Please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word

[Compassionist]

Christians believe that the Bible is true and is God's Word. Can anyone please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word? Thank you.

[TRANSPONDER]

...As you can see, your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences made it possible for you to reply to my post.
...

Ok, I can agree that those make things possible. However, it was me who decided what I will do. The circumstances don't make the choices I make and they don't decide what I want.

Surely, but you know how it works; refusal to reply is powerfully an indication of being unable to reply. It's fine if you don't; it's yet another cross on the tailfin of the atheist squadron.

Sorry. Hands up. Surrender. mea Culpa. i completely misunderstood this was about Will and Volition, not about refusal to reply. Please eliminate my post above from the record.

[Replying to brunumb in post #205]

Not to mention, here is a quote of you lying to me
viewtopic.php?p=1111982#p1111982

Please show your proof that I lied.

Let everyone witness what we have here, and they can determine for themselves for what you said, and they can see what I said when I amused a joke and confessed about it, and you would like to deny what you have said... So be it.


Pure hypocrisy...

I am not denying what I said. You accuse me of lying. Please provide proof that I lied.

And you want to keep it up too.
1) You said God told you something, yet you dont believe God exists?
2) you said God told you that you should tell me to sell my computer, but i dont own a computer
3) you said God told you that you should tell me to cancel my phone bill, but I dont have a phone bill

It is absolutely obvious, you don't believe in God, but you want to keep up dishonesty in order to debate. You refuse to admit to the truth that you can win arguments in debate...

Its pure hypocrisy.

I'm sorry. I appear to have really rattled your cage. And no, I don't refuse to admit to the truth that I can win arguments in debate... Of course I can. By the way, at least I know the difference between granite and graphite. Anyway, this diversion must be keeping you from providing the evidence that TRANSPONDER is seeking from you. Good luck with that.

And this is just one minor Problem with the OT, though I think it is quite a significant one. Our pal Yoshi has a slight point in that the evidence is somewhat arguable and circumstantial, though recent excavation of Philistine graves has supported the hypothesis that the Philistines were the Peleset settled in the Gaza area of southern canaan after the defeat in the delta. It's one more along with order of creation, sun standing still and Tyre being rebuilt, along with lesser ones like Moses died before he wrote the comquest

"Why bless me, Mr Moses, you've almost finished it!"

"I have quite finished it, Aaron, the last pages are for you."

Babylon not destroyed even temporarily by Cyrus, and the argument that Daniel is totally a Maccabean propaganda document no matter how they fiddle the figures.

And we haven't even got started on the fallacies and flaws of the NT.

But it has been instructive to observe the exchange, which is not atypical, though not one of the best I've ever seen. Compare and contrast that with otseng and the tough time he gave me over the Hyksos.

p.s I must have a laugh over a wrangle I had with a YE creationist and Genesis -literalist on my former Board (1) It always amuses me to recall how after arguing for Noah being able to work steel to brace this wooden ark (after I'd pointed out that the US wooden ship (Wyoming, (2) wasn't it?') was hardly seaworthy. And he ended up arguing Minoan flush toilets to prove advanced ancient technology. I said they were pretty good, but made of baked clay.

(1) we became corresponding buddies after we were both attacked by a particularly obnoxious Christian poster (I was an unbeliever and the other was a wrong - believer) and we developed as I put it a friendship forged in the fires of mount McClellan.

(2) Yep. 4 -masted wooden schooner. "Wyoming had to use pumps to keep her hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, she foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands." It was a bit shortter than the Ark and it wasn't crammed full of dinosaurs.

"I'm a Tyrannosaurus Rex, blast you! Why don't I get a first class cabin?"

cue: A little miracle to ensure the Ark didn't sink even if overflowing with beasts and critters. See unwritten Noachian Rule - no Big miracles, only little ones, or why do we need a Flood and Ark at all?

I changed (edited) Bible - literalist to Genesis - literalist as there is a quite different emphasis. A Bible - literalist means (to me at any rate) the Bible is reliable enough to be true word of God, even if men writers made some errors whereas or perhaps 'Thus' Genesis has to be factually reliable. This means that YE Creationism has to be true and that is a big Fat claim that is rather different from the rest of the Bible. It is in contradiction of science where the rest is only arguable science (individual miracles apart). Believers can excuse it as really agreeing with science or it's metaphor as in the wretched write: "Truer than true". But Genesis literalism say it actually happened.

Ramble, ramble but Literalism as applied to Genesis is a different critter from the rest of the Bible being literally true. Of course metaphorical has its' own problems as, if nobody ate the apple, whence sin?

[Compassionist]

...As you can see, your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences made it possible for you to reply to my post.
...

Ok, I can agree that those make things possible. However, it was me who decided what I will do. The circumstances don't make the choices I make and they don't decide what I want.

