Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[discipulus]

It is just another creation myth amongst many found in different regions throughout the world. Like other regional myths it is always a local who is the father of everyone on the planet.

So your only evidence is because "the Bible says so". Of course as already mentioned numerous times the Bible does not say anything about what nations these men founded and how they progressed.

According to the Bible. Not according to science, archaeology, nor any of the other mythologies/religions on the face of the Earth.

Once again this is all according to the Bible.

Good morning catman. I hope all is well with you and yours this day.

I have quoted you here and I now am clear on what the underlying issue is with regards to your post.

The real issue here is simply this:

Is the Bible what it claims to be?

There are only two possibilities. It either is or it is not.

I am under the impression that your view is that it is not. One reason why you think it is not is because the Biblical narrative focuses on the Isrealites and does not mention in detail the other major people groups of the world.

I also believe that you have other reasons for believing that the Bible is not the inspired word of God, but since this thread specifically is dealing with the aforementioned subject, what I will do is formulate your argument into a syllogism so that we can all better understand it:

1. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then it would not focus on only one specific region of the entire planet.

2. The Bible focuses on only one specific region of the entire planet.

3. Therefore, the Bible is no the inspired word of God.

Looking at your argument this way, it is clear that in order for the argument to be a good argument, the first two premises must be more plausibly true than their denials.

But what arguments, what supporting evidence have you given to show that premise one is even true? You have an enormously huge burden to bear in showing that to be more plausibly true than its denial. What argument do you have that can demonstrate that in order for the Bible to be the Word of God it MUST focus on the entire planet? It seems to me in order for you to answer this you would have to reason that it is inconsistent with the nature of God to not mention other nations or other people groups. But how is this inconsistent with God's nature? Not only that but this assumes that He ignores everyone else except the Israelites, and we know this simply is not true if one has actually read the entire bible.

So I think in proving your point you have a long way to go my friend.

---

But Rahul, since you are persistent I do want to help you. First I want you to clarify for me what your worldview is. Are you a naturalist? What I mean is this: does your view of reality allow for the existence of the transcendant or do you rule that out a priori?

I'm an agnostic or weak atheist. So I'm open to the possibility. I just haven't found any conclusive proof for it yet. I do believe that there are a lot of things going on that science can't seem to explain. But the truth of what that is, is beyond my ability to say.

You ask for concrete, conclusive, tangible, empirical proof of a transcendant being.

In asking this, you are making what is termed a "category mistake". God by definition is the greatest conceivable being and thus would be transcendant over and above the material physical universe.

To begin with, empiricism or scientism, which is simply a proposition which states that a proposition is true only if it can be scientifically proven is self-refuting, for the proposition itself cannot be scientifically proven.

Secondly, in asking for evidence, you should ask for evidence that would be consistent with a transcendant God. The scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypotheses, experimentation, prediction, and theory. Thus it is based upon observations made WITHIN the material world.

Thirdly, a materialistic, naturalistic worldview necessarily EXCLUDES the transcendant from the very outset. Therefore, the scientific method cannot even be used to detect or prove what is outside of the material realm!

So to ask for scientifically testable, material, concrete, "real", non-transcendant evidence for an immaterial, transcendant God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake.

Essentially you ask me to give you something that your own worldview does not even allow to exist!

You ask for material evidence of the immaterial. You ask for concrete evidence for that which is not concrete. You ask for non-transcendant evidence for that which is transcendant. It is kind of like asking me to tell you how much my thoughts weigh! My thoughts do not weigh anything! They have no weight!

So while you are more than justified in asking for evidence for God's existence ( I demand it too ), you are not justified in asking for empirical evidence.

What you should ask for is evidence that would be consistent with a transcendant being.