Why does science always upstage God?

[Spongebob]

I believe the Bible because it's true and I am convinced that the evidence supports it's truth. 

I want to address this single comment from your long post and I'm not taking it out of context.  Most of your argument seems to be based on this one precept, that the Bible is true and you believe it, so your philosophy stems from that point of perceived truth.  But here's the problem, there is an avalanche of evidence that you are ignoring.  This "Bible" that you hold to be so truthful is not a "book", not written by the people who it is said to have written it and is nothing but a collection of disparate religious manifestos authored over decades if not centuries.  Large swaths of Biblical stories and anecdotes are borrowed from previous religions, such as Zoroastrianism and previous cultures, such as Kemet (ancient Egyptians).  There are documented studies that assert this.  There's the dead sea scrolls which contain contradictory religious stories.  These writings and possibly thousands more were buried and/or destroyed by the early Christians in an attempt to curate a religion of their liking.  There is the trajectory that Paul sent Christianity on that simply did not exist before.  There are many borrowed concepts from older religions that were clearly adapted for Christian purposes.  And there is the obvious political contamination by the Romans that so shaped Christianity.  My question is how in the world can you be so confident about a text with all of these clearly defined problems?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're asking that of a person who can reject the existence of another person in casual conversation. Repeatedly.

If this one feels compelled to deny that I exist as described, that there's any possible world in which god the creator exists -and- I don't see any of it, flat out - then what possible item of christian myth could give him pause? The problem, is only that reality does not match truth, and the solution is simple.

Reject reality, whole cloth, any part of it, no matter how trivial. Actual studies of the religion in question or the narrative construction of magic book are powerless in that arena. But why? What is all of this dross mounded up to guard against?

[brewer]

Paraphrased 'they are one step closer to or one step further away from the true god'. @ayost Can you not hear the superior overtone in your statements?

Edit: Romans 1.... really? Do you note the 'deserve death' stuff?: https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html

[ayost]

I can believe, wholeheartedly, that you tried..but you might just hold a fundamentally condescending belief, in that one, don't you think?

Having already determined that you feel compelled to reject anything that anyone else tells you about what they do or don't believe which conflicts with your own beliefs - perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to describe why you feel compelled to reject as much, since that's your belief..and your beliefs about your beliefs somehow escape such criticism. Why would it be a problem, for you, if the claim were not true. If I..in short...exist?

So can I tell you that condescending is not my goal, rather it's the opposite. I actually came to tell you that you sent me thinking for two weeks and I returned, having settled on my original position. And then I wanted to explain why.

If we are being honest, though, we all frequently doubt what people say about their own lives and experience. don't we? We skeptically listen to what people say about themselves. That's not odd, I don't think. I could argue there's an entire counseling profession monetizing that very thing. The reason is I don't believe the first thing people tell me about themselves is because I know I lie about myself. Frequently my lies about myself are challenged to me by people or the Bible and then I'm like "Dang it, God, you're right" and I try to change. So I value that challenge in my life. One recent example of a lie the Bible challenged me on (because of our conversation) was why am I seeking out atheists to talk to them? To glorify God by sharing about Him? Or to glorify myself by winning an argument. Honestly, it was the second answer. I came to win arguments. And it back fired and I was sent packing with my tail between my legs. I was wrong and immature and sent the train off the cliff in a fiery blaze because I started by lobbing grenades at you, essentially calling you a liar (about yourself). I apologize, that was wrong. Lesson learned.



Suppression of truth is important to me because the suppression is fundamental to the worldview. It's the foundation that any belief the suppressor has is built on. I feel like, or was feeling like, until we address that we won't get anywhere. I was also wrong about that, haha. I get that you reject that and for that reason I will respectfully table that idea in our conversation.

Now, in an honest-I-want-to-understand-what-you're-saying way, I'd like to ask you to explain this:

Why would it be a problem, for you, if the claim were not true. If I..in short...exist?

