• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

 
 
 
RIS said:

Gods don't have to literally exist in order to be gods. Their influence is everywhere, all around you. Whether you subscribe to them or not.
Click to expand...
The idea of god or gods is all around us, yes, and unfortunately has a huge influence on culture. What influence do these ideas have on modern science and philosophy, both of which are mostly free of god or gods so far as I can tell?
 
To be sure there are some scientists who believe in God, like Francis Collins, though I don’t think any of them put “god” in their scientific explanations. Some philosophers believe in God, but most modern philosophy does not incorporate any god or gods into philosophical exploration.
 
pood said:
Well, it’s hardly a revelation what comes after “consider this.” That we are all marinated in superstitious twaddle is obvious. What I am asking is whether Peterson is suggesting that the scientific work of Dawkins, Harris, and others is influenced by mythology. I say it is not. What does he say?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I don't think he suggested that. He was talking about their ideology. Does that affect their science? I don't see how it couldn't. It depends on to what degree you mean to suggest by influence. Just look at the language. How much of it comes from mythology? The Biblical Greek (common Greek, Koine) word for spirit (pneuma) or the Greek word Kosmos from which we get the English words cosmos and cosmetics. Everything from candy bars, sports teams, calendar days, astronomy, cars, flower delivery, video games.

Darwin didn't originate Evolution, he only popularized it. Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Aristotle. Darwinian Evolution probably had more to do with the industrial revolutions than science. Modern day Abrahamic theology comes more from Socrates and Plato than Moses and Jesus.
 
RIS said:
pood said:
Well, it’s hardly a revelation what comes after “consider this.” That we are all marinated in superstitious twaddle is obvious. What I am asking is whether Peterson is suggesting that the scientific work of Dawkins, Harris, and others is influenced by mythology. I say it is not. What does he say?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I don't think he suggested that. He was talking about their ideology. Does that affect their science? I don't see how it couldn't. It depends on to what degree you mean to suggest by influence. Just look at the language. How much of it comes from mythology? The Biblical Greek (common Greek, Koine) word for spirit (pneuma) or the Greek word Kosmos from which we get the English words cosmos and cosmetics. Everything from candy bars, sports teams, calendar days, astronomy, cars, flower delivery, video games.
Click to expand...

All that is granted. We are marinated in superstitious mythology. As to the ideology of people like Dawkins or Harris, or other scientists or thinkers, I don’t know how much or if it affects their scientific work, or how much it matters if it does. Dawkins, who did splendid science, seems ideologically to be some kind of transphobe and Islamophobe. Harris also is an Islamophobe. Neither seems personally attractive to me. But Dawkins’s work in particular I find splendid. Just like Picasso’s art is splendid to me even though he seems to have been a rather shitty person.
RIS said:
Darwin didn't originate Evolution, he only popularized it.
Click to expand...

Dawkins absolutely originated evolution as a product of NATURAL SELECTION. No other previous thinker about evolution came up with this insight.
RIS said:
Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Aristotle. Darwinian Evolution probably had more to do with the industrial revolutions than science.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by this.
RIS said:
Modern day Abrahamic theology comes more from Socrates and Plato than Moses and Jesus.
Click to expand...
Yes, with this I agree.
 
pood said:
RIS said:
From an atheistic perspective it's irrelevant because it still has a massive impact on the societies we live in. Consider this: "The universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions . . ."
Click to expand...
Which would those be, insofar as their scientific work is concerned?
Click to expand...


I'm not suggesting that divinity has a place in scientific methodology, I'm suggesting cultural influences, including theological, undoubtedly have an unintended effect. From an archaic perspective science is knowledge. Biblical study is the study of what the Bible says, theology is speculation of what that might mean. Theology is heavily influenced, especially over time, by tradition, among other things. Pagan, meaning outside of.

You can't have science (knowledge) of what you don't know. You can't create a model of something you don't know or wrongly assume is something else. So, a scientist is an atheist and concludes Genesis 1:1 can't be true because no gods exist isn't a scientific conclusion for two reasons. 1. Science can't test the supernatural and 2. He doesn't know what God is. Likewise a theistic scientist can't accurately form a conclusion based upon their theology, that Genesis 1:1 must be true because he believes in God, but it probably will, if unchecked, influence his conclusion.

