Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[tackattack]

---

TY leo and tav but no need, all comments I made were out of line and retracted... silence being the better part of discretion.

Would Caecilian or anyone like to comment on the usefullness of God or an absolute value relatable to God or delusion. If not hijack away.

Hmmm...

As far as the usefulness of 'god' as a concept to an individual goes, thats really a matter of personal preference. While you obviously find the concept 'god' useful, I don't. There really isn't much that either of us can say beyond that.

Okay now, found the last relevant post of yours that I didn't answer:

your questions were
a-What is an 'absolute value' supposed to be?
b-How can something that lies outside of the boundaries of the known universe be a guide to anything?

to which I will answer
a- If absolute, the sum whole, perfect in relation to imperfection. An example would be a perfect circle in which every atom of the lines that make the visible circle were completely even and balanced.
b-In the same was we use the magnetic poles to navigate or used to use the sun to tell time. I could also use the analogy of us using the stars to navigate. Just because something is out of our comprehension and reach doesn't negate it's usefullness.

As I've already indicated, I don't think that its really possible to argue over the usefulness of the concept 'god' (or, for that matter, any other concept), if what you mean by 'usefulness' is something purely subjective such as 'useful to me in making ethical decisions'.

OTOH, theres the issue of whether 'god' is useful as part of an explanation that lies within public discourse. That is: are there phenomena in the world that are best explained with reference to 'god'? Another way of putting this is: does 'god' have explanatory value? I would say clearly not.

Note that the issue of personal usefulness is quite distinct from the issue of ontology. Someone may, for example, find it useful to think of the human mind in terms of ego, superego and id. But just because its personally useful, doesn't make it true. By contrast, explanatory value and truth are very much linked together- what has the most explanatory value is generally the best available approximation of reality.

I'm still confused over the 'absolute value' and 'absolute perfection' stuff. Values and perfection are relative. A circle can be a perfect circle; a square can be a perfect square; a squiggly blob can be a perfect squiggly blob. They are only im/perfect in the view of an observer.

---

Ok one more attepmt at the absolute thing. I agree perfection is a value and values are based off of observance. While God may seem perfect from our perspective, maybe his God buddy Bob in reality Y thinks he's a jerk. The glimpse of meaning behind a Christian saying "God just is" lies in the absolute objective value of God. Christians see God as 1 object, valued differently from different perspectives since the scope is so unfathomable. That object is, in itself, the creator of our universe. That makes it more complex than the sum of it's parts, while at the same time being a singular entity and valued as the originator an absolute and least somplex. I hope that makes as much sense as it did in my head.

OK, I'm all for discussing God's useful as part of an explanation that lies within public discourse. So we're talking about objective explainability of recorded phenomenon? Well, "Best" would be relative still, but I'll say best for me is what makes my life simpler and fits within the confines of ordinary as opposed to extraordinary. Is this understandable and agreeable?