For Debate:

1. Why didn't God/Jesus write the final canon Himself,?

God did "write" it.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives."

and also preserve it in a way for which it could not later be completely corrupted?

How do you know it was corrupted? Perhaps god simply wasn't all that good at expressing himself. After all, he has admitted to making several mistakes.

2. How could we know it was from an actual divine source, you ask? Well, it could have been written/preserved in a way in which humans could not do at the time, or even now. Thus, at best, I guess skeptics could still argue it came from aliens/other. But certainly not from earthly men ALONE

Well, if you hold god to be divine, plus the fact that god gave all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), logic leads us to such knowledge.

God is divine
God is the source of the Bible
___________________
The Bible is from a divine source

.

Well, there's the problem. The Bible is clearly from men not from God, because it is wrong, incoherent and contradictory. And popping on my theist hat, it advises me not to touch the 'Maybe God was not good at communicating' wormcan with a ten foot can opener.

Thus the Bible apologist that it is fairly reliable, never mind the word of Jesusgod, is under pressure and we have seen has to make faithclaims, or impudently false assertions, fiddle, wangle and invent to try to make things work (as we saw with the death of Judas) and in the end get denialist, not to say abusive. I have had a fair share of ad hom accusations dumped on me recently by Bible apologists who have nothing better. But I welcome such traductions (said he , adjusting the rakish tilt of his martyr's crown) as it makes them look bad, not me.

Absolutely! I simply find it entertaining to challenge the Bible apologist on his home turf, with his own apologetic tools; the "fact" that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all-loving, and all around good guy, when the Bible says otherwise. God couldn't get rid of all the evil people in the world with a simple snap of his fingers, but had to create a world wide flood to get the job done, which, as it turned out, was an utter failure. That despite being omniscient he supposedly didn't know that A&E would fail his apple test---either that or his plan was for them to fail, which gave him an excuse to invest all of humanity to follow with original sin. That being omnibenevolent he still chose to see fit that 75.7% of all conceptions end in the death of the "baby." Lives he could have saved if he chose to. That despite being all loving he didn't love the 42 children enough, who made fun of Elisha, so as to prevent them from being ripped apart by the bears that came out of the forest. And was such an all around good guy that he says women will be ruled over (subjugated by) by their husbands.

.

[POI]

[Replying to Miles in post #159]

Both you and Transponder make good points of discussion. Though my goal in these exchanges is not to engage in more echo chambers

I will continue to pose my response to JW. However, as usual, I doubt (s)he will engage. (i.e. post 156):

Yes it does make a difference. I explained why in the OP. If we could RULE OUT humans alone writing it, we are then reduced to something OTHER THAN a HUMAN ALONE writing it -- (with no aid or help from an external force or agency).

And as for it standing or falling on it's content, I guess you could argue that it stands, IF you (ignore or explain away) all the claims which are likely false. You know, like this thread alone (viewtopic.php?t=40622).

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

Heck, I invite any Christian to engage, quite frankly.