If science determined tomorrow that God exists I wouldn't be impressed, in fact I would highly doubt their effort and conclusion.

An example. A so-called science minded atheist says the celestial phenomenon in the book of Revelation, i.e. the sun, moon, stars, is a product of a primitive superstitious people's ignorance of the cosmos when in reality it was metaphoric language describing political and social upheaval on a global scale. God's coming kingdom with a new government, people and environment. The exact same terminology was used in early texts (Ezekiel, Daniel) describing the same thing on a smaller scale with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. (See Siege of Jerusalem 587 BC).
 
RIS said:

You can't have science (knowledge) of what you don't know. You can't create a model of something you don't know or wrongly assume is something else. So, a scientist is an atheist and concludes Genesis 1:1 can't be true because no gods exist isn't a scientific conclusion for two reasons. 1. Science can't test the supernatural and 2. He doesn't know what God is.
Click to expand...

No scientist concludes the genesis story is untrue because he is an atheist. He concludes it’s untrue because there is no evidence whatsoever for it, and it is preposterous on the face of it, contradicting every known fact about nature.
RIS said:
Likewise a theistic scientist can't accurately form a conclusion based upon their theology, that Genesis 1:1 must be true because he believes in God, but it probably will, if unchecked, influence his conclusion.

If science determined tomorrow that God exists I wouldn't be impressed, in fact I would highly doubt their effort and conclusion.

An example. A so-called science minded atheist says the celestial phenomenon in the book of Revelation, i.e. the sun, moon, stars, is a product of a primitive superstitious people's ignorance of the cosmos when in reality it was metaphoric language describing political and social upheaval on a global scale.
Click to expand...

I don’t know whether it was intended literally or metaphorically. I don’t think anyone knows. However, a great many Christians take it and the rest of the bible as literal truth.
 
pood said:
No scientist concludes the genesis story is untrue because he is an atheist.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But atheist ideologues do it all the time misusing and misrepresenting science.

pood said:
He concludes it’s untrue because there is no evidence whatsoever for it, and it is preposterous on the face of it, contradicting every known fact about nature.
Click to expand...

If there is no evidence, he concludes nothing. Either way. Including that it is preposterous or contradictory to nature. Nature isn't dependent upon the humble and fallible observations of man.

pood said:
I don’t know whether it was intended literally or metaphorically. I don’t think anyone knows. However, a great many Christians take it and the rest of the bible as literal truth.
Click to expand...

Christians? Might as well ask the cat. And people do know, it's obvious. What I said about the celestial phenomenon (Daniel/Revelation) isn't a proposition from  Wittgenstein
 
RIS said:
pood said:
No scientist concludes the genesis story is untrue because he is an atheist.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But atheist ideologues do it all the time misusing and misrepresenting science.
Click to expand...

To conclude the genesis story is untrue because one is an atheist is question begging. No consistent atheist thinker does this.
RIS said:
n

pood said:
He concludes it’s untrue because there is no evidence whatsoever for it, and it is preposterous on the face of it, contradicting every known fact about nature.
Click to expand...

If there is no evidence, he concludes nothing.
Click to expand...

If someone tells me that a sky fairy made Man by breathing him into existence from dust or dirt or whatever it was, I conclude the claim is false until the person making the claim shows evidence.
RIS said:
Either way. Including that it is preposterous or contradictory to nature. Nature isn't dependent upon the humble and fallible observations of man.
Click to expand...

It is preposterous on the face of it and contradicts all known natural processes. Therefore we reliably conclude that the genesis story is false, which conclusion a fortiori gains more credence by the fact that all human groups across the globe have their own independent creation myths that are equally preposterous. But we should privilege the Judeo-Christian creation myth over all those others why exactly?
RIS said:
pood said:
I don’t know whether it was intended literally or metaphorically. I don’t think anyone knows. However, a great many Christians take it and the rest of the bible as literal truth.
Click to expand...

Christians? Might as well ask the cat. And people do know, it's obvious. What I said about the celestial phenomenon (Daniel/Revelation) isn't a proposition from  Wittgenstein
Click to expand...

