Is the mere existence of the Bible evidence agaisnt Christianity?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ever wondered why an all powerful being with a message he wants us to know and obey, would choose to relay that message via an ancient book of paper and ink? Couldn't he just simply make us know what he wants us to know? It wouldn't violate free will. We could still decide if we wanted to follow and obey or not. In fact, without truly getting and understanding the message, how could it be said we disobeyed it?

If he's all powerful, surely he could simply make us know what he wants us to. He didn't. I think that proves that either he doesn't exist or he doesn't have a message he wants us all to know. The confusion caused by different interpretations of the bible could have been avoided if he wanted to avoid it, so if he exists, and if he's all powerful, he must have intended it right? Same with all the competing religions. Surely he could have made these people know which God is the true God. But he lets the humans fight it out.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes to all your questions.

Further, if the Christian "bible" demonstrates anything it is that Christianity started its life as a cult, same as countless other cults that existed in the days of Mediterranean deities. It's writings and beliefs were obviously much simpler, and its followers were just as committed to the uniqueness of their chosen cult as were members of hundreds of other cults at the time and place. There is nothing special or distinguishing about the Christian cult today, except to its members.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You're right. There are similar objections that have come up in free thought titles over the years. Such as that an all-powerful, all-seeing deity would have insured that--
1) reliable texts of the 'holy books' came down to us, including verifiable original manuscripts
2) a consistent, correctly attributed canon was compiled
3) the 'holy books' would tell a consistent story, with no external and internal contradictions
4) the Holy Bible that we now have would not appear to be a collection of ancient cultural documents, some exhibiting a primitive morality and a primitive understanding of the universe
5) at least the name of Jesus' grandpa would be consistent in the 2 genealogies (I know, that's #3 again, but that was for the Christers.)
But anyway, Joe Smith's Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants is where the true god speaks to us.

 

[Bronzeage]

When a less than all powerful being contemplates the motives of an all powerful being, there is no reason to believe the less than all powerful has all the necessary information to make a valid assessment.

One can say, "Based on my observations, I don't find sufficient evidence for the existence of an all powerful being," but it has to stop there. It's a personal opinion. When a less than powerful being starts to play God and points out the things the other all power being got wrong, and makes a list of things they would have done differently, it quickly becomes silly.

 

[Brian63]

When a less than all powerful being contemplates the motives of an all powerful being, there is no reason to believe the less than all powerful has all the necessary information to make a valid assessment.

Same is true for theists of any flavor of religion, since they do that too. They point to occurrences or events that happen as evidence of God's greatness, for example. Really though, it is just evidence of how the world works. The fact that those occurrences/events happen just once in a while, and not to everybody everywhere, is evidence that there is not a deity behind it all.

It's a personal opinion. When a less than powerful being starts to play God and points out the things the other all power being got wrong, and makes a list of things they would have done differently, it quickly becomes silly.

I am undecided on that as a general principle myself, and could go either way depending on the details. Moreso though, I would just point out again that the same is true for theists who point out all the things the all-powerful being got *right* and thus are evidence of the being's goodness. Maybe they just misunderstand what really happened, and the all-powerful being is actually malevolent, or indifferent to human ethics, or some combination of all the above (we humans are not entirely good or evil, but rather a mix of various psychological and emotional forces, some of which are not accurately labelled as being just "good" or "evil" alone).

Brian

 

[ideologyhunter]

"...it quickly becomes silly." More silly yet: supposing that the ancients knew anything about an actual deity -- and that said deity is mired in the primitive ethical sense of the ancients.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When a less than all powerful being contemplates the motives of an all powerful being, there is no reason to believe the less than all powerful has all the necessary information to make a valid assessment.

One can say, "Based on my observations, I don't find sufficient evidence for the existence of an all powerful being," but it has to stop there. It's a personal opinion. When a less than powerful being starts to play God and points out the things the other all power being got wrong, and makes a list of things they would have done differently, it quickly becomes silly.

