Is the mere existence of the Bible evidence agaisnt Christianity?

[Atheos]

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.

You appear to be talking past me. I wasn't arguing that Bohr's model was based on superior practice. It was you who compared the bible to Bohr's attempt to describe the atom, not me. I simply showed that if you follow that analogy through you see why Bohr's model has (at least partially) held up well over time through experimentation and discovery. By the same token the bible makes some very clear and falsifiable claims about the god it represents exists, and these claims have been falsified. I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. The bible's "god" theory is as irrelevant and disproven as a geocentric universe.

But to take it one step further, Bohr's model was based on observation, unlike the christian bible. The very criteria by which you excuse the writers of the bible for being unable to describe their subject matter is the same criteria that makes them as unqualified to attempt to do so as a bacteria is unqualified to describe the theory of relativity. Yet these people describe many very specific traits they are completely unqualified to describe, which (unlike Bohr) makes each of them a liar. Their god doesn't exist.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But we're not beyond his comprehension.

It doesn't matter. You have an unsubstantiated premise that this god wants us to understand to that degree. Christians seem to carry that bias because they're expected to obey their god, but even if they faithfully recorded every historical event described in the Bible, conveyed every message their god intended to be conveyed to the letter, and engaged with their god to the absolute limit of their ability to do so honestly, a 'triomni' being still has infinite grey area to play with. If you entertain the idea of such an absurd being -- and for the basis of this question, we have to -- it is possible both that the Bible was inspired by God (that is to say the phenomenon the Bible is struggling to deal with) actually exists -- and that the Bible is inaccurate.

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.

I don't follow your reasoning, but I'm also not sure why it matters.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I simply showed that if you follow that analogy through you see why Bohr's model has (at least partially) held up well over time through experimentation and discovery. By the same token the bible makes some very clear and falsifiable claims about the god it represents exists, and these claims have been falsified.

Please read carefully. It is irrelevant. I am not trying to defend the validity of the Christian god which is why I am telling you the validity of Bohr's methods and results are irrelevant.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. The bible's "god" theory is as irrelevant and disproven as a geocentric universe.

It isn't difficult to understand, but it was also NEVER a point of contention.

The very criteria by which you excuse the writers of the bible...

I have never excused the writers of the Bible for anything. I am not defending the Bible or its contents. I am addressing the rationale in the parent post, which I contend does not add up.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It doesn't matter. You have an unsubstantiated premise that this god wants us to understand to that degree. Christians seem to carry that bias because they're expected to obey their god, but even if they faithfully recorded every historical event described in the Bible, conveyed every message their god intended to be conveyed to the letter, and engaged with their god to the absolute limit of their ability to do so honestly, a 'triomni' being still has infinite grey area to play with. If you entertain the idea of such an absurd being -- and for the basis of this question, we have to -- it is possible both that the Bible was inspired by God (that is to say the phenomenon the Bible is struggling to deal with) actually exists -- and that the Bible is inaccurate.

The topic of the thread is the Christian god, not some generic and undefined god-in-general. The Bible makes claims about this god and those claims do not hold up. This means that you can judge the Christian god against the claims being made about him and see that these claims do not hold up. This invalidates the character described in the Bible.

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.

I don't follow your reasoning, but I'm also not sure why it matters.

They're two stories talking about the nature of a god and his interactions with humanity. Both contain equal amounts of factual information about the god portrayed and the nature of the universe he exists in.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The topic of the thread is the Christian god, not some generic and undefined god-in-general. The Bible makes claims about this god and those claims do not hold up. This means that you can judge the Christian god against the claims being made about him and see that these claims do not hold up. This invalidates the character described in the Bible.

And I am not talking about some 'general' god, but you are stuck in a particular paradigm where the Bible defines God rather than God informing the Bible. The former is the way an atheist would look at it, but the question is whether or not this invalidates Christianity and from a Christian perspective God exists prior to the Bible and humans later created the Bible in relation to that god. Such an entity could have both delivered the Ten Commandments and could only give a shit about them on a whim. You're requiring properties of this god which Christianity itself does not seem to require.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The topic of the thread is the Christian god, not some generic and undefined god-in-general. The Bible makes claims about this god and those claims do not hold up. This means that you can judge the Christian god against the claims being made about him and see that these claims do not hold up. This invalidates the character described in the Bible.

And I am not talking about some 'general' god, but you are stuck in a particular paradigm where the Bible defines God rather than God informing the Bible. The former is the way an atheist would look at it, but the question is whether or not this invalidates Christianity and from a Christian perspective God exists prior to the Bible and humans later created the Bible in relation to that god. Such an entity could have both delivered the Ten Commandments and could only give a shit about them on a whim. You're requiring properties of this god which Christianity itself does not seem to require.