I think the book of revelation stories were probably meant literally, and I see no evidence of them being political metaphors.
 
RIS said:
If there is no evidence, he concludes nothing. Either way.
Click to expand...
There is evidence though.

Overwhelming evidence.

Human beings tell stories. Storytelling pervades everything they do. One of the key skills in being an adult is to recognise: Firstly when something we are told is a story, and therefore is not actually true; and Secondly that being untrue doesn't make a story useless or pointless.

The Genesis story is easily recognosed to be untrue. It describes things that are common story elements, that are never observed in reality - such as talking snakes; And it lists a sequence of events that is logically impossible - such as night and day existing before the Sun exists; And it asserts things we can demonstrate to be false, such as the Earth existing before the Sun exists.

It's a story.

Genesis proves the existence of God, exactly as effectively as DC Comics prove the existence of Superman.

And both DO EXIST - as stories. You can't meet them. They can't help you with your problems, or save you from peril; And you would be literally crazy to call upon either, with the expectation that doing so will have any result whatsoever outside your own head.

But they surely exist. Any American can describe, in detail, what Superman looks like, what he wears, what he does, his moral values, his abilities, even his friends and work colleagues. It is not a free-for-all - the story has a framework that can only be bent so far before it's a whole different story. To that extent, Superman is unquestionably real. He is also (like any other god) unquestionably fictional.

Genesis is not only not an explanation for how the world came to exist; It is also not in the same category of claim as any explanation of anything. Stories aren't explanations. They are stories. They tell us about how to be members of a society. They don't tell us about how reality actually is. For that, you need the scientific method.
 
Lion IRC said:
Yes. That's right.

If you believe in a god nobody has ever heard from, a god that doesn't care, doesn't act, doesn't tell you what to do or not do...how does that make you any different than an atheist?
Click to expand...
A god outside of space and time defines a god who does meet the criteria of existence
 
bilby said:
There is evidence though.
Click to expand...

If you accept it as such. Atheists tend to think, ridiculously, that if you accept the evidence, you accept what it presents. Evidence is defined simply as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." You examine the evidence for and against. Evidence itself doesn't constitute truth. Atheists demand evidence so they can reject it regardless. They do that, not surprisingly because it has been compromised by nonsensical tradition.

bilby said:
Overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. It would only be overwhelming from an ideological perspective. Atheists and theists tend to be ideologues. There's nothing wrong with the "science of ideas" until you corrupt it for your personal confirmation bias.

bilby said:
Human beings tell stories. Storytelling pervades everything they do. One of the key skills in being an adult is to recognise: Firstly when something we are told is a story, and therefore is not actually true; and Secondly that being untrue doesn't make a story useless or pointless.
Click to expand...

Okay, for example, children are told that Santa Claus exists and they accept it, usually without question. Then, when the time is right, they are told he doesn't exist and they accept it without question. Even after seeing them everywhere. Sitting on their lap and having been indoctrinated with it for years. What is Santa Claus? Wikipedia says "a legendary figure originating in Western Christian culture." Christmas wasn't generally accepted by Christians until after the early 1840s when Dickens wrote The Christmas Carol. It was a pagan concept, detestable to them. You can go into detail on public relations, marketing, and historicity etc. It is what it is.

So, what is the Bible? Besides the bullshit? See RIS Introduction to the Bible

bilby said:
The Genesis story is easily recognized to be untrue.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It isn't recognized. It is misrepresented. Its representation was compromised by pagan influenced traditions.

bilby said:
It describes things that are common story elements, that are never observed in reality - such as talking snakes; And it lists a sequence of events that is logically impossible - such as night and day existing before the Sun exists; And it asserts things we can demonstrate to be false, such as the Earth existing before the Sun exists.
Click to expand...

All of that is wrong. The Bible says the snake talked. The snake didn't talk. The Bible gives Eve's perspective. She was deceived. The same with Balaam's ass. It didn't talk. It appeared to be talking. The Bible is not always true in that regard. If someone takes that sort of thing out of context, like skeptics who criticize the Bible saying it says snakes or donkeys talk, they have missed that point. It's an imbalanced contextually inaccurate criticism. But also, when the Bible says something that wasn't true like in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. Metal hadn't been developed, there were no swords, what the angels had was something that appeared like something we would later know as a sword. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.