Which kinda begs the question about all powerful beings and gods. Maybe there are all powerful beings but they aren't gods. Maybe they're tomatoes. God is an opinion after all, so having an opinion about someone else's opinion is certainly fair game.

I admit it's all silly, but it does exercise the intellect and the gray matter in its own way so it does appear to be useful in the same way that picking up a dumbbell appears to be useful.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"...it quickly becomes silly." More silly yet: supposing that the ancients knew anything about an actual deity -- and that said deity is mired in the primitive ethical sense of the ancients.

Right. How many things could Jesus or any of these alleged deities have done to demonstrate themselves. Child mortality was 50% in the first century CE. Youda thought maybe there was something to fix there. No. Just come back to life, then fly away into the sky. Lots of Ooooooo Aaahhhh value in those kinda things. Part some seas and make locusts fly around too. And burning bushes. Lets not forget the power of that!

 

[Atheos]

I think a strong argument can be made that the bible is evidence against a certain type of god, namely the type of tri-omni god fitting the description most people seem to get who claim the bible as the source-book for their belief.

If it is true that god created all things (as the bible claims) then it would be true that until god created another individual there was no individual around except god.

If it is true that god is ultimately benevolent and does not wish for there to be any suffering, then that god could have chosen to create other individuals who (like himself) did not have to endure suffering.

This would have been a choice arrived at conscientiously by this god. This is an incredibly important point. God would have had to consciously make the decision to create an environment where suffering could be a reality, and he would have had to purposefully create individuals capable of suffering. Prior to that creation there had never been anything one could call "suffering," nor was god capable of having it thrust upon him without his consent. If this god is all-powerful (as the bible implies) he could easily have chosen a different path, as his ability to create would not have been limited by any need for compromise. If this god is all knowing (as the bible implies) then he would have known that suffering would have inevitably resulted from his decision to go about creating.

I know this is encroaching on a variant of the POE, but that's not where I was really headed. I was only wanting to point out the initial decision to create itself would have been entirely unnecessary. An omnipotent god would not need a means to an end, and if an eternal god had a problem a temporal solution would be absolutely useless. A decision to create independently-thinking companions, and then consigning said companions to eternal torment the moment they had an independent thought would inevitably lead to the same loneliness that existed before the decision was ever made. It would be like me taking a pain pill that only gave me relief for 1 nanosecond.

But that is the god presented in the bible. Take out all the drama, the role playing, the plagues, damnation and ass-kissing, and you're left with an eternal god who can never know companionship, yet tries vainly to create it. Everyone else ends up in hell eventually if they have the ability to think for themselves.

 

[Brian63]

When the Bible referred to a TALKING SNAKE, that pretty much rendered it and the whole religion as fictional, at best.

Brian

 

[untermensche]

The Bible is only evidence against Christians who claim some god actually wrote it.

Not all Christians believe this.

Some believe in Jesus is some transcendent fashion. They had some "experience". They see the Bible as no more than a sign pointing towards Jesus written by humans and incredibly flawed.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'd say no. The Bible asserts God exists. If the existence of the Bible is evidence that God does not exist, it means the Bible's assertion that God exists is not reliable. If the Bible is not reliable you'd be left with the possibility that the god the Bible describes exists; the Bible simply doesn't describe its god reliably (or accurately, if you prefer).

The thing about the Christian god is that it seems, by various descriptions I've been given, to exceed the limits of human reason and prediction. It's impossible to meaningfully speculate what such an entity would do one way or the other. It's part of what makes me a little sad for people who buy into Pascal's wager. If I am right and no gods exist, nothing happens after death. If they are right and their god exists, infinite outcomes could apply including outcomes where believers are tortured for all eternity. There's no way to apply probability to it.

 

[Atheos]

I'd say no. The Bible asserts God exists. If the existence of the Bible is evidence that God does not exist, it means the Bible's assertion that God exists is not reliable. If the Bible is not reliable you'd be left with the possibility that the god the Bible describes exists; the Bible simply doesn't describe its god reliably (or accurately, if you prefer).

