Do you speak Hebrew? Specifically, the Hebrew from ~1500 BCE to ~400 BCE? Did you study those scriptures in their original language? (Be very careful with this answer.)
Your, not our, the posters predominantly donât share your subjective unevidenced beliefs.
Without even the pretence of offering any objective evidence yet, not that this comes as any surprise here of course, weâve seen it all too often from visiting apologists.
I do not, and FYI miracles are defined as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, reason enough to disbelieve them, now what have you got beyond this bare unevidenced claim?
Are you a student of the ancient languages of all other religions? Iâm guessing the irony is lost on you, but not on many others here.
I see a claim, I see no evidence for this claim?
More irony, you make a bare claim to know something, and nothing else? Odd how this hubris nearly always breaks from some Billy no name on the internet, and yet nothing on any news channel? Go figureâŚ
I understand there is zero evidence it is anything but human, that it reflects the prejudices and barbaric cruelty of humans of this period, what else have you got?
Another claim, no evidence againâŚho hum.
Nope, I base belief on a demonstration of sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, not on unevidenced claims from archaic supersitions.
Define âbecome a Christianâ? I could never worship the barbarically cruel deity imagined in the bible, if thatâs what you mean. I guess i just have a more empathetic moral worldview.
Good morning, Sheldon.
Thanks for responding to the posts and my response to them. I can tell you are well-read and pretty conversant with the various claims of Christianity. But, itâs also clear that youâve rejected them outright as unprovable or little more than make-believe, mythical or wishful thankful.
As I mentioned in one of my posts, there are a number of scientific findings that prove everything has a cause and is of a complex design. Even Darwin himself agonized over his inability to find out the origin of what caused everythingâwhich led someone to write a book called Darwinâs Doubt.
We must also remember that science and philosophy are inseparably intertwined; thus, itâs our philosophical claims that govern our view of science: for science doesnât say anything; scientists do: and if one is predisposed to believe there is no God, then he/she will continually seeks ways to prove his/her beliefs even in the face of irrefutable, scientific evidence (e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, cosmic background radiation, our ever-expanding universe, Einsteinâs Theory of General Relativity, etc.).
As you probably already know, Isaac Newton even marveled at the design of the solar system and wrote, âThis most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and Powerful Being.â And, it was William Paley who used the watchmaker illustration to show that a complex, intricately designed watch had to have a makerâwhich points to the fact that there had to be a Designer for everything that exists: for none of this happened by accident or coincidence. The scientific evidence is there for anyone who chooses to look at it in an unbiased way.
There are so many âconstantsâ here on earth alone that also declare a Creator or Designer: the oxygen level here on earth, atmospheric transparency, the moon-earth gravitational interaction, the carbon dioxide level, gravity, etc. If any of these were any greater or lesser than they are, there would be no life here on earth.
So, it basically comes down to good science and bad science. And those who are honestly seeking Truth will soon discover that the Biblical depiction of God and Creation is the only one that makes any sense.
Even as a young boy, abandoned by my biological parents and then adopted into a dysfunctional, POW-like home where we were constantly beaten physically, browbeaten, shamed, emotionally blackmailed, etc., I longed to know that someone somewhere loved me. And, that began this long Journey of Faith which continues until today: because, for the first time, when I was around seven-years-old, I heard about Jesusâand what Heâd doneâI took Him at His Word, believed that He loved me and would never leave me. And, THATâs whatâs made all the difference.
So, again, if we lay aside all of our objections and approach all of this with simple, childlike Faith, then weâll soon realize that EVERYTHING in creation attests to our Creatorâs infinite Design and Love. Thatâs why Jesus said âAsk and youâll receive; seek and youâll find; knock and the door will be opened unto you.â
Hope this helps.
You can choose between these answers:
- It was chosen at random.
- It was meant to be funny.
- It was meant as a provocation.
- It was meant to be ironic and sarcastic.
- My reasons for choosing this name are mine and mine alone.
- I donât remember why I chose that name.
One or more of them is/are true.
No, we must not. Historical documents must be viewed critically, and examined for agendas, bias, false reporting, falsifications, et cetera, and they must be cross checked against independent sources. Take e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In short, it takes the appearance of a report from a series of meetings held at the time of the first Zionist congress in Switzerland in 1897[1], in which
[ĚŁĚŁĚŁĚŁâŚ] Jews and Freemasons were said to have made plans to disrupt Christian civilization and erect a world state under their joint rule. Liberalism and socialism were to be the means of subverting Christendom; if subversion failed, all the capitals of Europe were to be sabotaged.
