Proof That the Bible Isn't the Word of God

[ronedee]

Demonstrate him first, please. Don't just assume. Because from my perspective, I have nobody to be thankful to.

There is no assuming on my part. MY THINKING HAS NO BOUNDS. Because God is boundless!

Your small-minded thinking assumes there is no greater purpose to life than ones own existance and gratification thereof. And ironically you think [a] God would create boundaries in your short, selfish life.

CONTINGENCY

1. Nothing that once did not exist can be the cause of its own existence. When it did not exist, how could it call itself into being? Thus, all contingent things depend upon something outside themselves for their existence. If any contingent thing exists in the world rather than nothing, then a necessary being must also exist.

ORDER

2. Why does the human day-dream of mathematics fit the world hand in glove -- just as if God were a mathematician? Mathematics works, not from observation, but from the opposite direction, from deduction. Its objects are not even objects in the world; no material thing is the triangle of the geometricians, only a feeble caricature thereof. Yet in the end mathematics is found an apt model of the universe. How could that be, unless the mind that made the world thinks along the same lines? Likewise, the world obeys law, just as if it trembled in fear of judgment. Law implies a law-giver...

If natural constants were set slightly off their present values, life would not be possible. The universe is a vast machine for producing life; life is good, yet the universe, being unthinking, cannot know that life is good. Thus it works to achieve an end of which it can have no cognizance. Some mind, capable of apprehending the good, must therefore have moved it so.

DESIGN

3. "Should a man see a house carefully constructed with a gateway, colonnades, men's quarters, women's quarters, and the other buildings, he will get an idea of the artificier, for he will be of opinion that the house never reached that completeness without the skill of the craftsman; and in like manner in the case of a city and a ship and every smaller or greater construction. Just so anyone entering this world, as it were some vast house or city, and beholding the sky circling round and embracing within it all things, and planets and fixed stars without any variation moving in rhythmical harmony and with advantage to the whole, and earth with the central space assigned to it, water and air flowing in set order as its boundary, and over and above these, living creatures, mortal and immortal beings, plants and fruits in great variety, he will surely argue that these have not been wrought without consummate art, but that the Maker of this whole universe was and is God. Those, who thus base their reasoning on what is before their eyes, apprehend God by means of a shadow cast, discerning the Artificier by means of His works." (Philo Judaeus, Allegorical Interpretation, III, XXXII, 98-102)... [

This is great! Atheists can appreciate an artist who builds a model wooden ship in a bottle! But the Grand Canyon? The Earth and its Wonders? The Universe and its Vastness? "No artist there xtian...it just willed itself into existance! The Poof there it was theory!!" And Chirstians are the supposed idiots?!

Is it begging the question to define 'God' prior to investigating His existence...or lack thereof? It's never been so held with other non-existent things, like phlogiston or the luminferous aether. How can one investigate whether a thing exists in the world, without knowing what the thing sought is? How to differentiate it from whatever other things might be brought in by our drag-net, so as to say, 'No, that's not it'?

When physicists go looking in the world for 'dark matter' or 'black holes', they must first define what they understand these looked-for things to be. How else to know what is looked for? Definitions of words need not be understood so as to imply existence; for instance, 'A griffin' is an animal represented in ancient art with the fore part of an eagle and the hinder parts of a lion. Anyone who knows what a griffin is, out for a stroll spotting one, could instantaneously say, 'that's a griffin!' -- its definition is every bit as solid and clear as a rufous-headed towhee. Yet no one expects to see one.

So when the physicists define 'dark matter' without having yet found it, their definition should not be understood to imply, 'Dark matter exists, and has the following characteristics'; but rather, 'If dark matter exists, it has the following distinct characteristics.' How else could one know what to look for, or whether it had been found? Likewise we understand that, if God exists, He is omniscient, omnipotent, exists necessarily, is omnipresent, etc.; it's not begging the question to find out what you're looking for, before going out in the world to see whether it's there!

....oh! You can at least be "thankful" to a soldier for the freedom to argue any and all points with fellow Americans!

[Esquilax]

Ooh boy, a new chew toy!

There is no assuming on my part. MY THINKING HAS NO BOUNDS. Because God is boundless!

You can twist words and use as many semantic games as you want, the fact is that you are assuming the existence of a god because you haven't given any real proof of his existence. Hell, you can even make up your own words if you want, it doesn't matter: the meaning behind mine won't change, and won't be any less true because you have.

Your small-minded thinking assumes there is no greater purpose to life than ones own existance and gratification thereof. And ironically you think [a] God would create boundaries in your short, selfish life.

Actually, my life is nothing but unselfish for its lack of cosmic purpose. We're all we've got, down here; it's up to us to make life as great as we can for the greatest number of people in the time we have. There's nothing selfish about that.

CONTINGENCY

1. Nothing that once did not exist can be the cause of its own existence. When it did not exist, how could it call itself into being? Thus, all contingent things depend upon something outside themselves for their existence. If any contingent thing exists in the world rather than nothing, then a necessary being must also exist.

Oh, nothing can exist without a cause? So, what created your god? And what created that creator? You see, your belief in that answers nothing, it just relies on a greater mystery. But oh, let me guess, your god doesn't need a creator, right? Special pleading, then, and it renders your own argument invalid because you've just produced an example of a thing that can exist without a creator.

