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.

[Haven]

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.

[Difflugia]

I propose that Atheists have willfully chosen a false paradigm when debating the bible.

In this context, the debate isn't with the Bible, but with those holding a particular, peculiar view of how to read it. When a child asks me if Winnie the Pooh could really talk, I'm not arguing with Winnie the Pooh or A. A. Milne when I tell the child that he couldn't. We could have a colorfuil discussion by agreeing to a "paradigm" in which the world of Christopher Robin's toys is real, but we can't really apply that to the real world in any meaningful way, let alone follow the rules of that "paradigm" while discussing whether the book is fiction or not.

In a similar way, I sometimes adopt a Christian paradigm and accept that magic is real while I'll discussing theology. It's fun. When the conversation's done, though, I have to switch back to the paradigm in which wishing really, really, really hard won't change how much gas is in my car.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to SimpleLayman in post #1]

According to your paradigm, do logically fallacious arguments produce unreliable conclusions universally or are theistic arguments exempt? For instance, if a theistic argument commits a "Special Pleading" fallacy, would the conclusion it produced be reliable or unreliable according to your paradigm?

[POI]

I propose that Atheists have willfully chosen a false paradigm when debating the bible.

Nah.... Instead, Christians are forced to create a special compartmental space, disjoined from their use of logic in all other facets of their lives, in order to retain faith in this particular position. (i.e.): viewtopic.php?t=41906

To be real, I do a similar same thing whenever I eat meat.

I'll stop here, as you will already have your hands quite full, if you should decide to engage.

[SimpleLayman]

[Replying to Haven in post #2] Then you have proven nothing except that if God were a man living in a 3 dimensional world, his actions are unjustifiable. You win that debate, hands down. I know of no Christians who would argue against that; so why are you and your peers losing? Why is Christianity growing if it's so dang clear you win, and people like me even say as much? It leaves but one conclusion for the example that I provided in paragraph 1. He drowned the world because he had zero patience or a selfish anger that'd make a psychopath blush. The people he drowned were merely flawed, but fixable, right; I mean you've heard it said God can do anything without limit and possibly still even achieve his end goal, right? So your peers cling to such ideas, why exactly? Such ideas are spoken by Christians and they just so happen to bolster your sides claims, so why not; I understand.

God had no other possible motive either if it involves any woo woo spiritual stuff, so we must also deny any future plans good or bad before we even get to how it does or does not align with a God that can do no evil. You've shut down the debate before it could even begin. I think you do this because to do anything else would be exactly what Christians do, and you're done with that. Seeking out understanding and hoping for revelation. Weighing various doctrines, seeing if holy spirit guides your thoughts in any particular direction. Doing so in a way that you are as conscious as you can possibly be to your own ideas and where they flow from, your wants, your desires; maybe even metaconscious, which is an idea many scientists won't even acknowledge. You have to take even that concept on a degree of faith. You can't do any of that, because in that paradigm you're on the only path that this God asks of you non-believers

I have more to say, but I really must stop replying with 4+ paragraphs at a time.

[Haven]

[Replying to Haven in post #2] Then you have proven nothing except that if God were a man living in a 3 dimensional world, his actions are unjustifiable.

1. What makes an action (for your god) justifiable? What moral standard are you actually applying to him? We can’t meaningfully debate your OP unless you clarify your position on this.

2. Wouldn’t capital-G God’s foreknowledge, limitless power and identity as love itself prevent him from carrying out the gratuitous violence, cruelty, murder and torture described in the scriptures?

He would have the power to do so and the will to avoid gratuitous harm to sentient beings (part of the definition of love). So why all the slavery, rape and murder?

You’ve dodged this question numerous times and, when pressed, have responded with appeals to faith and logical fallacies. I’d like to see you actually address it, because it is deeply problematic for your position.

Why is Christianity growing if it's so dang clear you win, and people like me even say as much?

Why is Islam growing when it teaches the same things about divine morality as Christianity? What about Sahaja Yoga, which teaches much the same about the divine? Why is Scientology growing if it is known to engage in violent and immoral practices?

The growth of a religion or cult is mostly dependent on sociological factors that have nothing to do with moral content. Historically speaking, charismatic leadership / outreach (https://churchmodel.org.uk/wp-content/u ... groups.pdf), political influence (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... YcaQcDZq8J) and outright violence / conquest / war (https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-a ... 36/2931355) are the most powerful predictors of religious conversion and growth, not ethical content.

Besides, Christianity is actually shrinking in the educated, developed West and has been for decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline ... tern_world

God had no other possible motive either if it involves any woo woo spiritual stuff, so we must also deny any future plans good or bad before we even get to how it does or does not align with a God that can do no evil.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Could you please restate it?

Again, if you’re claiming these woo-woo spiritual things exist, provide evidence that they do. Regardless, that still would not justify an all-powerful, all-loving capital G God doing harm to innocents.

You've shut down the debate before it could even begin. I think you do this because to do anything else would be exactly what Christians do, and you're done with that. Seeking out understanding and hoping for revelation. Weighing various doctrines, seeing if holy spirit guides your thoughts in any particular direction. Doing so in a way that you are as conscious as you can possibly be to your own ideas and where they flow from, your wants, your desires; maybe even metaconscious, which is an idea many scientists won't even acknowledge. You have to take even that concept on a degree of faith. You can't do any of that, because in that paradigm you're on the only path that this God asks of you non-believers.

In this ad-hominem attack, you’ve not only misrepresented my position and actions but failed to substantiate your own claims. I absolutely do compare various doctrines (and have made numerous posts on this forum doing exactly that!) and adopt a “spiritual” framework to test for internal consistency (including in this very post). In other posts I’ve talked about my journey out of Christianity and my thought processes at the time, which, again, are preserved on this forum as I wrote them as a young seeker nearly two decades ago.

I think you’re being completely uncharitable to me when I’ve tried to be civil while getting you to more fully explain your positions.

It seems that your real issue with me is that I won’t just take your word for things, that I ask for evidence and approach things from a skeptical perspective. And I’m sorry, but that isn’t going to change. I don’t take preachers, politicians or salespersons at face value. I always look for evidence to confirm or disconfirm their statements, because hearsay is simply not a path to truth.

I also will not “believe first” and then question, because that backward epistemology is proven, time and time again, to lead to erroneous conclusions. This isn’t only true in the sciences, but in social, political and even interpersonal matters. Starting with the conclusion and then working back to find ways to confirm it is the very definition of confirmation bias, and it’s the method behind every pseudoscience and cult known to humankind.

[SimpleLayman]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #3] You can, however, answer these questions about God's actions without denying the claims made about God in the bible. There will be Christian sects disputing it, but what is that to an Atheist? 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.

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. 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, therefore God is evil, no understanding is even worth exploring. This is worthless. 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.

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. 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. This is why Christianity is growing faster than Atheism. Your paradigm does not work for them; but you can most assuredly claim victory in your own fashion if that's any conciliation.

[SimpleLayman]

[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.

[SimpleLayman]

[Replying to Haven in post #7] Bear with me. I'm still trying to learn this platform. I still have no earthly idea how you quote the things I've said the way that you do. I can't even see your response as I'm typeing this on my phone. It would be easier for you to follow what I'm addressing if you explained to me how you do this. It is not my intent to be uncharitable to you. Some of the things I have said are not direct responses to what you have said. I've literally forgotten most of what you've said just typeing this out. Do you just save it as a draft, then go back a page and copy and paste one part at a time? I'm thinking of just using a Word document. It may be easier.