This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.

Genesis 1:1 translates the Hebrew bara as created. It is in the perfect state which means that at Genesis 1:1 the universe had already been created. It was complete. The Hebrew perfect state means completion. Later, throughout the remainder of the chapter, the Hebrew asah (make, appoint, arrange, prepare) is used. Its imperfect state indicates continuous action. So, the already created sun and moon were being prepared specifically for habitation on the planet. (See RIS Genesis Chapter 1)

bilby said:
It's a story.
Click to expand...

That's your estimation. I think it's a true, literal account. It isn't science, it wasn't meant to be.

bilby said:
Genesis proves the existence of God, exactly as effectively as DC Comics prove the existence of Superman.
Click to expand...

If I misrepresent the Superman account of DC Comics as literally true you don't simply make the assumption that I'm doing so, you test it compared to the chronicling of events with "reality." It isn't perfect but with fictional accounts it's pretty easy. If you misrepresent the Bible as being anecdotal based upon a faulty premise, from corrupted tradition, I can test it just as I can test the more accurate interpretation of the text. The legend of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and Paul Revere riding through the towns shouting "The British are coming" doesn't mean there isn't a more accurate literal account. The latter should be the interest of the truly skeptical.

bilby said:
And both DO EXIST - as stories. You can't meet them. They can't help you with your problems, or save you from peril; And you would be literally crazy to call upon either, with the expectation that doing so will have any result whatsoever outside your own head.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that in the strictest sense. The Bible doesn't present God as our cosmic problem solver. Why pray to God not to die when God's curse insist that everyone dies? Are you asking for God's will in such a case? We can glean relevant information from Aesop's Fables, the Analects of Confucius, the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, or the Bible, but when we start making up shit about it that isn't true, whether theist or atheist - wrong is wrong. There's only two possible ways to interpret anything. Right or wrong. Both may have slight variations but both are testable. The Bible insists you test it.

Christianity is about fake morals, unauthorized "moral" policing of the globe, sociopolitical control, and nonsensical pagan corruption. God isn't on your side. Well, I could go on and on. Atheism is just a knee-jerk reaction to that. It doesn't transcend it with any more accuracy, it only reflects it. Which is fine, but not particularly helpful if they don't know how to fairly criticize with a more accurate interpretation.

To say it's silly is easy and true, but it doesn't reflect the Bible or Jehovah God.

bilby said:
Genesis is not only not an explanation for how the world came to exist; It is also not in the same category of claim as any explanation of anything. Stories aren't explanations. They are stories. They tell us about how to be members of a society. They don't tell us about how reality actually is. For that, you need the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Science is the weatherman. With all of the training and technology he still gets it wrong. Social science you describe isn't any better than the Bible. Science is often way behind. Science didn't figure out how to boil water, it figured out why it worked hundreds of years later. Science only figured out babies under 14 months can feel and should be anesthetized during surgery in 1986, until then only paralyzing them so they wouldn't struggle. The Bible said the earth was spherical long before science, the hygienic law Ignaz Semmelweis was murdered for was explained pretty well in the Bible thousands of years before he pointed it out to dogmatic arrogant doctors using the miasmatic school of medicine. The hydrological cycle was described in the Bible long before science had a clue. Day and night science thought was caused by miasmas from either the sky or the ground long after the Bible better explained it.

To cling to those dark ages ideas as science is the same as clinging to the dark ages take on the firmament found in Biblical encyclopedias of that time, which were not scripturally accurate but based on then current science and a Latin mistranslation. Science tests the natural, theology tests the spiritual.
 
Last edited:
bilby said:

But they surely exist. Any American can describe, in detail, what Superman looks like, what he wears, what he does, his moral values, his abilities, even his friends and work colleagues. It is not a free-for-all - the story has a framework that can only be bent so far before it's a whole different story. To that extent, Superman is unquestionably real. He is also (like any other god) unquestionably fictional.
Click to expand...

There is a new Superman movie for some reason coming out next year and based on the trailer it looks like it really sucks. For one thing it has Superdog as a little white mutt with a red cape and how dumb is that? Also they tampered with the iconic S in a shield to make it more abstract, and while I like abstraction I don’t think you should tamper with the iconic S in a shield.

