Creatio Ex Nihilo - Forming Something out of Nothing?

[robvalue]

Edited, whoops I jumped the gun upon re reading sorry.

[Ignorant]

....To which I'm sure you expected a pat on the back while everyone simultaneously replied, "Wow, we haven't heard that one before."

I see your condescension won't let up. Fair enough. Here's what I hope you will, at some point, understand: The comment of mine which you disdain was not even directed at you, but had its own context of a conversation with esquilax in which he was confusing (probably due to my imprecise language) my distinction with an argument for a Christian God. I was not making any such argument. My comments aimed to clear that confusion while making a side comment about the different yet converging aims of the philosophical arguments of which the distinguished propositions are parts.

Then you, out of nowhere as the self-appointed expert and police of all things biblical and as your first act of dialogue with me, decided to call my attention to the background, intentions and social methods of the authors of the biblical text... because you didn't like the way I phrased my SIDE comment about the two propositions under discussion in this thread. This is extremely narcissistic behavior, and if you are not either a teenager or an undergraduate somewhere, you are certainly acting like it. Time to grow up. I will kindly remind you of my restatement:

"Seriously though [<= How did you not get that I was kidding in the previous sentence!?], I only meant to suggest that god, as the monotheistic traditions present him as having revealed himself, has this trait." - Pg. 4, post 32

Do you think that this proposition has anything to do with the identity of the biblical authors or why they wrote what they did? I'll save you the brain power. It doesn't. If an atheist says, "The revealed monotheistic religious traditions present their god as having revealed that he is eternal", please do not begin to lecture your fellow atheist about the minutiae of historical literary criticism of the religious texts. You sound like a crazy person when you do. But why stop there? Let's continue to review your unintelligible determination to educate me in biblical scholarship:

Ah, you didn't understand; my apologies if i wasn't clear. You seem to think that the Bible makes a declarative statement about the monotheistic deity of later tradition that philosophical arguments, as you say, can be stated so as to be made compatible with.

The fact is that I now see that didn't understand, but I only know that now because of your manifest resistance to rational dialogue. It is impossible to understand something irrational, and my interaction with you has been just that, irrational. I'll provide again what I said as a way of clarification:

"Seriously though, I only meant to suggest that god, as the monotheistic traditions present him as having revealed himself, has this trait." - Pg. 4, post 32

By some sort of either ignorant hermeneutic, misreading, or else plain stupidity, you interpreted that proposition to mean:

"The Bible makes a declarative statement about the monotheistic deity of later tradition that philosophical arguments, as you say, can be stated so as to be made compatible with"

Ignore for the moment the unintelligible use of language employed in this sentence (which you never clarified). Your inability to interpret human language in any consistent and rational way combined with your inability to understand the difference between a specific excerpt of the biblical text (e.g. "a declarative statement" understood according to fundamentalist hermeneutics) and an idea proposed by a religious tradition (i.e. an idea which is formed by sources of revelation, its historical experience, its liturgical actions, its customs, etc. all together) settles your intellectual approach to things squarely on the same level as the Westboro Baptists.

Like I said, of course I was oversimplifying. My opinion is only jaded by the facts that have come to light in the past 150 years thanks to new archaeological finds in the Middle East, though I'm sure you already heard all about those in 6th grade P.E. too.

Your opinion is not jaded. Your particular expression of the facts is. Your judgment that using that jaded expression to call my attention to something my words can not in any way be rationally interpreted to intend... as a spectator of that discussion... is narcissistic and irrational. Your continued attempts to hammer me with facts irrelevant to the discussion into which you inserted yourself suggests a psychological disorder.

Are you kidding? Every scholar knows that the biblical authors were myth-makers who lived in the deserts of Palestine in the iron age and herded animals. I would assume, if you have read anything on the subject, that you would know that too.

Ha! Every scholar knows that? Name five and provide citations.

That's great. Who cares if religion is fiction that simply deceives people into believing that their sacred myths are historical facts, I mean, look at that art it has produced! Wow. That's hilarious. Thanks man.

Incredible. You poor poor person. You really don't understand human interaction in any way but your own point of view, don't you? The point was: We built a giant and elaborate tomb for a 1st century Galilean fisherman who received the death penalty under the Roman empire. Given that understanding of humanity, do you think the occupations or time period of the biblical authors will matter that much? The point is that you could be ice-cream truck driver for all I know, but if you lead me to something that is true and good, I won't really care what your occupation or cultural or socioeconomic context is. I will definitely care about what you lead me to.

Finally, do you know who believes the "sacred myths" are historical facts? Fundamentalists. What have I written that would lead to to rationally conclude that this is my position? The answer is nothing.

