How much of the Bible do you believe literally?

[EvolutionKills]

Summary of SoCs argument:
'I don't like the burden of proof being on me'
'I can't prove god exists but I have a good feeling and there is some stuff that I can't explain'
'Oh and anything that happened in the bible that is impossible was obviously a metaphor and my interpretation is the right one, i'm a true Christian! And if you don't agree with me, you aren't a true Christian!'

If there's a burden of proof you have to explain what you would need to prove and how you woulds set about it. If there isn't anything physically there to demonstrate it will be difficult to demonstrate it by physical means which is what you're asking. Anyone who accept Christ as their savior and believes in one God who created the universe is a true Christian though there are as many different kinds of true Christians as their are true Christians, everyone will have their own take or opinion on something or other.

It's dificult, becuase not even you have any fuckling idea what you're talking about with the shit you make up to hide your god further and further away.


If you claim that your god is non-physical, then you need to establish that anything non-physical can exist! How do you do that? I don't know, but it's not my problem, because I'm not the one claiming it as a divine loophole for my god-concept.


If you claim that your god exists outside of the universe, then you need to establish just how does one do this and the evidence to support the existence of anything outside of our universe. How would you do that? I don't know, but it's not my problem, because I'm not the one claiming it as a divine loophole for my god-concept.


When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you; and everything else that entails. You need to get the evidence to support your assertions, and if even you don't have a fucking clue how to go about getting that evidence, then it's very telling just how much bullshit and unsubstanciated your initial claim really is.

[Minimalist]

This

http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

"The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her."

is as real as your fucking god.

[Tonus]

Anyone who accept Christ as their savior and believes in one God who created the universe is a true Christian though there are as many different kinds of true Christians as their are true Christians, everyone will have their own take or opinion on something or other.

Well, that... cleared things up.

[Sword of Christ]

It's dificult, becuase not even you have any fuckling idea what you're talking about with the shit you make up to hide your god further and further away.

You don't particularly have to hide something you can't even see but you could say God is "hidden in plain sight" which is a term I like.

If you claim that your god is non-physical, then you need to establish that anything non-physical can exist!

Consciousness is an example of something non-physical you can't see that, yes it's related to the physical brain in some way and science can study that aspect of it.

How do you do that? I don't know, but it's not my problem

It is if you're demanding that something has to be proved. If it can't be proved there isn't going to be any burden to prove it.

, because I'm not the one claiming it as a divine loophole for my god-concept.

God was always meant to be non-physical from the beginning it's not something new that has been invented to count the killer God argument from atheism. Perhaps it wasn't a killer argument to begin with.

If you claim that your god exists outside of the universe

Transcendent beyond it and immanent within it but of course there's no way to demonstrate state this scientifically. You can either believe it or you don't.

, then you need to establish just how does one do this and the evidence to support the existence of anything outside of our universe. How would you do that? I don't know, but it's not my problem, because I'm not the one claiming it as a divine loophole for my god-concept.[quote]

It isn't loophole if God was defined this way from the beginning. It's more that you have attempted to level an argument against the concept that doesn't really work. You have a burden of proof only if it is actually possible to prove something. In the same way atheists have no burden of proof.


[quote]
When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you; and everything else that entails. You need to get the evidence to support your assertions

You have to settle for something else to back the claim that doesn't depend on science if what is claimed can't be demonstrated by ability of science to demonstrate. So that's the kind of thing WLC or whoever will do, they will use reason and philosophy various other justifications to back the claim/faith. That's the only way you can really do it, that and spend time in prayer/meditation and foster some subjective experience. Science is a useful tool for understanding the universe but that's all it can cover.

and if even you don't have a fucking clue how to go about getting that evidence, then it's very telling just how much bullshit and unsubstanciated your initial claim really is.

Theism and God a faith in God is one kind of claim and atheism/materialism or naturalism and the denial of the existence of God is a different claim. You can't prove either claim with science therefore you can't really apply this burden of proof you have to move onto some other argument.

[Crossless2.0]

God was always meant to be non-physical from the beginning it's not something new that has been invented to count the killer God argument from atheism. Perhaps it wasn't a killer argument to begin with.

That's an interesting way to put it: "God was always meant to be non-physical from the beginning."

I agree that it likely wasn't meant to counter atheists' arguments, since there were precious few atheists in antiquity. I suspect it was meant to gull and terrify an ignorant people whom the priests wished to control and exploit. After all, an unverifiable and unfalsifiable bogeyman is much more effective than perhaps some Great and Powerful Oz type who can be exposed with the simple lifting of a curtain.

But it really isn't such a killer claim after all, is it?

[Minimalist]

Consciousness is an example of something non-physical you can't see that, yes it's related to the physical brain in some way and science can study that aspect of it.

Related in some way? If someone cleaves your skull with an axe your consciousness will disappear in one hell of a hurry.

Piss poor example.

[Bad Wolf]

SoC, you don't understand what the burden of proof is do you?
It is not contingent on whether you are able to prove it or not. Logically you have to provide evidence.
Lets do an example:
I claim that orange elephants exist.
1)Who is making the claim, me or you?
2) Who has to prove this claim, me or you?
3) Who has the burden of proof? Me or you?
I've never seen an orange elephant before, but I just have a good feeling they exist somewhere....

[xpastor]

It's a cop out to claim there is no burden of proof because God is non-physical. There are lots of things which cannot be perceived by the senses, but we accept their reality because they manifest effects that we can perceive, for instance subatomic particles.

Indeed from the classical Christian viewpoint the Bible was one long catalog of ways in which God had manifested himself in this world. Unfortunately the stories were all written by nameless people in a superstitious era, and God seems to have stopped intervening in this world. Robert Ingersoll noted with amusement that the God who had once rained fire and brimstone on sinners in the 19th century confined himself to striking dead the occasional blasphemer by natural means.

Some sort of inner feeling or inner voice telling you there is a God is no evidence because there is no way to show how it is different from other inner voices which you would reject, for instance the fantasies of the Heaven's Gate sect.

@orangebox21 One thing I will concede about the Bible. I suspect that some parts were written with more sophistication than modern fundamentalists see. I think there is a good chance that the talking snake, the talking donkey and most especially the story of Jonah and the whale were deliberately written as fictional fables along the lines of Aesop. Other parts like the sun standing still, no, it was probably meant to be taken seriously and was written by people whose limited knowledge led them to believe that the sun traveled in the sky over a flat disc, so halting it in its path would have no effect on earth, other than lengthening the day.

[Tonus]

Indeed from the classical Christian viewpoint the Bible was one long catalog of ways in which God had manifested himself in this world.

I was thinking much the same. The god of the OT interacts directly with the world and with the humans on it numerous times, as do several of his agents. And the god of the NT goes through the whole "human experience" from birth to death and interacts directly with humans. What is this nonsense about how god was meant to be non-physical? If he got any more physical, he'd be Olivia Newton-John!

[Cinjin]

None.