Any Text Claiming to be from God is Very Likely Not

[CHOOCHOO!]

Suppose there exists an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god.
Suppose said god might want to communicate with its creation.

Consider the method of inspiring a person or a small group of people to write texts containing his word:

- The text created by this method does not contain information that legitimately distinguishs the text as being from the god, such as, for example, advanced scientific knowledge that was unknown at the time.
- As such, there is no way of distinguishing it from a text written by any random person.
- Hence, any number of people can write such texts and have them claim to be from the god, and its impossible to say which one, if any, is actually from the god.
- In addition the text can be edited to contain a completely different message, and the original version lost forever.


It is fair to say that such a method is an extremely unreliable way of communication, close to the point of being worthless.
For example, on Wikipedia there are over 30 religious texts listed. None of these distinguish themselves as being from a god so it cannot be decided which one, if any, is from a god.
It's practically impossible to choose "God's" text from this list... if it's even in there at all.

Hence if an all powerful, all knowing god ACTUALLY wanted to communicate with us, it's very likely he would not choose this method.
Therefore any text that claims it is from a god is very likely to not be from a god.

Any thoughts?

[Zhalentine]

Suppose there exists an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god.
Suppose said god might want to communicate with its creation.

Consider the method of inspiring a person or a small group of people to write texts containing his word:

- The text created by this method does not contain information that legitimately distinguishs the text as being from the god, such as, for example, advanced scientific knowledge that was unknown at the time.
- As such, there is no way of distinguishing it from a text written by any random person.
- Hence, any number of people can write such texts and have them claim to be from the god, and its impossible to say which one, if any, is actually from the god.
- In addition the text can be edited to contain a completely different message, and the original version lost forever.


It is fair to say that such a method is an extremely unreliable way of communication, close to the point of being worthless.
For example, on Wikipedia there are over 30 religious texts listed. None of these distinguish themselves as being from a god so it cannot be decided which one, if any, is from a god.
It's practically impossible to choose "God's" text from this list... if it's even in there at all.

Hence if an all powerful, all knowing god ACTUALLY wanted to communicate with us, it's very likely he would not choose this method.
Therefore any text that claims it is from a god is very likely to not be from a god.

Any thoughts?

Because it is not very likely doesn't mean it cannot happen.

Anyways, how would knowledge be passed along without it being written down in one form another. During 1 a.d they didn't have many options. Also, if we assume the Bible is correct, then God was communicating with people by methods other than having people write them down. In order for the people to even be able to write anything down, they'd have to have had at least some form of contact with that God, unless God left a book outside of their door for them to read.

[theblindferrengi]

Oh, now I get it, I thought you meant text messages like cell phones. That makes a lot more sense.

[CHOOCHOO!]

Because it is not very likely doesn't mean it cannot happen.

Anyways, how would knowledge be passed along without it being written down in one form another. During 1 a.d they didn't have many options. Also, if we assume the Bible is correct, then God was communicating with people by methods other than having people write them down. In order for the people to even be able to write anything down, they'd have to have had at least some form of contact with that God, unless God left a book outside of their door for them to read.

I distinctly did not claim it could not happen, just that it was not very likely. You're putting words into my mouth .

The second part of your post completely missed the point. I wasn't referring to the concept of writing down knowledge in general, just texts that do not actually distinguish themselves as being from a god. There's a TON of religious texts that claim to be from a god, but none back it up.

If a god wanted to pass his message to us via inspiring someone to write it, he could add in some knowledge that would back up the text's claim of being of divine origin. If a text that was written 3000 years ago scientifically described the start of the universe and that model seemed to be very accurate, that would add a lot of credence to the claim that the text was from god. So knowledge could still be passed by writing, which I was never arguing against in general.