Thanks to FatAndFaithless for pointing it out: Nestor, I am sorry if my words are abrasive and insulting. Our interaction has been extremely frustrating for me because I get the sense that you are not even attempting to rationally interpret what I am saying as well as the sense that you think you already know everything about my own philosophical and theological positions. Hopefully we can speak to each other more rationally in the future, and my own poorly used words above will remain to ensure that everyone has a chance to see my poor personal interactions. I guess all I can say is that I'll try to do better in the future, and I hope everyone will be patient with me and meet me half way.

[FatAndFaithless]

For someone who is ostensibly interested in at least a pseudo-intellectual conversation, you're amazingly insulting and abrasive, Ignorant.

[Ignorant]

For someone who is ostensibly interested in at least a pseudo-intellectual conversation, you're amazingly insulting and abrasive, Ignorant.

What you say may be true. Like I said in my first post, I'm trying to be a better man. In this post, I will agree with you that I am certainly not there yet. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I edited the end of the post.

[Mudhammam]

I'm still trying to figure out what Ignorant actually believes and where it is precisely that he disagrees with anything I've said.

I appreciate the edit in your post, Ignorant, but I will admit, especially given that last rant, you've struck me thus far as a pretentious believer who uses the username you do to mask your tendency to write long paragraphs and use words like "interlocutor" while not really saying anything. You call the biblical characters and saints like Augustine idiots but I wouldn't be surprised if you in fact only say that to sound credible to people whom you perceive have no high opinion of them.

Also, do you know even ONE scholar who doesn't acknowledge that 1) the Jews wrote myths, even borrowing from other cultures, 2) lived in Palestine, and 3) shepherded livestock?

And your idea that the people who read the mythical stories in the Bible literally or as a matter of fact are only the fundamentalists is silly. Sounds like some Reza Aslan bullshit

[Ignorant]

I am still trying to figure out why you feel it necessary to "figure out" what I believe when you could have just asked me (rather than continually guess and say, "it seems like you beleve such and such"). All you have to do is ask me what I believe and I will tell you. All I ask is that you don't try to tell me what I believe. I am a human being, not a lab animal.

I agree with most of the essence of what you said, and I disagree that the manner in which it was said is relevant or helpful in a thread with the given topic. I didn't come to atheistforums.org philosophy section to discuss biblical literary criticism, and I don't have any burning desire to do so either. You clearly do have that desire. I am afraid I am not the man you are looking for to discuss it.

Am I pretentious? Probably. If I am, it isn't exactly a switch a person just flips on or off, I will have to work on it, and again, I hope you will be patient and understanding of my shortcomings. As for interlocutor, I read it in someone else's post on this forum and decided that I had to use it at the earliest possible opportunity. I never claimed to be a likable person.

As for the scholar question... this is the sort of thing that frustrates me (hopefully by telling you you will understand me a bit more). You made a sweeping claim about the conclusions of all biblical scholars. I asked you to support that claim. Is this your response? It is fine if you don't want to answer, but don't disguise that by demanding that I produce a source in order to prove the negative. What sort of discussion would that be?

As for claim #1, it is different than what you originally said. Originally, you said that "the biblical authors were myth-makers". Now, you have restated it to say "1) the Jews wrote myths, even borrowing from other cultures." Every scholar will admit that. No serious scholar, however, will claim that "the biblical authors were myth-makers". Any rational person can see that some biblical texts do not contain mythical language at all. Your restatement indicates that you recognize the difference between the two formulations as well as the scholarly inadequacy of the first formulation. Thank you for that recognition. Would you at least admit that no biblical scholar would ever suggest that "the biblical authors were myth-makers" in such an unqualified way as that? At least give me that much.

Many texts of the bible contain mythical aspects, many of which were borrowed by neighboring cultures. Simplistically and unequivocally stating that all of the biblical authors were myth-makers is just not supported by the data.

Finally, so what? The fact is that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all make the claim that their god revealed himself as an eternal thing. Do you dispute that people actually claim that as a teaching of their religion?

Arguments from contingency (which employs the idea "out of nothing, nothing comes") and their successive arguments claim that some thing(s) have always existed. Do you dispute the fact that these arguments think they prove that?

The idea that some thing(s) have always existed is similar if not identical to the idea of eternity. Do you dispute that relation of terms?

The eternity claimed by the philosophical arguments is the same idea as the eternity claimed by the religious teaching. Do you dispute that?

[Mudhammam]

As for the scholar question... this is the sort of thing that frustrates me (hopefully by telling you you will understand me a bit more). You made a sweeping claim about the conclusions of all biblical scholars. I asked you to support that claim. Is this your response? It is fine if you don't want to answer, but don't disguise that by demanding that I produce a source in order to prove the negative. What sort of discussion would that be?

I'm sure you're familiar with the quote, "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Well, I would no time left in the day if every argument I made was required to be accompanied by five references, and I don't have enough interest in anyone here to invest that amount of time when the internet is accessible to everyone else I am engaging with online. Now, it's perfectly fine for you to ask for me to provide citation when I claim that "every scholar... anything," and admittedly I was using a bit of hyperbole, but I figured that since what I was saying is so basic to anyone who reads other ancient mythology and can see that much of the Bible reads exactly the same way, and there is no clear distinction between its history and its myth---the two often intertwined to at best offer us pseudo-history when it is recounting historical events---then what I was saying didn't need any further confirmation than a look at the texts themselves.