You are not outside the laws of physics. If you were, then I would say that you chose freely. As you are a prisoner of the laws of physics, your choices were determined. At the biopsychosocial level, your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make you who you are and your perceptions, thoughts, emotions, beliefs, values, words, and actions follow from these variables.

Please see



You did not respond to my post number 158 viewtopic.php?p=1114893#p1114893 so I am re-posting it below in case you did not notice it.

What I want is not free from my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. My wants are determined and constrained by them. I could never want to murder sentient beings. My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would not permit me to want this.

I am constantly doing things against my own will. Here are 22 examples:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose

I do these things because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do them. Also, the laws of physics make me do them. I never wanted to be born but I was born inevitably. I am alive inevitably even though I don't want to be alive. I will die inevitably even though I don't want to die. I want to go back in time and prevent my existence but I can't do it. Can you refrain from being born? Can you refrain from doing the 22 things I listed? Can you refrain from dying?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to brunumb in post #220]
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #221]

Its pretty clear that we have written testimony from the time of events, that reference Philistine at least 8 times in Genesis and 1 time in Exodus.

It mentioned their origins "Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came)" Genesis 10
Their Land (Genesis 21:32,34)
Their rules and where they inhabited "Abimelek king of the Philistines in Gerar" Genesis 26:1
And certain other events of the Philistines

And as of now there is no verifiable evidence to contradict testimony from people who were there present with them at that time, and recorded like events.


It is crazy, that people should suggest that we ought to go on no evidence to justify the contrary (certainly no evidence has been shown thus far) to suggest witness testimony is wrong.

I mean what do we have to show us the Philistine didnt exists in philistine back then? Nothing... Some guy on a web site claiming mysterious archaeology, none of which has been shown, saying it proves the philistines didnt exists back then, and supposed words from Ramesses, also none of which has been shown, that is proves wrong people testimonies from that time...

Thus far there is no evidence to the contrary, of witness testimony.


Furthermore! Even if you could show some words from Ramesses, which you havent shown, you would only be relying on witness testimony, which can be wrong, false, or lies, or even fable tells of magical being. And we couldnt count that as evidence! Therefor we have no evidence against the Bible AT ALL!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #220]
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #221]

Its pretty clear that we have written testimony from the time of events, that reference Philistine at least 8 times in Genesis and 1 time in Exodus.

It mentioned their origins "Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came)" Genesis 10
Their Land (Genesis 21:32,34)
Their rules and where they inhabited "Abimelek king of the Philistines in Gerar" Genesis 26:1
And certain other events of the Philistines

And as of now there is no verifiable evidence to contradict testimony from people who were there present with them at that time, and recorded like events.


It is crazy, that people should suggest that we ought to go on no evidence to justify the contrary (certainly no evidence has been shown thus far) to suggest witness testimony is wrong.

I mean what do we have to show us the Philistine didnt exists in philistine back then? Nothing... Some guy on a web site claiming mysterious archaeology, none of which has been shown, saying it proves the philistines didnt exists back then, and supposed words from Ramesses, also none of which has been shown, that is proves wrong people testimonies from that time...

Thus far there is no evidence to the contrary, of witness testimony.


Furthermore! Even if you could show some words from Ramesses, which you havent shown, you would only be relying on witness testimony, which can be wrong, false, or lies, or even fable tells of magical being. And we couldnt count that as evidence! Therefor we have no evidence against the Bible AT ALL!

I am willing to look at all the references to the Philistines, but if (as the evidence indicates) they weren't around as a state until after the tiume of Merneptah, and the reference in Exodus is anachronistic, why would the other ones be anachronistic, too?

I have references the records of Ramesses II backed up by archaeological evidence that show when and how the Philistines got there and it was after Israel is already in Canaan or in the hills to the northeast, minding their goats. Dismiss that and you dismiss evidence. So why should I believe the Bible which doesn't hold up well against historical and scientific evidence?

I don't even want to address you deprecating dismissal of the known ancient records as 'hearsay' and the research i know of and referenced as 'Some guy on a website'. This is more than absence of evidence which in history and archaeology is valid. If in the account of the wars between Israel and Philistia there is no record of Babylon sending an army to help, it is fair to assume they didn't or you'd expect someone to mention it. At least the burden of proof is on someone to say they sent an army to produce the evidence. That is how logic an evidence works.

But I will go into this witness testimony. in fact, already have. It is clear that your readiness to dismiss any record, by rulers who were doing this stuff at the time, not an old book full of errors, or archaeological evidence on the grounds that this is not eyewitness, then why should we believe any records at all, including the Bible? Oh sure, you could retreat with the Bible not debunked, in your view, but that is not going to convince those expecting to see a case for the bible better than waving away evidence that contradicts it.

[1213]

...
I do these things because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do them. Also, the laws of physics make me do them. I never wanted to be born but I was born inevitably. I am alive inevitably even though I don't want to be alive. I will die inevitably even though I don't want to die. ...