(quote from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion)
If we are to take this document âin good faithâ, one would be led to believe that there is a massive conspiracy by jews and freemasons to more or less take over the world. However, examining the document more closely and critically, and cross-checking with other sources, one will discover that it is a hoax meant to build up under resentment against jews and freemasons. Thus, the âgood faithâ approach does not work.
In the same way as one must approach documents such as the Protocols with caution, any historian worth his/her salt would approach his/her sources with the same caution, and not accept their content without cross checking with other sources.
To read more about falsifying history, read e.g. the book Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by historian Richard J. Evans. Here, the author takes on the case of showing that historical revisionist David Irving manipulated the documentary record of the Holocaust and the Third Reich with the intent of promoting counterfactual history, and gives a tour de force of illuminating the difference between responsible and irresponsible historical research, and explains for the layperson how historical research is really done.
TL;DR: Real historians do not take documents âin good faithâ. They check, cross check, and check even omre before they conclude. Your idea that we should âbelieve those writings âin good faithâ that the one writing them as accurately recording them during the time he/she wrote themâ is in the best case naive, and disregards totally that there may be an agenda (even destructive ones) behind any historical text. Historical texts should therefore be approached with caution.
No, that would be to approach it with confirmation bias. Instead, we must examine all sources, check their credibility, weight them against each other, and reach a balanced conclusion that is factually supported by the evidence. If you only look for and use sources that support your wanted conclusion, while discarding those that do not support it, you are arriving at a fallacious conclusion that is not supported by your sources.
First, you have to show that they are actual eyewitness accounts. Other commenters have elaborated on this in more detail, so I wonât go further into it here.
Yes, please let us look at âjust the facts, Maâam, just the facts.â Let us start with the examination of a few claimed âfactsâ:
- What concrete empirical evidence is there that a god exists, or is even possible?
- What concrete historical evidence is there that the miracles described in the bible actually happened?
- What concrete empirical evidence is there that the miracles such as those described in the bible could have happened, or that miracles are even possible?
- What concrete evidence is there that a woman can be impregnated by a god, and bring forth a demigod?
The second law of thermodynamics is fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented by proponents of biblical creation. As you are doing here. Further, the second law of thermodynamics does not suggest or imply a design argument. The fact that you (or any other proponents of design by a supernatural god-being) obviously do not understand the second law of thermodynamics â or physics and science in general â and cannot comprehend the scientific explanation, is just an argument from incredulity. In other words, a fallacy.
at first I wrote 1987, that was a typo âŠď¸
1 Like
Good morning, CyberLN.
When I said we need to be âa student of the Hebrew Scriptures,â I was referring to what we often call the Old Testament. I have a good, Jewish friend who cringes when I call it the O.T.; so, out of respect for him, I call it the Hebrew Scriptures.
In answer to your question, no, I donât speak Hebrew; but, I studied O.T. Hebrew for 1 1/2 years and found it fascinating. Thus, when I read the O.T. Scriptures (and the stories within them) I always try to read them in their context, when they were reading and why, etc. By looking at the various Hebrew words (their etymology, various meanings, etc.), it helps me to see things to their eyes. It also helps me when I come to the New Testament (N.T.) and read the Gospel accounts, the Epistles, the Revelation, etc.
So, suffice it to say, even though I donât speak Hebrew, Iâm well-acquainted with it with regards to grammatical syntax, intent, etc., why it was written, to whom, etc.
Hope this helps.
You really must be more careful about your choice of words, JC.
Scientific findings (i.e., evidence) do not prove that everything has a cause and is of a complex design. Nothing in the empirical sciences ever uses proofs. As I mentioned earlier, proofs are restricted to logic and to mathematics.
Math is the only branch of the sciences that uses proofs. Thatâs because it deals only in abstract concepts that have absolute values. Every other branch of science uses evidence and where there is evidence there is always the possibly of fresh evidence that can overturn a previously held scientific paradigm.
That is why you are also wrong to use the words irrefutable scientific evidence. In science, only mathematical proofs are irrefutable. In every other branch of the sciences observations, data and evidence are NOT absolute and irrefutable. That is why a given scientific theory can be discarded on the basis of fresh evidence or new data.
Please check these links out. They will help you understand where you are going wrong.
Common Misconceptions About Science I: âScientific Proofâ | Psychology Today United Kingdom
Thereâs No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - Thereâs Only Evidence
Science doesnât prove anything, and thatâs a good thing | The Logic of Science
Whereâs the proof in science? There is none
Thank you,
Walter.
Your points are well-taken and itâs difficult to not let words get in the way of communicating Truth. I just know thereâs enough DNA information within a single-cell amoeba to fill 1,000 encyclopedias (according to those whoâve studied them). I can only take them at their word âby faith.â 
What you have presented here JC is the argument from Design for an intelligent Creator.