The thing about the Christian god is that it seems, by various descriptions I've been given, to exceed the limits of human reason and prediction. It's impossible to meaningfully speculate what such an entity would do one way or the other. It's part of what makes me a little sad for people who buy into Pascal's wager. If I am right and no gods exist, nothing happens after death. If they are right and their god exists, infinite outcomes could apply including outcomes where believers are tortured for all eternity. There's no way to apply probability to it.

But even so, the existence of the bible would remain evidence that the god represented in its pages does not exist. The OP isn't necessarily arguing that the bible disproves all gods, but I think it makes a valid point that the bible is self-refuting. The god described in the bible cannot exist if the description itself is self-contradictory. Some other god could exist but it would not be the god of the bible.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But even so, the existence of the bible would remain evidence that the god represented in its pages does not exist. The OP isn't necessarily arguing that the bible disproves all gods, but I think it makes a valid point that the bible is self-refuting. The god described in the bible cannot exist if the description itself is self-contradictory. Some other god could exist but it would not be the god of the bible.

That doesn't really pan out here. There are implicit limitations on the Bible's ability to encapsulate God, but from a Christian perspective they are talking about an entity which already exists, and not some cosmic cos-player who didn't quite get the costume right for their fictional character. In the same sense, Niels Bohr descried the atom to the best of his ability, but it wasn't an entirely accurate description. Still, the the atom inspiring the description was a real thing and though our descriptions have advanced since the early twentieth century, is the same atom which exists in our universe both then and now (regardless of the accuracy of our descriptions).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But even so, the existence of the bible would remain evidence that the god represented in its pages does not exist. The OP isn't necessarily arguing that the bible disproves all gods, but I think it makes a valid point that the bible is self-refuting. The god described in the bible cannot exist if the description itself is self-contradictory. Some other god could exist but it would not be the god of the bible.

That doesn't really pan out here. There are implicit limitations on the Bible's ability to encapsulate God, but from a Christian perspective they are talking about an entity which already exists, and not some cosmic cos-player who didn't quite get the costume right for their fictional character. In the same sense, Niels Bohr descried the atom to the best of his ability, but it wasn't an entirely accurate description. Still, the the atom inspiring the description was a real thing and though our descriptions have advanced since the early twentieth century, is the same atom which exists in our universe both then and now (regardless of the accuracy of our descriptions).

The difference is that scientists aren't triomni beings. They do the best they can with the tools they have available, which leads to imperfect results that require an iterative approach to improve upon. The Christian god doesn't have that limitation. The best he can do with the tools he has available is perfect success on the first attempt.

If he had information which he wanted to convey to people, that information would have been conveyed without any inaccuracies, misinterpretations or need for improvements. Everybody who heard it would have been 100% convinced. If, out of the six billion people on the world, only 599,999,999 of them were totally convinced, then that's not a triomni god conveying the information.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The difference is that scientists aren't triomni beings.

That's not a difference. The books of the Bible were written and compiled by human beings. Even if we accept some sort of divine inspiration, this does not elevate any author to omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence let alone all three.

If he had information which he wanted to convey to people, that information would have been conveyed without any inaccuracies, misinterpretations or need for improvements.

There is simply no basis for your 'if'. You're trying to apply a motive to a being which is incompletely described using your sense of reason despite the fact that the limited amount of description provided seems to put this deity some place firmly beyond our comprehension.

 

[Atheos]

And to complete your analogy, consider this: Bohr's model was a theory based on certain evidence, a robust theory with predictive value that could potentially be falsified through future discovery and experimentation.

One of the self-refuting things about the bible is that it describes a god who answers requests of believers by moving mountains. The fact that no believer, no matter how pious, can successfully perform this straightforward experiment is itself as much a falsification of the christian god as the actual discovery of some other elemental structure that rendered Bohr's description completely invalid.

There is nothing vague about the description of the christian god who moves mountains upon demand. The god who does this does not exist, or at the very least is not the christian god. Therefore the bible is evidence against Christianity. There are many other ways the bible self-refutes, one of which is described in the OP of this thread.