(I haven't learned the quote thing you do)


Unrelated, but just to let you know:

Frequently you ask me to defend something, and I don't, and then I take criticism from you for not defending that thing. This is why: to me you are kind of all over the place.

Suppression:
I can only condescendingly reject the notion that you believe magic book before you believe what people say about themselves.
 
you couldn't...and now..haven't, managed to defend your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion about suppression.
 
I'd think, well shit, look at that, and then continue along with my day and my life exactly as before.
you couldn't...and now..haven't, managed to defend your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion about suppression.
 
Whether or not the Bible is true:
you're tying that belief and that gods existence to a demonstrably false claim in a magic book. Do you think that's wise? Is that the behavior of a person who respects or values the god, or god belief?
 
Internal critiques:
Will it be me telling you what my worldview is, and you telling me I just can't believe whatever I told you?
 
Why would you think I'd have a hard time comparing one mythology to another in the public sphere? 
 
What the Bible says:
Magic book says a lot about that group of people, much of it directly at odds with the notion that you're flogging now
 
Basically everything you said in your FWIW.
 
I can’t respond to all of this, it's too much. Also you issue unsupported (in this conversation) demonstrably false statements like “magic book is demonstrably false”. Each one of these is its own hours of conversation. So you overwhelm me with questions and I have to pick the one I want to respond to. It's not because I can't respond, I'm just picking where to take the conversation.

We don't have to talk about that, that's just me telling you what I'm experiencing, just to give you context about me so you understand where I'm coming from.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC the claim is supported in this conversation, and demonstrably true.

If I exist, and don't see gods - then magic book issued a false claim prima facia. I do exist...and guess what....don't see gods. Isn't this what I keep telling you?

Your argument imploded, leaving you with nothing but the absurd rejection of a trivial claim. You might think I'm wrong, that I don't see gods where there are gods. You might think something is wrong with me, that I can't see gods where there are gods. I'm just telling you what I do or don't see. Take it or leave it, and whatever consequence you willingly imposed on your own belief system on account of it.

I'll tell you another thing I don't see. I don't see the problem...for god...if magic book weren't inerrant in general or this claim in specific weren't true. I'd love to understand that. If you wanted to help me understand where you're coming from? Is it impossible for there to be any world in which god exists, and that particular claim is false?

[ayost]

OFC the claim is supported in this conversation, and demonstrably true.  

If I exist, and don't see gods - then magic book issued a false claim prima facia.  I do exist...and guess what....don't see gods.  Isn't this what I keep telling you?

Your argument imploded, leaving you with nothing but the absurd rejection of a trivial claim.  You might think I'm wrong, that I don't see gods where there are gods.  You might think something is wrong with me, that I can't see gods where there are gods.  I'm just telling you what I do or don't see.  Take it or leave it, and whatever consequence you willingly imposed on your own belief system on account of it.

I'll tell you another thing I don't see.  I don't see the problem...for god...if magic book weren't inerrant in general or this claim in specific weren't true.  I'd love to understand that.  If you wanted to help me understand where you're coming from?  Is it impossible for there to be any world in which god exists, and that particular claim is false?

I said I would table the idea of suppression because you reject it. Do you want it tabled or do you want to explore it?

As far as a world in which God exists and the Bible isn't true I want to note that there's somewhat of a nuance in the way you asked your question. I am not arguing for god. I am arguing for the triune God of the Bible. That's important. You can make any claim you want about what another god would do in whatever circumstance. I'm not arguing from a particular source for a particular God. This isn't from the dome.

Assuming the God of the Bible exists I would say no, there is no world in which the God of the Bible exists and the Bible (or any of it's claims) are false.

Here's why...

When we talk about God (in the Bible) He is perfect and His ways are perfect. So when he chooses to act, He acts perfectly. That means that, whether we like it or not, the world we live in reflects perfectly what God intended it to. When I say perfectly I mean precisely, exactly what God wanted. I don't mean perfect as in no evil. He didn't create the best available option. He created precisely what He wanted. So in that context, another creation with different outcomes or events or standards or truths would then have to either be more perfect or less perfect than this creation.