ORDER

2. Why does the human day-dream of mathematics fit the world hand in glove -- just as if God were a mathematician? Mathematics works, not from observation, but from the opposite direction, from deduction. Its objects are not even objects in the world; no material thing is the triangle of the geometricians, only a feeble caricature thereof. Yet in the end mathematics is found an apt model of the universe. How could that be, unless the mind that made the world thinks along the same lines? Likewise, the world obeys law, just as if it trembled in fear of judgment. Law implies a law-giver...

Why? Well, because mathematics isn't an external thing. Mathematics are just a human created measure to describe the effects of the world we experience. It's us imposing order on the chaos of the universe, nothing more. It's us, not god.

If natural constants were set slightly off their present values, life would not be possible. The universe is a vast machine for producing life; life is good, yet the universe, being unthinking, cannot know that life is good. Thus it works to achieve an end of which it can have no cognizance. Some mind, capable of apprehending the good, must therefore have moved it so.

Nuh uh. The best you can say is that if the natural constants of the universe were slightly different, life as we currently understand it would not be possible. But that's not the same as saying life can only exist in this single set of values, we find new things about life all the time. We found arsenic-based life a few years back, when before we had no concept of this.

And I disagree with this idea that the universe is a machine for producing life: if this were so, why is it that Earth is the only planet in our observable universe that contains life? If there was an actual design that approves of life, why is there not more of it, within our sphere of experience?

DESIGN

3. "Should a man see a house carefully constructed with a gateway, colonnades, men's quarters, women's quarters, and the other buildings, he will get an idea of the artificier, for he will be of opinion that the house never reached that completeness without the skill of the craftsman; and in like manner in the case of a city and a ship and every smaller or greater construction. Just so anyone entering this world, as it were some vast house or city, and beholding the sky circling round and embracing within it all things, and planets and fixed stars without any variation moving in rhythmical harmony and with advantage to the whole, and earth with the central space assigned to it, water and air flowing in set order as its boundary, and over and above these, living creatures, mortal and immortal beings, plants and fruits in great variety, he will surely argue that these have not been wrought without consummate art, but that the Maker of this whole universe was and is God. Those, who thus base their reasoning on what is before their eyes, apprehend God by means of a shadow cast, discerning the Artificier by means of His works." (Philo Judaeus, Allegorical Interpretation, III, XXXII, 98-102)... [

Are you real? You're beginning to seem like a Poe. How can you claim any kind of order in this universe? Do you even know anything about the cosmos beyond our earth to be able to make this claim? Or of the mechanics of life on this earth, with the nested redundant body parts and inefficient bodily functions of the multitudes of life? Or even the planet itself, with its physical constants that sometimes lead it to explode, or quake immensely, or for the air to flux into deadly storms? How can you possibly claim some design here, when you- by the looks of it- know next to nothing about it?

This is great! Atheists can appreciate an artist who builds a model wooden ship in a bottle! But the Grand Canyon? The Earth and its Wonders? The Universe and its Vastness? "No artist there xtian...it just willed itself into existance! The Poof there it was theory!!" And Chirstians are the supposed idiots?!

Nobody is claiming all this just burst into existence, genius. You, however, are claiming that your god did. Interesting how what's fine for your pet idea is unacceptable for ours. Beyond which, we can appreciate the wondrous beauty our physical world can produce, but we don't see the design there. Can you prove your design at all? Beyond just insisting that it's self evident, when it's not, I mean?

Is it begging the question to define 'God' prior to investigating His existence...or lack thereof? It's never been so held with other non-existent things, like phlogiston or the luminferous aether. How can one investigate whether a thing exists in the world, without knowing what the thing sought is? How to differentiate it from whatever other things might be brought in by our drag-net, so as to say, 'No, that's not it'?

So define your god, and then go looking for real evidence to back up that claim. You're the one making it, you need to back it up. Don't be lazy. I also find it amusing that your two examples there are also ideas that were roundly proved false.

When physicists go looking in the world for 'dark matter' or 'black holes', they must first define what they understand these looked-for things to be. How else to know what is looked for? Definitions of words need not be understood so as to imply existence; for instance, 'A griffin' is an animal represented in ancient art with the fore part of an eagle and the hinder parts of a lion. Anyone who knows what a griffin is, out for a stroll spotting one, could instantaneously say, 'that's a griffin!' -- its definition is every bit as solid and clear as a rufous-headed towhee. Yet no one expects to see one.

Yes, nobody expects to see a griffin. Because we've never seen one in nature, and therefore can conclude that they do not exist until we do find one. What's your point in saying this?

So when the physicists define 'dark matter' without having yet found it, their definition should not be understood to imply, 'Dark matter exists, and has the following characteristics'; but rather, 'If dark matter exists, it has the following distinct characteristics.' How else could one know what to look for, or whether it had been found? Likewise we understand that, if God exists, He is omniscient, omnipotent, exists necessarily, is omnipresent, etc.; it's not begging the question to find out what you're looking for, before going out in the world to see whether it's there!

Yes, that's true enough. Except that science can also provide evidence for dark matter, as their best idea at the current time. And if the facts don't bear it out, they change their theories. You theists, however, can't even agree on a definition of your god, and when you do and it's proved wrong, you simply squirm around it without ever providing proof.

....oh! You can at least be "thankful" to a soldier for the freedom to argue any and all points with fellow Americans!

Nope, not an American. I'm Australian, thanks. Can't even fathom your point here, either way.

Heh heh, that was fun.

[catfish]

S'all well and good until arbitrary rules are introduced...
Good post?
.

[ronedee]

Ooh boy, a new chew toy!

Heh heh, that was fun.

...uh....fun? masturbating?

You are a grander Drongo than previously realized!

I hope you find your teeth one day!