But the god you just described isn't the Christian god. It's some other dude. The Christian faith is based on the information in this book. If the information in that book does not tell one about the nature of God, then that's evidence against Christianity, regardless of whether or not it's loosely based on some other god who may or may not share a couple of characteristics with the god of Christianity.

If there's a god out there who delivered the Ten Commandments and then only gives a shit about them on a whim as opposed to deeply caring about their being followed, that's fine. There isn't, however, a religion called Christianity which is based on that god and that god isn't relevant to this discussion. Christianity talks about a specific god with specific characteristics and the Bible itself invalidates the existence of said god. It doesn't invalidate the existence of Thor, Vishnu or whomever it is that you're talking about.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

You'd think it would be easier to get the message out now, in the information age, and not when literacy was a rare thing.

After all, what about all the people who lived for thousands of years before the Bible was written? The explanation given is usually that salvation works retroactively for those who existed before the Bible. That would apply just as well now as it did then, wouldn't it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

After all, what about all the people who lived for thousands of years before the Bible was written? The explanation given is usually that salvation works retroactively for those who existed before the Bible. That would apply just as well now as it did then, wouldn't it?

And, if that's the case, why mention it at all? If you so love the world and the people in it that you're willing to sacrifice your only son (which was apparently a big deal for some reason I've never understood) in order to bring them salvation, why not just STFU and let them all be saved? Even if the dog-and-pony show of Jesus pretending to die was somehow necessary to allow for that salvation, why not have him sacrificed in some isolated little village somewhere and not have anyone ever hear of it?

 

[Angry Floof]

After all, what about all the people who lived for thousands of years before the Bible was written? The explanation given is usually that salvation works retroactively for those who existed before the Bible. That would apply just as well now as it did then, wouldn't it?

And, if that's the case, why mention it at all? If you so love the world and the people in it that you're willing to sacrifice your only son (which was apparently a big deal for some reason I've never understood) in order to bring them salvation, why not just STFU and let them all be saved? Even if the dog-and-pony show of Jesus pretending to die was somehow necessary to allow for that salvation, why not have him sacrificed in some isolated little village somewhere and not have anyone ever hear of it?

Yes. It seems the most humane way to spread Christianity is to not spread it at all.

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
Annie Dillard, "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek"

Well, Eskimo, it's because Christianity is not about salvation or even compassion, but about spreading superstition first and foremost.

 

[Atheos]

Please read carefully. It is irrelevant. I am not trying to defend the validity of the Christian god which is why I am telling you the validity of Bohr's methods and results are irrelevant.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. The bible's "god" theory is as irrelevant and disproven as a geocentric universe.

It isn't difficult to understand, but it was also NEVER a point of contention.

The very criteria by which you excuse the writers of the bible...

I have never excused the writers of the Bible for anything. I am not defending the Bible or its contents. I am addressing the rationale in the parent post, which I contend does not add up.

It is you who said the following:

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...

You're the one who brought up Bohr. Why do bible claims get a pass when it comes to falsification but Bohr doesn't? There are many examples of things that could have rendered Bohr's model completely irrelevant. Are there any examples of things that could have made the bible claims irrelevant? If not then what "same sense" were you talking about when you used Bohr as an analogy?

The rationale in the OP seems to add up to me. The god described in the bible is a self-refuting concept and cannot exist.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You're the one who brought up Bohr. Why do bible claims get a pass when it comes to falsification but Bohr doesn't?

A free pass to what? The point had nothing to do with falsification. It was simply that an individual can be describing a phenomenon inaccurately without negating the existence of the phenomenon being described. The phenomenon exists, but the description is off.

But the god you just described isn't the Christian god. It's some other dude

It isn't. Christians assert certain properties apply to THEIR god. Those properties put that god -- THEIR god -- in a position of unparalleled power and influence whereby even if they are as honest and faithful to THEIR god as humanly possible, the properties of that VERY SAME god are such that it can override anything they wrote. Essentially, their god could have actually literally spoken the Ten Commandments to Moses, and by the properties attributed to that god by Christians could hold no value to upholding those commandments. It is NOT a different god. It's the same character in the same narrative with the only additional line of text required to wrap it together is "and then God laughed and laughed at all the Christians who believed all that nonsense."

Again, you are trying to run it from the framework that unless the god described literally matches what Christians wrote in the Bible it's a different god, but given the attributes Christians themselves associate with their god, that god -- the same one they described -- supersedes their ability to describe "Him". This is a built-in limitation of their faith. Same character in the same narrative.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As far as I am aware, and from every Christian I have ever spoken to, it is claimed in Christianity that God has a message for me, that he wants me to know and understand and obey. Am I wrong about that? If I'm not wrong about that, then the existence of the bible contradicts it.