If He could create a more perfect creation that means God created not exactly what He wanted in this creation.
If He created a less prefect creation that would mean God is settling for something that's not exactly what He wanted. I already established that the God of the Bible is prefect and acts perfectly, so to act imperfectly would be for Him to act against His own nature, which makes no sense.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

[The Grand Nudger]

I said I would table the idea of suppression because you reject it. Do you want it tabled or do you want to explore it?

As far as a world in which God exists and the Bible isn't true I want to note that there's somewhat of a nuance in the way you asked your question. I am not arguing for god. I am arguing for the triune God of the Bible. That's important.

Not..to me.  

You can make any claim you want about what another god would do in whatever circumstance. I'm not arguing from a particular source for a particular God. This isn't from the dome.

Assuming the God of the Bible exists I would say no, there is no world in which the God of the Bible exists and the Bible (or any of it's claims) are false.

Here's why...

Seems like at least one claim might be?

When we talk about God (in the Bible) He is perfect and His ways are perfect. So when he chooses to act, He acts perfectly. That means that, whether we like it or not, the world we live in reflects perfectly what God intended it to. When I say perfectly I mean precisely, exactly what God wanted. I don't mean perfect as in no evil. He didn't create the best available option. He created precisely what He wanted. So in that context, another creation with different outcomes or events or standards or truths would then have to either be more perfect or less perfect than this creation.

If He could create a  more perfect creation that means God created not exactly what He wanted in this creation.
If He created a less prefect creation that would mean God is settling for something that's not exactly what He wanted. I already established that the God of the Bible is prefect and acts perfectly, so to act imperfectly would be for Him to act against His own nature, which makes no sense.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

Here again, it seems like it would be possible for a book about a god to make an errant claim that doesn't imperil the existence of the god described.  You can insist otherwise, but you'll have repeated the same error as before.  Attaching a god claim to something trivial, and trivially easy to demonstrate.  

Because we do live in a world where magic book makes demonstrably false claims..and if a world like that can't also have an existent god in it, your god.. then this one doesn't. QED.

I could give you the same advice I give muslims. At some point, you have to decide whether you have faith in a god or an idol. The creator of the universe, or a magical book. If the magical book, or belief in that magical book.... is damaging to the god beliefs, idk..you'd think a person concerned about gods would jettison them?

[Spongebob]

So can I tell you that condescending is not my goal, rather it's the opposite. I actually came to tell you that you sent me thinking for two weeks and I returned, having settled on my original position. And then I wanted to explain why.

If we are being honest, though, we all frequently doubt what people say about their own lives and experience. don't we? We skeptically listen to what people say about themselves. That's not odd, I don't think. I could argue there's an entire counseling profession monetizing that very thing. The reason is I don't believe the first thing people tell me about themselves is because I know I lie about myself. Frequently my lies about myself are challenged to me by people or the Bible and then I'm like "Dang it, God, you're right" and I try to change. So I value that challenge in my life. One recent example of a lie the Bible challenged me on (because of our conversation) was why am I seeking out atheists to talk to them? To glorify God by sharing about Him? Or to glorify myself by winning an argument. Honestly, it was the second answer. I came to win arguments. And it back fired and I was sent packing with my tail between my legs. I was wrong and immature and sent the train off the cliff in a fiery blaze because I started by lobbing grenades at you, essentially calling you a liar (about yourself). I apologize, that was wrong. Lesson learned.



Suppression of truth is important to me because the suppression is fundamental to the worldview. It's the foundation that any belief the suppressor has is built on. I feel like, or was feeling like, until we address that we won't get anywhere. I was also wrong about that, haha. I get that you reject that and for that reason I will respectfully table that idea in our conversation.