But making this argument doesnât get you to where you need to go. For that you use faith. So, you are, in fact, present a two stage argument. The first stage consists of facts and evidence about the universe and the second stage is your personal choice as to the identity of the creator and intelligent designer.
But personal preference doesnât make a convincing argument or even a good one. Your two stage argument is fatally flawed and I will now show you how and why.
Klinghoffer uses exactly the same evidence and data a Christian would to argue for the existence of an intelligently designing creator. But the name of this creator isnât Jesus. Itâs Yahweh, the god of the Jews.
And here is a site that uses the same argument and same evidence to argue for an intelligently designing creator called Allah.
You see the problem? Anyone can use this argument and this evidence to argue for their personal choice of intelligently designing creator. Any god will do.
So, your two-stage argument fails at the point that you attempt to put a name and an identity to the intelligent designer. Anyone can do that because this argument does not and cannot identify who the creator is.
What happens is that people of different religions slot their personal choice of god in at the end of the argument, claiming that the evidence points to Jesus. Or Yahweh. Or Allah. Or whoever.
Therefore, this argument fails because all it does is level the playing field. It doesnât and canât identify who this intelligently designing creator is.
Do you now see how this argument fails in its mission, JC?
An argument that cannot identify which god out of all the candidates is the true creator is no argument at all.
Thank you,
Walter.
I would only say though that when the data is solid enough and the evidence overwhelmingly extensive enough, they are only technically, in theory, refutable. For practical purposes, for example, any accepted scientific theory (theory used here in the scientific sense) has progressed from one or more hypotheses through rigorous testing, attempts at invalidation, etc. to such an extent that no âprovenâ scientific theory since modern scientific method was established has ever been discarded and overturned (though some have been refined a bit â for example, Newtonian physics is still perfectly adequate for most âeverydayâ purposes and quantum has supplanted it only for very large or small scales / edge cases).
So although science cannot speak to moral / ethical questions (e.g., it tells us HOW to build nuclear weapons, but not whether we SHOULD or when to [not] use them), and although it cannot prove negatives or establish even positive assertions absolutely beyond the slightest doubt or question, it is still by far and away the best way we have to minimize the âdaylightâ between empirical reality and our understand of same.
My objection to religious faith is that it does not tend to lead toward accuracy like science; it leads, in fact, ultimately away from it.
@JustCurious has said that scientists are guilty of bias against religious faith but the reality is the opposite: the religious are biased against science to whatever extent they cannot or are unwilling to harmonize their beliefs with science. On the other hand science isnât bound by religious assumptions or preconceptions and this has lead scientists to either compartmentalize their religious beliefs, or to discard them. Whichever way they go, it doesnât change facts, experimental results, or empirical observations or their implications.
I guess what it ends up boiling down to is which âmagesteriaâ yields to the other in those cases where they do not agree â or whether one stakes a claim that science and religion are ânon-overlapping magesteriaâ, a claim that I cannot endorse.
The only religious leader Iâm aware of who has publicly yielded to science (or at least said his belief system must yield to science) where there is conflict, is the Dalai Lama. And he does not have an authoritarian system of Divine Command Theory to defend. In fact the founder of Buddhism said not to believe things just because he said them, a humble stance that not even Jesus can be credited with.
1 Like
But who âdesignedâ the DNA, JC?
Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or some other god?
As Iâve just shown, you arenât making an argument that can identify who this intelligently designing creator is.
Youâre making the argument and then adding your personal preference of god on at the end.
And Iâm not persuaded by your personal preferences.
Can you do better and present any evidence that actually identifies who this intelligent designer is?
Outside of the Bible, that is.
Thank you,
Walter.
Again, Walter, your points are well-taken and succinctly presented. From a logical, reasonable standpoint, your statements definitely articulate the subjective dilemma one faces when arguing âforâ God, His Existence, etc. And, as you know, real Truth isnât subjective or multiple choice where one defines it simply because âI believe it.â
That being said, if (for sake of argument) we would agree that there was a First Cause of everythingâand thereâs unmistakable Design and Irreducible Complexity in everything (even the single-cell amoebaâthen our challenge is finding out whose âgodâ is the real one in light of the evidence.
And, thatâs where the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments come into play. Likewise, when we describe Who God is and what He is like, we must conclude that He is perfect, all-powerful and all-knowing; otherwise, He wouldnât be God.