An all powerful God would not have to rely on the fallibility of the written word, or spoken word, or any regular means of human communication. An all powerful God could simply make us know what he wants us to know. Only if we do, and only if we perfectly understand, would we then have the true ability to obey or not obey. Only with this information can we make an informed choice. Only that would give us true "free will". And only then could he punish or reward us for our obedience. You are not disobeying if you never got the order.

This also makes me wonder if it is possible for an atheist or other non-believer to blaspheme. If you do not believe that the "holy spirit" exists, can you truly speak against it? Or would you just be speaking against a concept? You can say all sorts of nasty things about my mother, for example, but you have never met her and don't know her, so I know you'd not actually be talking about her.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Same character in the same narrative.

I've thought of a simplified scenario.

I say, "Hey Tom Sawyer, look at my new Rolex I bought from this guy on the street. A real Rolex for twenty bucks!"
You look at the watch and say, "It's fake. Even the logo is misspelled."
KrIS, "No, he swore it was real. That's just spelled differently because it's a special edition."
TS, "I can't deal with your nonsense. Just take me to the guy who sold you the watch and we'll sort this out."
KrIS, "I can't. In my story, the guy sold me a real Rolex. You're clearly looking for a guy who sold me a fake Rolex, a person who does not exist."

Would you accept that line of reasoning from me, or would you say my description of the person who sold me the watch was inaccurate? It is possible in that scenario that the very same man I was describing was simply a liar and I was mistaken. That man's existence is not contingent on my accurate description of him, and once we accept that, we can then find the very person I was talking about because real Rolex seller and fake Rolex seller are actually the same character in the same narrative.

Granted, you or I cannot go out and find God, but the original question asks if we have evidence against that God, so entertaining the hypothetical existence of this god is fair game in this context.

 

[Keith&Co.]

krypton iodine sulfur

As a complete aside, i've been wondering about your login ID.
Is that your solution?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I wanted to just use my first name, but it wasn't open, so it's Kris as Kr I S.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A free pass to what? The point had nothing to do with falsification. It was simply that an individual can be describing a phenomenon inaccurately without negating the existence of the phenomenon being described. The phenomenon exists, but the description is off.

But the god you just described isn't the Christian god. It's some other dude

It isn't. Christians assert certain properties apply to THEIR god. Those properties put that god -- THEIR god -- in a position of unparalleled power and influence whereby even if they are as honest and faithful to THEIR god as humanly possible, the properties of that VERY SAME god are such that it can override anything they wrote. Essentially, their god could have actually literally spoken the Ten Commandments to Moses, and by the properties attributed to that god by Christians could hold no value to upholding those commandments. It is NOT a different god. It's the same character in the same narrative with the only additional line of text required to wrap it together is "and then God laughed and laughed at all the Christians who believed all that nonsense."

Again, you are trying to run it from the framework that unless the god described literally matches what Christians wrote in the Bible it's a different god, but given the attributes Christians themselves associate with their god, that god -- the same one they described -- supersedes their ability to describe "Him". This is a built-in limitation of their faith. Same character in the same narrative.

Yes, their god could override everything he wrote, but it's not in the nature of the god that they worship to do something like that. The god that they're worshipping has certain characteristics and the religion is built around those characteristics. If it turns out that this guy is real but has completely different characteristics than the religion of Christianity is centered around, then the religion would be invalidated even though the god of that religion would have been confirmed. That's not a "built-in limitation" of their faith, it's a definition of their faith.

Say, for the sake of argument, that the ten commandments were given to Moses by Loki. Amen-Ra had pissed him off, so he decided to steal a tribe of slaves from the Egyptians to get back at the guy. Then, just for shits and giggles, he picked ten random rules and told Moses he thought these were important and then wandered off and forgot about the Jews. Then, a thousand or so years later, Loki found out that those Jews he'd once met were still around and they'd invented a messiah prophecy, so he pretended to be human and went about fulfilling those prophecies and faked getting executed and then popped back in a few days later. If this were the actual historical record then, even though you have a god being the basis of Christianity, the Christian religion would be invalidated because the god who did it isn't the one they based their religion on.

It's the same with any other god. Christianity asserts that there is a god with characteristics X who wants them to do Y. If X and/or Y are false, then their religion is invalid. A god who changes his mind about what's in the Bible and laughs at the people who believe it is a god without characteristic X.

 

[Perspicuo]

I wanted to just use my first name, but it wasn't open, so it's Kris as Kr I S.

Clever!

 

[migrant]

Yes, the bible refutes the Christian belief in one god, Genesis refers to multiple gods.