(September 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Because some of the verses translations specify "bushes" and "shrubs". You can rationalize all you like but I read what's there.
The Hebrew word used means cultivated food bearing plants, the Hebrew is what was inspired.
Quote: It's a question of which is more likely and drawing attention to the strange motivations of your deity. Sure, a deity who wants universal love and adoration from people all over the world might have published his revelation only in one corner of the world and then it could only be spread by human hands but the simpler explanation is that this religion is man-made.
Scripture is very clear that everyone who is supposed to hear the gospel will hear the gospel.
Again you are making a meaningless claim (opinion) about probability. If you are going to talk about what is more likely I want to see it written out, what are you using for your numerator, what are you using for your denominator?
Quote: The reason it appears to be man-made is because that's what it is. Occam's Razor.
*cringes at the misuse of Occam’s Razor. You’d have to demonstrate that 40 some authors cooporating over a period of roughly 1500 years to forge the best preserved and most influential book of antiquity is a simpler explanation than the fact that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. Good luck.
Quote: So you're going the "Yahweh can't reveal himself because that would violate free will" route?
Nope (I don’t believe in autonomous free will), I was pointing out that God is not obligated to give anyone grace. I was also pointing that you claim to have knowledge about a God (Nature’s God) who has not revealed anything to man, which is an absurd claim.
Quote:Oh, I think it is possible. Asking "which is more likely" and then going with the indications of Occam's Razor is not only valid reasoning but commonly applied. Many a criminal investigation is decided by it.
Not at all valid in such matters because we have no idea what is more likely, you’d have to demonstrate the probability here. You are appealing to something that is completely arbitrary and therefore proves nothing.
Quote: I haven't backed off anything as the two Genesis accounts on page 1 have yet to be reconciled.
Well they were logically reconciled, I demonstrated that they were nothing even close to an actual logical contradiction, a demonstration you have done nothing to refute.
Quote: I'm just saying "translation error" or "you have to use my favorite translation" doesn't give you an out. If Yahweh wrote a book to communicate with humanity but then failed to make sure the translations faithfully preserved this message, then the who practice is rendered rather moot, wouldn't you say?
Whew, it’s a good thing Yahweh didn’t do that then isn’t it? I find it interesting you make the “favorite translation” point but then it was you who ran to the KJV as if it were mother’s milk, but you could not demonstrate a single contradiction in the translation I own, interesting indeed.
Quote: I'm curious how you would respond to my earlier question paraphrasing Carl Sagan, which relates to the OP. If you feel you don't need to logically justify the existence of a god who justifies your use of reason, why not save a step and say we don't need to logically justify the use of reason?
Well one obvious problem with that is you are then unnecessarily multiplying your assumptions, you’d have to axiomatically assume the laws of logic exist plus laws of morality, uniformity in nature, reliability of senses, and the reliability of memory, all of which can be accounted for by the Christian God. Ryft may have some more to address on this question though.