All that by way of saying that in a thousand years, people may think that Superman was real and is a god. And there will be a Superman bible and Superman apologetics and the whole nine yards.
 
lostone said:
Purple is not hidden - it is a wave length. Does the subjective experience of purple exist? The qualia of purple? Is your purple the same as mine?
Click to expand...

Very good.

lostone said:
Do unicorns exist? Outside of space and time?
Click to expand...

"Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns." - Psalm 22:21 (KJV)

The Hebrew word reem is translated in the KJV as unicorns. The KJV is from the Latin Vulgate. For a long time, translation was uncertain. The Vulgate used the Latin term for rhinoceros (rhinocerot) which is similar to the Greek (Septuagint) rhinokerot, rhinokeros - "nose-horned." The KJV uses the term unicorn, one horn. Most modern scholars use the term wild ox (Bos primigenius) as The New Encyclopedia Britannica explains, it is a "subfamily of the large horned ungulate family."
 
pood said:
There is a new Superman movie for some reason coming out next year and based on the trailer it looks like it really sucks. For one thing it has Superdog as a little white mutt with a red cape and how dumb is that? Also they tampered with the iconic S in a shield to make it more abstract, and while I like abstraction I don’t think you should tamper with the iconic S in a shield.

All that by way of saying that in a thousand years, people may think that Superman was real and is a god. And there will be a Superman bible and Superman apologetics and the whole nine yards.
Click to expand...

 
pood said:
To conclude the genesis story is untrue because one is an atheist is question begging. No consistent atheist thinker does this.
Click to expand...

Okay. What evidence do you have that Genesis chapter 1 isn't true?

pood said:
If someone tells me that a sky fairy made Man by breathing him into existence from dust or dirt or whatever it was, I conclude the claim is false until the person making the claim shows evidence.
Click to expand...

And I, for my part, do a similar thing. If someone tells me that a monkey hanging from a tree fell to the ground when his tail broke and picked up a briefcase and went to work on Wall Street or whatever it was, I conclude the claim is false until the person making the claim shows evidence.

You see what I did there? I took a ridiculous parody of evolutionary theory and then demanded someone provide evidence for that ridiculous parody. What logical fallacy is that? Does that spring from science or ideological fixation?

pood said:
It is preposterous on the face of it and contradicts all known natural processes.
Click to expand...

People are remarkably silly creatures. Atheists think that humans are animals while claiming science is the best tool for examining nature. All the while they complain of all the killing and savagery perpetrated by religion as if that weren't something they had observed in the wilds of nature by animals. They object to God as something created by themselves because if the primitive people had to create their own gods they certainly didn't believe in the natural existence of gods in the first place.

Never giving it a thought that their real objection is a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic majority.

pood said:
Therefore we reliably conclude that the genesis story is false, which conclusion a fortiori gains more credence by the fact that all human groups across the globe have their own independent creation myths that are equally preposterous. But we should privilege the Judeo-Christian creation myth over all those others why exactly?
Click to expand...

You really don't know anything about evolution prior to Darwin, do you. Empedocles, the "father of evolutionary thought." Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Aristotle? I mentioned earlier. Before Christ.

Gilgamesh isn't the oldest flood story. There are older Sumerian flood myths. The logical question you have to ask yourself is when were each circulated and from where? For example, let's say I heard about an event from a witness and later saw a report about it in the paper. Later still there was a documentary. Does this mean the latter sources rewrote the earlier or that the event couldn't have happened?

The Bible gives great detail in chronology which is useful in this case. Adam was created in the fall of 4026 BCE. The flood took place from 2370-2369. During that time the Bible hadn't been written yet, but records were being kept and oral history was well known. After the flood a man named Nimrod (Sumerian Dumuzid, Hebrew Tammuz) founded the Sumerian cities of Accad, Babel and Calneh in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10; Ezekiel 8:14)

The key here is a fellow called Peleg. Peleg was born (2269-2030 BCE) 100 years after the flood and since he lived during that time, he was named Peleg which in Hebrew means division. (Genesis 10:25) He lived sometime after Nimrod built the tower of Babel and God scattered the people. People wanted to stay centered around the tower, and cities Nimrod founded, but God wanted them to fill the earth.