But if he doesn't do this, it becomes impossible to distinguish between different "religious" texts and decide which, if any, is from god. So without doing this, the method of communication goes beyond freakin' terrible. Why would an all powerful god who ACTUALLY wanted to communicate use this method in this way? It's very likely it wouldn't and hence when a text claims to be a message from god and doesn't distinguish itself as being so, it's pretty likely to just be some random guy's writings.

Your assumption that the Bible is correct is a pretty big assumption. And I know this might surprise you, but people do not need contact with a god to write something and have it claim to be from god.

---

Oh, now I get it, I thought you meant text messages like cell phones. That makes a lot more sense.

Yes, any cell phone message you receive claiming to be from God is very likely to not be. Old people don't like using technology.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yes, any cell phone message you receive claiming to be from God is very likely to not be. Old people don't like using technology.

Watch yourself sonny,I'll belt you with my cane!

As it turns out,I love new technology. Currently I have and use;2 PCs, 2 LCD TVs, 1 Plasma TV,2 dual DVD/VHS players, a Bluray player,a DVD recorder, a standard DVD player and a USB HD player.

Although I own a cell phone, I hate the fucking things. I have never sent a text as I've never bothered to learn how. I've never received a text as I've never given anyone my number; I don't know what it is. Why have a cell phone? In case my car breaks down or I forget where I've parked the car again and need at taxi.

[Zhalentine]

Because it is not very likely doesn't mean it cannot happen.

Anyways, how would knowledge be passed along without it being written down in one form another. During 1 a.d they didn't have many options. Also, if we assume the Bible is correct, then God was communicating with people by methods other than having people write them down. In order for the people to even be able to write anything down, they'd have to have had at least some form of contact with that God, unless God left a book outside of their door for them to read.

I distinctly did not claim it could not happen, just that it was not very likely. You're putting words into my mouth .

The second part of your post completely missed the point. I wasn't referring to the concept of writing down knowledge in general, just texts that do not actually distinguish themselves as being from a god. There's a TON of religious texts that claim to be from a god, but none back it up.

If a god wanted to pass his message to us via inspiring someone to write it, he could add in some knowledge that would back up the text's claim of being of divine origin. If a text that was written 3000 years ago scientifically described the start of the universe and that model seemed to be very accurate, that would add a lot of credence to the claim that the text was from god. So knowledge could still be passed by writing, which I was never arguing against in general.

But if he doesn't do this, it becomes impossible to distinguish between different "religious" texts and decide which, if any, is from god. So without doing this, the method of communication goes beyond freakin' terrible. Why would an all powerful god who ACTUALLY wanted to communicate use this method in this way? It's very likely it wouldn't and hence when a text claims to be a message from god and doesn't distinguish itself as being so, it's pretty likely to just be some random guy's writings.

Your assumption that the Bible is correct is a pretty big assumption. And I know this might surprise you, but people do not need contact with a god to write something and have it claim to be from god.

---

Oh, now I get it, I thought you meant text messages like cell phones. That makes a lot more sense.

Yes, any cell phone message you receive claiming to be from God is very likely to not be. Old people don't like using technology.

Then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your post. Who cares how unlikely something is to happen. You can't use this argument against a religious person because it doesn't say anything other than it is unlikely for something to happen, which doesn't mean it can never happen therefore you don't have a point at all.

Your assumption that the Bible is correct is a pretty big assumption. And I know this might surprise you, but people do not need contact with a god to write something and have it claim to be from god.

Take your own advice and try not to put words in my mouth.

[CHOOCHOO!]

Then I'm afraid I don't see the point of your post. Who cares how unlikely something is to happen. You can't use this argument against a religious person because it doesn't say anything other than it is unlikely for something to happen, which doesn't mean it can never happen therefore you don't have a point at all.

Who cares? Clearly not theists I guess. Isn't it pretty illogical to believe something is true when there's no reasoning or evidence to suggest it as such, AND there is also reason to believe it is actually false?