Well, if you are being honest now, that means you've at least admitted to one failing and humbled yourself to a degree.  This is good.  If your intention is to learn, you first have to be humble enough to admit you don't know.  If your intention is to convert people; you will have a difficult time.  Your best bet here is to enjoy discussing issues and hope to learn a thing or two and perhaps pass on some useful information as well.

Regarding your admission of lying on this/other forums.  Although I'm not surprised, it still amazes me.  I don't really get why someone would do that unless perhaps in your real life you don't have the fulfillment and actualization that you need, so you seek out a different version of yourself online where it's "safe".  I'm fortunate enough to say that I don't have to deal with that.  I feel no need to misrepresent myself in any way.  Clearly there are others on this forum who are equally dishonest and believe me, it comes through loud and clear and it is certainly not pleasant.  I have always felt that any conversation taken honestly will be far more gratifying than one taken with dishonesty.

But this "suppression" thing you keep mentioning is odd.  Atheists aren't suppressing anything and we have no such power.  We often argue and debate and reject all sorts of information as false, but don't confuse that with suppression.  If we reject something you say is true, its because we know there is something lacking or corrupt about the information.  If you say there were religious fanatics walking around Mesopotamia in the year 100, that's not debatable.  But if you say Jesus flew to the moon and brought back moon rocks, then we can argue the validity of that assertion.

[Angrboda]

OFC the claim is supported in this conversation, and demonstrably true.  

If I exist, and don't see gods - then magic book issued a false claim prima facia.  I do exist...and guess what....don't see gods.  Isn't this what I keep telling you?

Your argument imploded, leaving you with nothing but the absurd rejection of a trivial claim.  You might think I'm wrong, that I don't see gods where there are gods.  You might think something is wrong with me, that I can't see gods where there are gods.  I'm just telling you what I do or don't see.  Take it or leave it, and whatever consequence you willingly imposed on your own belief system on account of it.

I'll tell you another thing I don't see.  I don't see the problem...for god...if magic book weren't inerrant in general or this claim in specific weren't true.  I'd love to understand that.  If you wanted to help me understand where you're coming from?  Is it impossible for there to be any world in which god exists, and that particular claim is false?

I said I would table the idea of suppression because you reject it. Do you want it tabled or do you want to explore it?

As far as a world in which God exists and the Bible isn't true I want to note that there's somewhat of a nuance in the way you asked your question. I am not arguing for god. I am arguing for the triune God of the Bible. That's important. You can make any claim you want about what another god would do in whatever circumstance. I'm not arguing from a particular source for a particular God. This isn't from the dome.

Assuming the God of the Bible exists I would say no, there is no world in which the God of the Bible exists and the Bible (or any of it's claims) are false.

Here's why...

When we talk about God (in the Bible) He is perfect and His ways are perfect. So when he chooses to act, He acts perfectly. That means that, whether we like it or not, the world we live in reflects perfectly what God intended it to. When I say perfectly I mean precisely, exactly what God wanted. I don't mean perfect as in no evil. He didn't create the best available option. He created precisely what He wanted. So in that context, another creation with different outcomes or events or standards or truths would then have to either be more perfect or less perfect than this creation.

If He could create a  more perfect creation that means God created not exactly what He wanted in this creation.
If He created a less prefect creation that would mean God is settling for something that's not exactly what He wanted. I already established that the God of the Bible is prefect and acts perfectly, so to act imperfectly would be for Him to act against His own nature, which makes no sense.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

Perhaps the bible isn't a reflection of God. Why would you believe that the bible is necessarily of God?

[Soberman921]

Ayost,

A perfect being is a complete being. It wants nothing. It needs nothing. It has no desires because to desire something entails missing something that would make it better, and it cannot be better. A perfect being wouldn't need to act because the only reason to act is to accomplish a goal but the perfect being can have no goals. A perfect being is perfectly fulfilled.

So when you say that God acted or intended or wanted in the same breath as saying God is perfect, you are contradicting yourself. Your concept is self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. It is statements like this that make atheists shake their heads. How can Christians expect atheists believe in something they can't even coherently describe?