So, when the people scattered all over the globe, they took the oral stories they had learned about gods, floods, giants (the Nephilim that provoked the flood) and Tammuz's filthy idol, the cross. That's why you see variations of those stories all over in spite of obstacles of language, geography, etc.

Generally, the oldest version of Gilgamesh is dated as early as 2100 BCE, though variations came later. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513, but much of what he wrote took place much earlier. That means that the stories from the people that scattered had roughly 500 years to spread and evolve. That's why the Christian missionaries were surprised to find the cross (originally a pagan idol first used by Nimrod/Tammuz) and we see myths about giants and floods and gods all over the globe.
 
RIS said:
bilby said:
There is evidence though.
Click to expand...

If you accept it as such. Atheists tend to think, ridiculously, that if you accept the evidence, you accept what it presents. Evidence is defined simply as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." You examine the evidence for and against. Evidence itself doesn't constitute truth. Atheists demand evidence so they can reject it regardless. They do that, not surprisingly because it has been compromised by nonsensical tradition.

bilby said:
Overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. It would only be overwhelming from an ideological perspective. Atheists and theists tend to be ideologues. There's nothing wrong with the "science of ideas" until you corrupt it for your personal confirmation bias.

bilby said:
Human beings tell stories. Storytelling pervades everything they do. One of the key skills in being an adult is to recognise: Firstly when something we are told is a story, and therefore is not actually true; and Secondly that being untrue doesn't make a story useless or pointless.
Click to expand...

Okay, for example, children are told that Santa Claus exists and they accept it, usually without question. Then, when the time is right, they are told he doesn't exist and they accept it without question. Even after seeing them everywhere. Sitting on their lap and having been indoctrinated with it for years. What is Santa Claus? Wikipedia says "a legendary figure originating in Western Christian culture." Christmas wasn't generally accepted by Christians until after the early 1840s when Dickens wrote The Christmas Carol. It was a pagan concept, detestable to them. You can go into detail on public relations, marketing, and historicity etc. It is what it is.

So, what is the Bible? Besides the bullshit? See RIS Introduction to the Bible

bilby said:
The Genesis story is easily recognized to be untrue.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It isn't recognized. It is misrepresented. Its representation was compromised by pagan influenced traditions.

bilby said:
It describes things that are common story elements, that are never observed in reality - such as talking snakes; And it lists a sequence of events that is logically impossible - such as night and day existing before the Sun exists; And it asserts things we can demonstrate to be false, such as the Earth existing before the Sun exists.
Click to expand...

All of that is wrong. The Bible says the snake talked. The snake didn't talk. The Bible gives Eve's perspective. She was deceived. The same with Balaam's ass. It didn't talk. It appeared to be talking. The Bible is not always true in that regard. If someone takes that sort of thing out of context, like skeptics who criticize the Bible saying it says snakes or donkeys talk, they have missed that point. It's an imbalanced contextually inaccurate criticism. But also, when the Bible says something that wasn't true like in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. Metal hadn't been developed, there were no swords, what the angels had was something that appeared like something we would later know as a sword. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.


This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.

Genesis 1:1 translates the Hebrew bara as created. It is in the perfect state which means that at Genesis 1:1 the universe had already been created. It was complete. The Hebrew perfect state means completion. Later, throughout the remainder of the chapter, the Hebrew asah (make, appoint, arrange, prepare) is used. Its imperfect state indicates continuous action. So, the already created sun and moon were being prepared specifically for habitation on the planet. (See RIS Genesis Chapter 1)

bilby said:
It's a story.
Click to expand...

That's your estimation. I think it's a true, literal account. It isn't science, it wasn't meant to be.

bilby said:
Genesis proves the existence of God, exactly as effectively as DC Comics prove the existence of Superman.
Click to expand...