Nobody will probably ever find an argument that states "X religion is false" and "X religion is very likely to be false" is as close as anyone will get. A lot of theists cling onto the misguided belief that their god and holy text are likely to be true, so proving the opposite is at least worth something imo.

[Zhalentine]

Who cares? Clearly not theists I guess. Isn't it pretty illogical to believe something is true when there's no reasoning or evidence to suggest it as such, AND there is also reason to believe it is actually false? Nobody will probably ever find an argument that states "X religion is false" and "X religion is very likely to be false" is as close as anyone will get. A lot of theists cling onto the misguided belief that their god and holy text are likely to be true, so proving the opposite is at least worth something imo.

Believing something is true when there is no evidence to suggest it is true is silly, but if there is a logical reason for why people do it then I do not see it as illogical, but that isn't the point of your topic. If you're trying to persuade theists and they don't care, then the argument is not worth bringing up because it doesn't further the conversation and because the argument isn't valid. Like I said before, the likelihood of something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing is true or not.

[tackattack]

---

Suppose there exists an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god.
Suppose said god might want to communicate with its creation.

Consider the method of inspiring a person or a small group of people to write texts containing his word:

- The text created by this method does not contain information that legitimately distinguishs the text as being from the god, such as, for example, advanced scientific knowledge that was unknown at the time.
- As such, there is no way of distinguishing it from a text written by any random person.
- Hence, any number of people can write such texts and have them claim to be from the god, and its impossible to say which one, if any, is actually from the god.
- In addition the text can be edited to contain a completely different message, and the original version lost forever.


It is fair to say that such a method is an extremely unreliable way of communication, close to the point of being worthless.
For example, on Wikipedia there are over 30 religious texts listed. None of these distinguish themselves as being from a god so it cannot be decided which one, if any, is from a god.
It's practically impossible to choose "God's" text from this list... if it's even in there at all.

Hence if an all powerful, all knowing god ACTUALLY wanted to communicate with us, it's very likely he would not choose this method.
Therefore any text that claims it is from a god is very likely to not be from a god.

Any thoughts?

---

hmmm first theist to reply.. goodie.
Thoughts? I agree. The Bible itself was not requested or written by God. It was simply man's attempt to document an idea of what they thought God wanted and the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus also did not request that it be written down. This however doesn't do anything to adress the truthfullness of the text regardless of the author. God doesn't communicate by handing out books. God communicates through revelations, miracles and visions. Those are usually subjective or local in nature.

[tavarish]

---

Suppose there exists an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god.
Suppose said god might want to communicate with its creation.

Consider the method of inspiring a person or a small group of people to write texts containing his word:

- The text created by this method does not contain information that legitimately distinguishs the text as being from the god, such as, for example, advanced scientific knowledge that was unknown at the time.
- As such, there is no way of distinguishing it from a text written by any random person.
- Hence, any number of people can write such texts and have them claim to be from the god, and its impossible to say which one, if any, is actually from the god.
- In addition the text can be edited to contain a completely different message, and the original version lost forever.


It is fair to say that such a method is an extremely unreliable way of communication, close to the point of being worthless.
For example, on Wikipedia there are over 30 religious texts listed. None of these distinguish themselves as being from a god so it cannot be decided which one, if any, is from a god.
It's practically impossible to choose "God's" text from this list... if it's even in there at all.

Hence if an all powerful, all knowing god ACTUALLY wanted to communicate with us, it's very likely he would not choose this method.
Therefore any text that claims it is from a god is very likely to not be from a god.

Any thoughts?

---

hmmm first theist to reply.. goodie.
Thoughts? I agree. The Bible itself was not requested or written by God. It was simply man's attempt to document an idea of what they thought God wanted and the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus also did not request that it be written down. This however doesn't do anything to adress the truthfullness of the text regardless of the author. God doesn't communicate by handing out books. God communicates through revelations, miracles and visions. Those are usually subjective or local in nature.

lol.

God communicates by what can be best described as self-administered rationalization.