Sounds very contradictory, if you would not want to live, you would kill yourself... ...I understand that you can't do everything you want, but that is not a free will issue. You demonstrate that you want all kind of things, even things that are not possible for you. To me it proves that you have free will.

[brunumb]

...
I do these things because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do them. Also, the laws of physics make me do them. I never wanted to be born but I was born inevitably. I am alive inevitably even though I don't want to be alive. I will die inevitably even though I don't want to die. ...

Sounds very contradictory, if you would not want to live, you would kill yourself... ...I understand that you can't do everything you want, but that is not a free will issue. You demonstrate that you want all kind of things, even things that are not possible for you. To me it proves that you have free will.

But when you get down to the nitty-gritty, what determines your wants? Tests have shown that your brain has made decisions before you are actually conscious of making them. Look it up.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's worth looking at Genesis 10 and the references to the supposed Nochian ancestors of various lands like Mizraim (Egypt) and Nimrud (Assyria) and the philistines. Even if we argue about Philistia there is no argument about Assyria - it didn't appear until after the timeafter the bronze age collapse which was later than the time of Merneptah's campaign.

Thes Bible references to tribal and state origins are not credible and are purely polemic and the reference to Assyria rather hints at the actual date of the composition of Genesis and Exodus too, 2nd Babylonian empire, probably during the Exile. The re -use of the Flood - story and the borrowing of the story of Sargon in the bulrushes tends to support that.

In short, citing Genesis and exodus which is under question is using the claim as evidence for the claim.

[Compassionist]

...
I do these things because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do them. Also, the laws of physics make me do them. I never wanted to be born but I was born inevitably. I am alive inevitably even though I don't want to be alive. I will die inevitably even though I don't want to die. ...

Sounds very contradictory, if you would not want to live, you would kill yourself... ...I understand that you can't do everything you want, but that is not a free will issue. You demonstrate that you want all kind of things, even things that are not possible for you. To me it proves that you have free will.

I think about suicide every few seconds. The reason I haven't killed myself yet is because it will harm my family. Also, what I want to do is prevent my existence which would spare me all the suffering, injustice and death. Sadly I can't prevent my existence. What I want is determined by the laws of physics which determines the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that make me who I am. Wanting things does not prove free will. It simply proves that biological organisms have desires which are determined by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences which are themselves determined by the laws of physics acting on molecules.

My definition of free will: A will that is free from all constraints and is not determined by any variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Omniscience and omnipotence allow one a will that is free from all constraints and a will that is not determined by any variables. I have never met an entity that was all-knowing and all-powerful. So, the existence of such an entity is hypothetical.

My definition of constrained will: A will that is constrained and is determined by variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Biological organisms have constrained will.

The problem with your definition is that no organism acts independently of their genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. You can prove me wrong by being able to live without air, water and food using your free will. Tardigrades can do it but we can't because we don't have their genes.

You said that you disagreed with what I said: "I think that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. I think this because of all the inaccuracies in the Bible and all the atrocities committed by God and his followers in the Bible. First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good." What is the basis for your disagreement?

Did you watch the Professor Robert Sapolski video I posted? If so, what are your thoughts about it?

[brunumb]

OMG! Is the image on the Shroud of Turin actually Robert Sapolsky? I now believe in miracles.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I do these things because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do them. Also, the laws of physics make me do them. I never wanted to be born but I was born inevitably. I am alive inevitably even though I don't want to be alive. I will die inevitably even though I don't want to die. ...

Sounds very contradictory, if you would not want to live, you would kill yourself... ...I understand that you can't do everything you want, but that is not a free will issue. You demonstrate that you want all kind of things, even things that are not possible for you. To me it proves that you have free will.

I think that you just don't get it. The point is whether the choice -making method we have, volitional or instinctive, is random or determinist, is irrelevant to whether it is a given supernatural facility (which it isn't as even fish have it) or an evolved instinct and mechanism. Limitation on our wishes and imagination is also irrelevant, as not being able to fly, turn invisible or transmute gold into bacon, makes no difference to whether free will is random or determinist. These apparent efforts to try to make sophistry turn natural things into the supernatural (so they can be claimed as evidence for a Soul) do not really work. But they can confuse. I suggest that those using free will as some kind of evidence for a soul, God the Bible and Christianity have some work to do, as the question is not whether Free Will is random or determinist but evolved or supernatural, and if it is supernatural, whether it is linked to a soul, and if linked to a soul, whether that soul is undyng, and if undying whether that's anything to do with a god, and if a god, which one? And if the God of Abraham, which religion?

The problem clearly is the Leap of faith: if anything can be shown to be 'Outside Science' (is the best way I can put it) that essays a massive mental and polemical leap to their own brand of Christianity. Which is something I actually do understand (Godfaith) but I really hope I never Get.