If I misrepresent the Superman account of DC Comics as literally true you don't simply make the assumption that I'm doing so, you test it compared to the chronicling of events with "reality." It isn't perfect but with fictional accounts it's pretty easy. If you misrepresent the Bible as being anecdotal based upon a faulty premise, from corrupted tradition, I can test it just as I can test the more accurate interpretation of the text. The legend of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and Paul Revere riding through the towns shouting "The British are coming" doesn't mean there isn't a more accurate literal account. The latter should be the interest of the truly skeptical.

bilby said:
And both DO EXIST - as stories. You can't meet them. They can't help you with your problems, or save you from peril; And you would be literally crazy to call upon either, with the expectation that doing so will have any result whatsoever outside your own head.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that in the strictest sense. The Bible doesn't present God as our cosmic problem solver. Why pray to God not to die when God's curse insist that everyone dies? Are you asking for God's will in such a case? We can glean relevant information from Aesop's Fables, the Analects of Confucius, the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, or the Bible, but when we start making up shit about it that isn't true, whether theist or atheist - wrong is wrong. There's only two possible ways to interpret anything. Right or wrong. Both may have slight variations but both are testable. The Bible insists you test it.

Christianity is about fake morals, unauthorized "moral" policing of the globe, sociopolitical control, and nonsensical pagan corruption. God isn't on your side. Well, I could go on and on. Atheism is just a knee-jerk reaction to that. It doesn't transcend it with any more accuracy, it only reflects it. Which is fine, but not particularly helpful if they don't know how to fairly criticize with a more accurate interpretation.

To say it's silly is easy and true, but it doesn't reflect the Bible or Jehovah God.

bilby said:
Genesis is not only not an explanation for how the world came to exist; It is also not in the same category of claim as any explanation of anything. Stories aren't explanations. They are stories. They tell us about how to be members of a society. They don't tell us about how reality actually is. For that, you need the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Science is the weatherman. With all of the training and technology he still gets it wrong. Social science you describe isn't any better than the Bible. Science is often way behind. Science didn't figure out how to boil water, it figured out why it worked hundreds of years later. Science only figured out babies under 14 months can feel and should be anesthetized during surgery in 1986, until then only paralyzing them so they wouldn't struggle. The Bible said the earth was spherical long before science, the hygienic law Ignaz Semmelweis was murdered for was explained pretty well in the Bible thousands of years before he pointed it out to dogmatic arrogant doctors using the miasmatic school of medicine. The hydrological cycle was described in the Bible long before science had a clue. Day and night science thought was caused by miasmas from either the sky or the ground long after the Bible better explained it.

To cling to those dark ages ideas as science is the same as clinging to the dark ages take on the firmament found in Biblical encyclopedias of that time, which were not scripturally accurate but based on then current science and a Latin mistranslation. Science tests the natural, theology tests the spiritual.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of non-factual statements here. The Bible did not invent boiling of water, that existed for thousands of years before the Bible, and it was figured out by humans. The thing you say about babies in nonsensical. The Bible said the Earth was flat, but ancient Greeks knew it was spherical, and Eratosthanes even determined the diameter of the Earth. The Bible has nothing about hygiene, and Semmelweiss didn't exist until the nineteenth century. The fictional flood not only is not hydrological science, but contradicts known laws of geology, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics. The Bible thought day and night was due to the sun orbiting the Earth, and science has never considered miasmas as explanation for this, or indeed anything. Science is reflective of reality, while the Bible has not only fictional "explanations" but they are less accurate than those of even older mythologies. Science does not cling to "dark ages' ideas, but many religious people do.
 
RIS said:
lostone said:
Purple is not hidden - it is a wave length. Does the subjective experience of purple exist? The qualia of purple? Is your purple the same as mine?
Click to expand...

Very good.

lostone said:
Do unicorns exist? Outside of space and time?
Click to expand...

"Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns." - Psalm 22:21 (KJV)

The Hebrew word reem is translated in the KJV as unicorns. The KJV is from the Latin Vulgate. For a long time, translation was uncertain. The Vulgate used the Latin term for rhinoceros (rhinocerot) which is similar to the Greek (Septuagint) rhinokerot, rhinokeros - "nose-horned." The KJV uses the term unicorn, one horn. Most modern scholars use the term wild ox (Bos primigenius) as The New Encyclopedia Britannica explains, it is a "subfamily of the large horned ungulate family."
Click to expand...
Which misses the point. Let's use fairies as an example instead of unicorns. Trolls, goblins, wizards, Brahma, and so forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom