Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[Paul the Human]

[Caecilian]

the way to prove beyond doubt that the bible is not true is to listen to me,just because i am the CURENT....
etc

Its very possible that you've been prescribed medicine by a psychiatrist, and stopped taking it. If this is the case then please start taking your medicine again, and make an appointment with your doctor asap.

The other possibility is that you haven't seen a psychiatrist and been prescribed medication. If this is the case then you need to see a psychiatrist as a matter of urgency. You are clearly suffering from a mental health problem, and there are nowadays some very effective medicines that can help you get better.

You don't know me and I don't know you, but I've spent a large part of my adult life working with people who have mental health problems. The kind of things that you're saying I've heard many times before. Please believe me when I say that there are a lot of people out there just like you, having strange and disturbing thoughts, and strange and disturbing experiences. You aren't alone, and there is support available for you to get yourself back to some kind of normalcy.

Please get help. You must know that what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Caecilian

[nickos777]

the way to prove beyond doubt that the bible is not true is to listen to me,just because i am the CURENT....
etc

Its very possible that you've been prescribed medicine by a psychiatrist, and stopped taking it. If this is the case then please start taking your medicine again, and make an appointment with your doctor asap.

The other possibility is that you haven't seen a psychiatrist and been prescribed medication. If this is the case then you need to see a psychiatrist as a matter of urgency. You are clearly suffering from a mental health problem, and there are nowadays some very effective medicines that can help you get better.

You don't know me and I don't know you, but I've spent a large part of my adult life working with people who have mental health problems. The kind of things that you're saying I've heard many times before. Please believe me when I say that there are a lot of people out there just like you, having strange and disturbing thoughts, and strange and disturbing experiences. You aren't alone, and there is support available for you to get yourself back to some kind of normalcy.

Please get help. You must know that what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Caecilian

you narrowminded asshole!as you are so obviously experienced in mental health can you not see that jesus was simply schizophrenic too?i.e.auditory hallucinations,visual hallucinations(gabriel),AND 'delusions of grandeur'???don't worry about it-you are as ignorant as the human race gets! as a matter of fact my psychiatrists say that i am 'a okay' but 'its not in their "remit"' to help me!

[Caecilian]

you narrowminded asshole!as you are so obviously experienced in mental health can you not see that jesus was simply schizophrenic too?i.e.auditory hallucinations,visual hallucinations(gabriel),AND 'delusions of grandeur'???don't worry about it-you are as ignorant as the human race gets! as a matter of fact my psychiatrists say that i am 'a okay' but 'its not in their "remit"' to help me!

Okay, I can understand that you're angry at me. I'd agree that jesus quite probably was experiencing some mental health problems. Its a shame that there weren't any effective treatments in those days.

Good that you've got a psychiatrist.

[fr0d0]

*shuffles along obediently to the new set of goalposts*

Okay, thats fine. No empirical evidence for god can ever be found, so if a given phenomenon has an explanation, there will always be a naturalistic explanation for it. The rest of my post is therefore unaffected. I'll repeat myself.

It therefore follows that:
1. Anything that could be explained with reference to god, could be explained at least as well without reference to god. Thus 'god' has zero explanatory value.
2. 'Miracles' either didn't happen, or have a naturalistic explanation.
3. Following on from 2, the bible becomes a collection of myths.

No

1. God has no business with explanatory values, ever.
2. or did happen <-- how did you eliminate this option?
3. it is necessarily beholden to the observer to accept or deny the claim. Which as I keep saying, is the whole point. It is also crucial that there's no sway on that choice empirically.

All facts, including all phenomenal facts, are metaphysically necessitated by the microphysical facts. If P is a statement that reports all the microphysical facts and Q is a statement that reports all phenomenal facts...then:
(Entailment Thesis) P -> Q is metaphysically necessary.

Perhaps you could translate that philosobabble into English and I'll do my best to answer. Or PM Arcanus and see if he's willing to discuss philosophy with you... he's conversant in it.

[nickos777]

*shuffles along obediently to the new set of goalposts*

Okay, thats fine. No empirical evidence for god can ever be found, so if a given phenomenon has an explanation, there will always be a naturalistic explanation for it. The rest of my post is therefore unaffected. I'll repeat myself.

It therefore follows that:
1. Anything that could be explained with reference to god, could be explained at least as well without reference to god. Thus 'god' has zero explanatory value.
2. 'Miracles' either didn't happen, or have a naturalistic explanation.
3. Following on from 2, the bible becomes a collection of myths.

No

1. God has no business with explanatory values, ever.
2. or did happen <-- how did you eliminate this option?
3. it is necessarily beholden to the observer to accept or deny the claim. Which as I keep saying, is the whole point. It is also crucial that there's no sway on that choice empirically.

All facts, including all phenomenal facts, are metaphysically necessitated by the microphysical facts. If P is a statement that reports all the microphysical facts and Q is a statement that reports all phenomenal facts...then:
(Entailment Thesis) P -> Q is metaphysically necessary.

Perhaps you could translate that philosobabble into English and I'll do my best to answer. Or PM Arcanus and see if he's willing to discuss philosophy with you... he's conversant in it.

2. miracles are, sadly, completely IMPOSSIBLE. the 'resurrection' of lazarus was probably just coincidence,i.e. he was awoken from some sort of comatose state by the sensation of hands on him.the feeding of the 2000 is probably,or has probably been exaggerated over the years,maybe from 20?the walking on water is blatant propoganda. it is BECAUSE of the miracles in the bible that i am so resolute that things must change!jesus was no superman, just a normal human with feelings of 'sovereignty'-just like me!there is no such thing as a miracle!!!!

---

you narrowminded asshole!as you are so obviously experienced in mental health can you not see that jesus was simply schizophrenic too?i.e.auditory hallucinations,visual hallucinations(gabriel),AND 'delusions of grandeur'???don't worry about it-you are as ignorant as the human race gets! as a matter of fact my psychiatrists say that i am 'a okay' but 'its not in their "remit"' to help me!

Okay, I can understand that you're angry at me. I'd agree that jesus quite probably was experiencing some mental health problems. Its a shame that there weren't any effective treatments in those days.

Good that you've got a psychiatrist.

i'm sorry for 'flying off the handle' but it is EXACTLY the reason i believe so strongly in myself! after all, schizophrenia was an illness first diagnosed by Freud(born 1856,i think), who is to say that Freud was right??? i believe that freud must have been evangelist(believe soley in the scriptures)-WHAT IF the scriptures are not true?what then? as i have said before, i at first thought my blindness was caused by a star landing on me. then heard of zeus' lightning bolt and turned to that belief!it IS more plausible, don't you think?

addendum.
also, to further illustrate my point,WHY on earth would the 'messiah/christ thing' begin and end with jesus?he himself said he was a resurrection, probably knew of perseus(some 2000years earlier)and maybe that is why jesus 'adopted' the 'christ label'. i once read a book about the freudian dissident carl jung, in it it said that the word 'christ' comes from ancient greek for 'deliverer'-personally i find it hard to accept that jesus delivered anybody, apart from inventing a 'lords prayer' which says 'deliver us from evil'.also in this prayer is, i'm sure, something about life on earth being as it is on heaven.therefore he,jesus, was aware that he was 'king of the world',as my 'predecessor'(cary fayton from Dr. Eric Berne's "layman's guide to psychiatry and psychoanalysis")believed he was to be!by the way, my 'angel bob voice' once asked "what's in a name?",as i was about to enter a pub called 'uncle henrys'(old nickname for satan). further to the nickname,MY name is ancient greek for 'victory of the people'(which is why i am on this forum,lol!)and jesus' name, apparently, meant 'saviour of god'. that is just what i have read on a website a few years ago!MY 'judas' surname was mcdonald=old mcdonald, from the nursery rhyme.new name for satan? my mary of magdalin's name was/is petra oaks-acorns are poisonous? also, one of my college friends,who knew me in the first year of my illness, was called andre witkowski=like the american band 'andrew W.K.', also i thought that people i passed on the street would sometimes 'salute' me by coughing! it is,and was, ALL COINCIDENCE!BUT, how else would 'god'influence life?certainly not by appearing to people and giving commands!!!

p.s. my dictionary tells me that the definition of 'layman' is simply 'not of church'.maybe that is why i get so frustrated by the 'banality' of the clergy members i have spoken to about my beliefs?!? they are trying so very hard to 'defend' the bible which, i hate to point out, they know NOTHING about!if they did then why would there be a 'church of magdalin'???

[Caecilian]

It therefore follows that:
1. Anything that could be explained with reference to god, could be explained at least as well without reference to god. Thus 'god' has zero explanatory value.
2. 'Miracles' either didn't happen, or have a naturalistic explanation.
3. Following on from 2, the bible becomes a collection of myths.

No

1. God has no business with explanatory values, ever.
2. or did happen <-- how did you eliminate this option?
3. it is necessarily beholden to the observer to accept or deny the claim. Which as I keep saying, is the whole point. It is also crucial that there's no sway on that choice empirically.

In reply to your replies to my questions:
1. We seem to have an agreement here. 'God' as a concept doesn't have any explanatory value. I'm happy to accept your point that 'god' shouldn't have any explanatory value. After all, I'm an atheist, so what 'god' should or shouldn't do isn't down to me.
2. Maybe I wasn't very clear first time round. I'll try re-phrasing the point:
If an event that is a 'miracle' did or does indeed occur, then that event must have a naturalistic explanation which is at least as good as the spiritual explanation.
This seems to be a necessary entailment from 1, since if it isn't true, then there will be the possibility of events which have 'god' as part of the best (or even only) explanation. That would mean empirical evidence for god, and 'god' having explanatory value.
3. Yeah, you've made this point a number of times. Why is uncertainty so important?

Caecilian Wrote:
All facts, including all phenomenal facts, are metaphysically necessitated by the microphysical facts. If P is a statement that reports all the microphysical facts and Q is a statement that reports all phenomenal facts...then:
(Entailment Thesis) P -> Q is metaphysically necessary.

Perhaps you could translate that philosobabble into English and I'll do my best to answer. Or PM Arcanus and see if he's willing to discuss philosophy with you... he's conversant in it.

Sorry about the philosbabble. I find it alarmingly easy to slip into it.

Will try to translate, although philosobabble -> English is sometimes tricky.

Microphysical facts are the facts re. very low-level physical states- think of quantum mechanics and you'll be close enough. P is the complete set of microphysical facts that describes the universe in terms of low-level physics. Obviously, it isn't (and will never be) a practical proposition to actually know P, but we're talking metaphysics here, so practicalities aren't an issue (one reason why I'm not so keen on metaphysics).

Phenomenal facts are the facts re. higher-level phenomena such as objects, stars and also conscious states, social institutions etc. Q is the complete set of phenomenal facts that describe the universe on higher levels of analysis. It explicitly includes facts about phenomena that aren't normally thought of as physical - i.e. mental and social phenomena.

Materialist monism says that P necessarily entails Q. In other words, given P there is no other way that Q could be.

Sound good to you?

i'm sorry for 'flying off the handle'

No problem.

[fr0d0]

3. Yeah, you've made this point a number of times. Why is uncertainty so important?

Because without it we have no option of believing : God wouldn't be giving us a choice.

Sorry about the philosbabble. I find it alarmingly easy to slip into it.

No problem, sorry for my ignorance

Microphysical facts are the facts re. very low-level physical states- think of quantum mechanics and you'll be close enough. P is the complete set of microphysical facts that describes the universe in terms of low-level physics. Obviously, it isn't (and will never be) a practical proposition to actually know P, but we're talking metaphysics here, so practicalities aren't an issue (one reason why I'm not so keen on metaphysics).

Phenomenal facts are the facts re. higher-level phenomena such as objects, stars and also conscious states, social institutions etc. Q is the complete set of phenomenal facts that describe the universe on higher levels of analysis. It explicitly includes facts about phenomena that aren't normally thought of as physical - i.e. mental and social phenomena.

Materialist monism says that P necessarily entails Q. In other words, given P there is no other way that Q could be.

Sound good to you?

Metaphysics entails musings of the human mind. So human musings are merely that?

You're stretching beyond knowable boundaries, even using the word 'fact' in there. What is logically suggested is unknown, so what is extraneous to that is even more so.

So if that's the case, I disagree.

[Caecilian]

3. Yeah, you've made this point a number of times. Why is uncertainty so important?

Because without it we have no option of believing : God wouldn't be giving us a choice.

So why is that so important? We don't have a choice about believing in other things, notably the existence of the material world. So why it is so important for us to choose to believe in god (or not, as in my case).

Caecilian Wrote:
Sorry about the philosbabble. I find it alarmingly easy to slip into it.

No problem, sorry for my ignorance

You know more about philosophy than I do about theology.

Which leads me to another question. In one of your previous posts you describe god as a 'positive entity'. In the same post you say that 'God is goodness', which makes god sound like a concept, i.e. not an entity at all. This has me genuinely puzzled. Please explain.

Caecilian Wrote:
Microphysical facts are the facts re. very low-level physical states- think of quantum mechanics and you'll be close enough. P is the complete set of microphysical facts that describes the universe in terms of low-level physics. Obviously, it isn't (and will never be) a practical proposition to actually know P, but we're talking metaphysics here, so practicalities aren't an issue (one reason why I'm not so keen on metaphysics).

Phenomenal facts are the facts re. higher-level phenomena such as objects, stars and also conscious states, social institutions etc. Q is the complete set of phenomenal facts that describe the universe on higher levels of analysis. It explicitly includes facts about phenomena that aren't normally thought of as physical - i.e. mental and social phenomena.

Materialist monism says that P necessarily entails Q. In other words, given P there is no other way that Q could be.

Sound good to you?

Metaphysics entails musings of the human mind. So human musings are merely that?

You're stretching beyond knowable boundaries, even using the word 'fact' in there. What is logically suggested is unknown, so what is extraneous to that is even more so.

So if that's the case, I disagree.

Yeah, your comments pretty much sum up everything thats wrong with metaphysics. Not my favourite branch of philosophy- its just way too speculative for my liking.

Still, I tend to assume materialist monism, not because theres any compelling case for it, but because I find it much more plausible than the alternatives.

Having said that, I think that theres a real problem for your position if materialist monism isn't true. I'll try not to lapse too far into philosobabble:

Lets call the set of divine facts about the universe G. If god exists, then presumably G would be known by god and only by god. Now the above formulation of materialist monism doesn't rule out the existence of god or of G- it simply says that G can't make any difference to Q, the set of phenomenal facts. But what if this is wrong?

Lets consider:

(Entailment statement) P + G -> Q (Q is jointly entailed by P and G)

Now in materialist monism, G is effectively empty, at least as far as Q is concerned. So if G changes ( represented by G*, a new state of G), and P remains the same, then Q remains the same:

P + G = P + G* in terms of the entailment to Q.
So:
P + G -> Q
and
P + G* -> Q

But if materialism monism is false, then G* could lead to a different Q (represented by Q*). So:

P + G -> Q
P + G* -> Q*

Which would open the door to empirical evidence for G, and G having explanatory value. Both of which you clearly want to avoid.

[tackattack]

1- We do have a choice to the material world, it's called delusion.
2- I won't answer for Fr0d0 but I'll answer my opinion on God = goodness. I believe God is an absolute value residing outside the boundaries of the known universe and relative to our observations within it. That value is usefull to us in that he guides us towards developing true love and betterment of society.