As for claim #1, it is different than what you originally said. Originally, you said that "the biblical authors were myth-makers". Now, you have restated it to say "1) the Jews wrote myths, even borrowing from other cultures." Every scholar will admit that. No serious scholar, however, will claim that "the biblical authors were myth-makers". Any rational person can see that some biblical texts do not contain mythical language at all. Your restatement indicates that you recognize the difference between the two formulations as well as the scholarly inadequacy of the first formulation. Thank you for that recognition. Would you at least admit that no biblical scholar would ever suggest that "the biblical authors were myth-makers" in such an unqualified way as that? At least give me that much.

Many texts of the bible contain mythical aspects, many of which were borrowed by neighboring cultures. Simplistically and unequivocally stating that all of the biblical authors were myth-makers is just not supported by the data.

I kind of think you're splitting hairs here. In the early days theologians and myth-makers were the same creatures, and since the entire Bible is a book concerned with theology, it utilizes mythical narratives to establish its theological claims. Even in a book that is concerned with the history of the Jewish kings, for example, the author uses myth as a device to recount the event, thus saying something like "Yahweh instructed us to do such and such....and the city was spared." So, though I will give you that not all of the writers of the Bible thought they were conveying myth, even in their retelling of past historical events, the two are almost always mixed together, and that's why I think---rightly---to call them myth-makers or to say they wrote myths, pretty much amounts to the same thing, and is a correct, though shallow, assessment. They weren't unique in this regards either, as ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, etc. accounts read just the same.

Finally, so what? The fact is that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all make the claim that their god revealed himself as an eternal thing. Do you dispute that people actually claim that as a teaching of their religion?

Arguments from contingency (which employs the idea "out of nothing, nothing comes") and their successive arguments claim that some thing(s) have always existed. Do you dispute the fact that these arguments think they prove that?

The idea that some thing(s) have always existed is similar if not identical to the idea of eternity. Do you dispute that relation of terms?

The eternity claimed by the philosophical arguments is the same idea as the eternity claimed by the religious teaching. Do you dispute that?

I'm not aware of any ancient theogonies that begin with nothing and then---poof---a being is born. They all start with chaos or necessity or some eternal principle or being to get everything else started. So, I don't dispute that Christians, Jews, or Muslims couldn't conceive of what nobody else meaningfully can, namely, eternal nothingness.

I don't dispute any of these other things either but I also don't see any significance in them. You do realize that every apologist for every theistic religion uses the argument that, "something is eternal, just like my religion claims my God is, and coupled with other arguments we have a strong inductive case for God's existence." So, when you pretty much said just that, and made it sound as if there is some legitimacy to the idea of revelation, I took objection. It proves nothing other than that our conception of reality and time does not allow us to imagine complete and total non-being. That's not a start for anything having to do with any religious tradition, but it is an indication about our mind's limitation in simply using metaphysical concepts to grasp the essence or nature of the cosmos.

[Ignorant]

I'm not aware of any ancient theogonies that begin with nothing and then---poof---a being is born. They all start with chaos or necessity or some eternal principle or being to get everything else started. So, I don't dispute that Christians, Jews, or Muslims could conceive of what nobody else meaningfully can, namely, eternal nothingness.

Thank you.

I don't dispute any of these other things either but I also don't see any significance in them.

Why were you expecting to see significance in them? It might do you some good to go back and read the very first post of this thread. In speaking about them, I aimed to help answer the confusion expressed by the first post in this thread. It is simple; two propositions were suggested and they seemingly contradicted one another. My initial posts were aimed at helping to resolve that contradiction. I was trying to do. nothing. more. than. that.

You do realize that every apologist for every theistic religion uses the argument that, "something is eternal, just like my religion claims my God is, and coupled with other arguments we have a strong inductive case for God's existence."

I am very aware of that.

When have I tried to use "other arguments" to assert that I "have a strong inductive case for God's existence"? I certainly don't recall doing that. I am sure you are very experienced with apologists and are highly trained to sniff out their arguments before they even start, but I am not one of those people who comes to an atheist internet forum to try and prove god's existence to people. Please, relax. I have listed myself as a Catholic, so it should go without saying that I believe God exists and that such a claim can be rationally supported. HOWEVER, I HAVE NO INTENTION OF ATTEMPTING A RATIONAL PROOF OF GOD ON THESE FORUMS. Don't misinterpret that as yelling, it is simply emphasis.

[FatAndFaithless]

HOWEVER, I HAVE NO INTENTION OF ATTEMPTING A RATIONAL PROOF OF GOD ON THESE FORUMS.

Phew, that saves me a lot of reading time.

[Mudhammam]

My sincere apologies.