Some other god may exist, but the god described in the bible does not.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

And to complete your analogy, consider this: Bohr's model was a theory based on certain evidence, a robust theory with predictive value that could potentially be falsified through future discovery and experimentation.

Irrelevant. We are not evaluating which is superior in practice.

One of the self-refuting things about the bible is that it describes a god who answers requests of believers by moving mountains.

Also not the topic up for discussion. The question posed in this thread was whether or not the mere existence (not the contents of) the Bible is evidence against its god.

There is nothing vague about the description of the christian god who moves mountains upon demand.

Yet there is plenty vague about a god which can create an entire universe by unknown means and potentially manipulate that universe by unknown logic. You're trying to apply a sort of pedantry which doesn't work here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not a difference. The books of the Bible were written and compiled by human beings. Even if we accept some sort of divine inspiration, this does not elevate any author to omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence let alone all three.

The authors aren't triomni, but the person allegedly providing them with the information is. He would know exactly how to convey it to them so that they would pass it on without any flaws. A book of fairy tales which people made up on their own is free to contain however many inaccuracies it likes, since there's no link between what's written in it and the real world. If you get a god telling people what to say, on the other hand, every inaccuracy goes away because he knows beforehand how to present it to people in a manner which they won't make mistakes about when they repeat it.

If he had information which he wanted to convey to people, that information would have been conveyed without any inaccuracies, misinterpretations or need for improvements.

There is simply no basis for your 'if'. You're trying to apply a motive to a being which is incompletely described using your sense of reason despite the fact that the limited amount of description provided seems to put this deity some place firmly beyond our comprehension.

But we're not beyond his comprehension. He knows perfectly well what it is that we need to hear to accept it as factual and yet didn't not present that to us. He knows how the world came about and wouldn't give an inaccurate history of that. He knows that there was never a worldwide flood and wouldn't assert that one happened. He knows how evolution works and wouldn't have said anything about his creating all the various animals and plants as they are. If you're going to assert some kind of divine inspiration, then it follows that there would be a difference in accuracy between a divinely inspired work and a wholely fictional work and the Bible does assert divine inspiration.

When we get the exact same amount of information about the nature of god(s) and the universe from reading the Bible and watching the Thor movie, then claims about one of them being divinely inspired don't hold up.

 

[Bronzeage]

The authors aren't triomni, but the person allegedly providing them with the information is. He would know exactly how to convey it to them so that they would pass it on without any flaws. A book of fairy tales which people made up on their own is free to contain however many inaccuracies it likes, since there's no link between what's written in it and the real world. If you get a god telling people what to say, on the other hand, every inaccuracy goes away because he knows beforehand how to present it to people in a manner which they won't make mistakes about when they repeat it.

If he had information which he wanted to convey to people, that information would have been conveyed without any inaccuracies, misinterpretations or need for improvements.

There is simply no basis for your 'if'. You're trying to apply a motive to a being which is incompletely described using your sense of reason despite the fact that the limited amount of description provided seems to put this deity some place firmly beyond our comprehension.

But we're not beyond his comprehension. He knows perfectly well what it is that we need to hear to accept it as factual and yet didn't not present that to us. He knows how the world came about and wouldn't give an inaccurate history of that. He knows that there was never a worldwide flood and wouldn't assert that one happened. He knows how evolution works and wouldn't have said anything about his creating all the various animals and plants as they are. If you're going to assert some kind of divine inspiration, then it follows that there would be a difference in accuracy between a divinely inspired work and a wholely fictional work.

When we get the exact same amount of information about the nature of god(s) and the universe from reading the Bible and watching the Thor movie, then claims about one of them being divinely inspired don't hold up.

We hear a lot of bitching about free will in this place and how it can't possibly coexist with an Omnipotent being somewhere on the loose. Yet, if we consider how an omnipotent being might give us free will, his/her/its method would have to contain elements of doubt and ambiguity. Why would anyone doubt a certain thing, and why would anyone fail to choose a certain thing? Free will can only exist if there are viable choices which lead to different destinations. The perfect method for effecting this kind of doubt and ambiguity would be to leave all information in the hands of humans, generation after generation.