Why does science always upstage God?

[vulcanlogician]

If God opened the clouds, revealed himself to everybody, healed the lame and sick the world over, and said "That particular Bible verse is an error,"...

...some Christians would be like, "That can't be God!"

There are good practices and bad practices in Christianity, but holding your standard of truth to a document produced by historical accident has got to be one of the worst.

[ayost]

Assuming the God of the Bible exists I would say no, there is no world in which the God of the Bible exists and the Bible (or any of it's claims) are false.

Here's why...

When we talk about God (in the Bible) He is perfect and His ways are perfect. So when he chooses to act, He acts perfectly. That means that, whether we like it or not, the world we live in reflects perfectly what God intended it to. When I say perfectly I mean precisely, exactly what God wanted. I don't mean perfect as in no evil. He didn't create the best available option. He created precisely what He wanted. So in that context, another creation with different outcomes or events or standards or truths would then have to either be more perfect or less perfect than this creation.

If He could create a  more perfect creation that means God created not exactly what He wanted in this creation.
If He created a less prefect creation that would mean God is settling for something that's not exactly what He wanted. I already established that the God of the Bible is prefect and acts perfectly, so to act imperfectly would be for Him to act against His own nature, which makes no sense.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

"Perfect" can have many meanings.  I think the bible writers meant "having no flaw", and they meant it as a type of praise.  I'm don't think the statement can stand scrutiny as one of fact, as God changed His mind many times, and God fails to live up to the promises mentioned in the bible.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

This conclusion is unsupported.  If the world is EXACTLY as God wanted it, then God must want atheists to exist, God must want no evidence for his own existence, and God must want death and destruction to happen randomly on the good and the bad.

The usual Christian argument is that the Earth is completely corrupted by Man, and God can't do a darn thing about it, because He gave us free will.  Basically, God isn't in control - Satan is, until such time as God will destroy the whole thing.

So, the bible-writers could've been wrong, or the priests deciding on which texts are holy could've been wrong, or a scribe could've made a mistake, or stories could change in the retelling.  That wouldn't have any bearing on whether a real God exists, only on the accuracy of the bible's account of that God.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

I completely agree.  Two contradictory claims can't both be right.  If you are trying to go down the path of biblical inerrancy, I think you are going to have to believe a lot of crazy things, compromising  both your hold on reality and your sense of decency.

There are no failed promises in the Bible. The change His mind thing, well we can talk about that. I know what you're talking about and it's not nearly as scandalous as you make it out to be.

God intends for atheists to exist.
He provided the necessary evidence that He wanted to for us and He made that evidence clear.
He has a purpose for the death and destruction and evil does not happen randomly.

One reason I am convinced by Reformed theology is that it puts God in control and responsible for everything. Everything exists exactly the way God wants it and He is in control of everything, including all of the evil. In the Bible Satan has to ask God permission to act. It all has purpose and meaning and God intends everything to work out for good for those that love Him.

One of the great things about the Bible is the way it was transmitted. We have thousands of texts from multiple, diverse lines of transmission. The early, widespread copy and transmission of Biblical manuscript means no one group or governing body could have or ever did have control over the spread of the New Testament.

---

Right, the reason you came.  To shake your head disparagingly and pretend that no one understands your god.

Well, I'm trying not to bring challenges, but instead just answer your questions. Is there a follow up question or an implied question there?

---

Right, the reason you came.  To shake your head disparagingly and pretend that no one understands your god.

No sir, I came here to tell people about God and answer questions and challenges, not shake my head disparagingly at anyone. I haven't been intentionally derogatory to anyone. In fact, if we scroll through all of my interactions on this forum, I think it would be safe to say that I took the brunt of the disparaging comments from the atheists on this forum. And I admit, the animosity took me by surprise and I didn't react as maturely as I wanted. I don't think disparagingly about or look down on anyone. I know the only difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that God has shown mercy to the believer and made him to believe. I'm here because I care.

[Soberman921]

I am defending the Biblical God. You defined a concept outside the Bible and then measured God inside the Bible with that concept.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't reflect the Biblical picture of God's perfection.

I've used a standard definition of perfection. If you're trying to smuggle in some secret special meaning of the word that doesn't align with the way it is used in common English and can be endlessly malleable based on whatever argument you are defending, you aren't engaging in a good faith discussion. And you certainly can't justifiably accuse me of attacking a strawman by assuming you are applying the English meaning of the word.

I agree God needs nothing.

If by "want" you mean lack, I agree, He lacks nothing.

But if by want you mean desire, well "desiring nothing" isn't part of the definition of perfect. According to the Bible, God is perfect and has all kinds of desires. But he doesn't desire imperfectly like you or I. He doesn't hope or wish or dream. He isn't lacking something he desires.

I'm sorry, but that is just absurd. How can you desire something if you have everything you need and want? To desire is to intensely want something you lack. So yes, I agree with you that the God of the Bible is presented as having all kinds of desires. He is also called perfect. My point is that these descriptions are not consistent and cannot be made consistent without redefining the concept of desire or perfection. If one does that, it is disingenuous to continue using those words as if everyone understands what is meant.

No one ever said God has goals. He has a will and He acts perfectly with perfect intention to do everything according to His will the first time. Maybe you're confusing a will and goals, just a simple category error?

What does it even mean to "act perfectly with perfect intention"? Once again, you are using these words in a novel way that defies comprehension. I am not the one who is confused here.

[ayost]

If God opened the clouds, revealed himself to everybody, healed the lame and sick the world over, and said "That particular Bible verse is an error,"...

...some Christians would be like, "That can't be God!"

There are good practices and bad practices in Christianity, but holding your standard of truth to a document produced by historical accident has got to be one of the worst.

Well, I can't comment on hypothetical Christians in a hypothetical scenario but I can comment on holding my standard of truth to the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by historical accident, do you have something specific you're thinking of?

Also, you didn't ask me why I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Aren't you curious if my reasons are grounded in something sound?

---

I've used a standard definition of perfection. If you're trying to smuggle in some secret special meaning of the word that doesn't align with the way it is used in common English and can be endlessly malleable based on whatever argument you are defending, you aren't engaging in a good faith discussion. And you certainly can't justifiably accuse me of attacking a strawman by assuming you are applying the English meaning of the word.

 
I just want to point out one thing and then I will respond to the rest later. I have to go for the evening. You accuse me of smuggling in a secret definition and not using the plain English definition of the word.
 
The plain English definition of perfect from Google’s dictionary:
 
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
 
I agree with this definition.
 
Your definition:
 
A perfect being is a complete being. It wants nothing. It needs nothing. It has no desires because to desire something entails missing something that would make it better, and it cannot be better. A perfect being wouldn't need to act because the only reason to act is to accomplish a goal but the perfect being can have no goals. A perfect being is perfectly fulfilled.

I don't agree with this definition.
 
Now let me ask you, who smuggled in their own definition of the word perfect?

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, the reason you came.  To shake your head disparagingly and pretend that no one understands your god.

No sir, I came here to tell people about God and answer questions and challenges, not shake my head disparagingly at anyone. I haven't been intentionally derogatory to anyone. In fact, if we scroll through all of my interactions on this forum, I think it would be safe to say that I took the brunt of the disparaging comments from the atheists on this forum. And I admit, the animosity took me by surprise and I didn't react as maturely as I wanted. I don't think disparagingly about or look down on anyone. I know the only difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that God has shown mercy to the believer and made him to believe. I'm here because I care.

You just don't care enough to put in any effort.  Honestly bud, you do realize that alot of these guys used to be christian, right?  There's no one here who hasn't heard your pitch. 

We get a revolving door of cretins and their nonsense, with mealy mouthed bullshit about how much the dipshits care. As for answering questions and challenges, swell job, you proved that your god can't exist according to you.

[HappySkeptic]

God intends for atheists to exist.
He provided the necessary evidence that He wanted to for us and He made that evidence clear.
He has a purpose for the death and destruction and evil does not happen randomly.

One reason I am convinced by Reformed theology is that it puts God in control and responsible for everything. Everything exists exactly the way God wants it and He is in control of everything, including all of the evil. In the Bible Satan has to ask God permission to act. It all has purpose and meaning and God intends everything to work out for good for those that love Him.

One of the great things about the Bible is the way it was transmitted. We have thousands of texts from multiple, diverse lines of transmission. The early, widespread copy and transmission of Biblical manuscript means no one group or governing body could have or ever did have control over the spread of the New Testament.

There is zero evidence that either a god exists, or that any god does anything in the world.

The bible does say that God is the creator of evil, but the bible does not say that God causes people's choices.  I understand that Calvanists and fatalists might disagree.  However, if God is in control, why does it appear as if the world runs on natural laws?  If that is the way God works - via creating natural law, what is the difference between there being natural law without a god, and there being natural law with a god?

as for the bible - you need to do some serious research about how the bible came about, from biblical and historical scholars, not from your religion.

[brewer]

Speculation is a very good word to describe most of christianity.

Bart Ehrman; Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=124572693

More Bart: https://ehrmanblog.org/tag/biblical-discrepancies/

Ahhh yes, Bart Ehrman. He has already been responded to by Christian scholars. Check out James White for a response.

James White, very good at apologetic excuses, and speculation.

[pocaracas]

1st, to use the quote function properly, it is better to write your replies using the source mode.
There are two ways to accomplish this, one makes you press the rightmost button just above the "post new reply" text box every time you want to reply to someone. The other makes you delve into your user control panel's options (here's a link for your convenience> https://atheistforums.org/usercp.php?action=options) and activate the box that says "Put the editor in source mode by default" that you will find towards the bottom right.

I'm not sure what you mean by historical accident, do you have something specific you're thinking of?

I won't presume to speak for Vulcan, but do indulge us on how do you think the Bible came to be the collection of books that we see today?
Perhaps therein lies your lack of information that then informs all your subsequent beliefs.

Also, you didn't ask me why I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Aren't you curious if my reasons are grounded in something sound?

There was a post of mine, some time ago (perhaps on another thread? can't remember) where I made a distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament, with the caveat that many Christians mean New Testament when they say Bible. So... when you claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, which of these do you mean? Old, New or both?

If you include the Old Testament, does that make you a Young Earth Creationist?

[Soberman921]

 
I just want to point out one thing and then I will respond to the rest later. I have to go for the evening. You accuse me of smuggling in a secret definition and not using the plain English definition of the word.
 
The plain English definition of perfect from Google’s dictionary:
 
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
 
I agree with this definition.
 
Your definition:
 
A perfect being is a complete being. It wants nothing. It needs nothing. It has no desires because to desire something entails missing something that would make it better, and it cannot be better. A perfect being wouldn't need to act because the only reason to act is to accomplish a goal but the perfect being can have no goals. A perfect being is perfectly fulfilled.

I don't agree with this definition.
 
Now let me ask you, who smuggled in their own definition of the word perfect?

If you just go to the very next line of the Google dictionary definition you reference, it states "absolute, complete." So my point stands. You are in disagreement with the only source you yourself provided for the definition of perfection. That is why I conclude you aren't arguing in good faith.

[vulcanlogician]

Well, I can't comment on hypothetical Christians in a hypothetical scenario but I can comment on holding my standard of truth to the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by historical accident, do you have something specific you're thinking of?

A process of selection of canonical books for the NT that occured from the second century onwards. There was some bickering and burning at the stake that went on for a while before one sect/interpretation finally prevailed. Gnostics, Nonpaulines, Arians, others were suppressed by political victories. It's quite accidental that one set of texts prevailed. There were some core texts upon which all Christians agreed. But there were also disputed texts.

Also, you didn't ask me why I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Aren't you curious if my reasons are grounded in something sound?

Okay, what is this "something sound" upon which your belief in the Bible is grounded?

(By the way, welcome to the forums. Pleasure to meet you.)