That being said, when you look at the three religions which are monotheistic and trace their heritage back to Abraham, we realize thereâs a difference in their view of God (e.g., Yahweh, God as revealed in Jesus, Allah). And, as you know, Allah is definitely not the same as the Biblical teaching of God as Creator-Designer-Sustainer of all that is. Likewise, Jews and Christians find common ground in the God of Abraham, but refuse to believe that He could/would reveal Himself as "God in fleshâ in the person of Jesus.
But, I can say as âa satisfied customerâ and life-long seeker, that the New Testament record of Who Jesus was/is, what He came to do/did (including the Resurrection), etc., are what gives life meaning and purpose. Apart from Him, life here on earth is a meaningless, purposeless existence, lived without hope. But, thankfully, it is my Faith in Him that enables me to get up in the morning and say âGood morning, Lordâ instead of âGood Lord! Another morning!!â
Thatâs why, as I said earlier in another post, we must come to âall the aboveâ with simple, childlike Faith; otherwise, weâll spend all of our time here on earth in âmuch to do about nothingâ and end up like the Epicureans, who said âEat, drink and be merry: for tomorrow you die.â
So, are you asserting that your acquaintance with ancient Hebrew provides the ability to definitely translate or interpret it? And what, exactly are you calling the OT scriptures?
Since none of the texts contained in what is considered the OT, what methodology did you employ to arrive at the determination that any prophecies existing in todayâs biblical scriptures should be considered accurate to an original?
Walter, just for the record, I didnât say scientists are guilty of bias against religious faith: for, in reality, there have been many scientists who attributed their knowledge and discoveries to God (e.g., Dr. George Washington Carver). So, it basically comes down to oneâs philosophical mindset when examining scientific evidence: for itâs like the Russian cosmonaut, who went out into outer space early on in space exploration and said âI didnât see God anywhereââas opposed to Jim Irwin, one of the few men who walked on the moon and went there as an agnostic. As he stood there, âable to hold the earth as a blue marble in the palm of my hand,â he said, âI realized the moon wasnât enoughâ and ended up coming back to earth, becoming a Christian and evangelist who formed âHigh Flightââwhose motto is âManâs walking on the moon canât compare to Godâs walking on the earth.â
This claim that people ârefuseâ to âbelieveâ has always struck me as a complete failure to understand what belief actually is. Belief is a response to what one knows / what evidence one possesses. It is not a function of âdecidingâ to believe or assenting to a belief, as those are oxymorons. Nor is it rejecting something self-evidently true out of some form of oppositional/defiant or rebellious behavior.
In the context of Judaism it is also a subtle form of anti-semitism IMO as it plays into the stereotype of Jews as Christ-killers and commiters of regicide, which has often served as the basis for anti-Jewish pogroms. Not that this is your personal intent â but you are walking on pretty thin ice even if you donât realize it.
And such a view is no less onerous or otherizing to unbelievers of other stripes. We believe for well-considered reasons that are good and sufficient to us and often central to our own personal integrity. If you want us to afford you respect and space for your beliefs then you need to return the favor by avoiding leading word choices like ârefuse to believeâ.
Sure you can, and that is your right. You stated elsewhere that you experienced an abusive and un-affirming childhood and I have observed during my long life that such folks often seek out religion to experience the belonging, structure, certitude and stability that they find lacking in their formative years. And this is actually a pretty understandable and arguably even rational response to personal need. I applaud you for being transparent and open about that.
But also do not assume that others have similar needs, or as is often asserted, some form of âgod shaped holeâ that they need to âfillâ. I had a stable, secure, unconditionally loving childhood that had everything to do with my parentâs actual feelings toward me and commitment to me and their personal integrity â in spite of, rather than because, of their religious beliefs. So religion doesnât have anything to offer me that I donât already have except the more general promise that it would help me to transcend the human condition. And it utterly failed in that regard, so I moved on to something that produces far less cognitive dissonance â to embrace reality as it is rather than as I wish it to be.
Well thanks for telling me how meaningless, purposeless and hopeless my existence is; without you I would never have known it! Or that the purpose and meaning I have found or made for myself is null and void and I need to adopt yours.
Sometimes I wish you folks could HEAR yourselves. But alas âŚ
1 Like
When I say O.T. or Hebrew Scriptures, Iâm referring to the Jewish TaNaK, which goes from Genesis to Malachi (39 books). And, within those various books there are 300+ prophecies about one who would the âanointed-and-appointed, Promised Deliverer sent from God,â which we call the Messiah or Christ. Orthodox Jews are still looking for his first coming, while Christians are looking for His Second Coming as He promised (John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-10).
If all you look at is Isaiah 53, youâll quickly realize this accurately describes Jesusâ Birth, Life and Death on the Cross. The same is true when you read passages like Zechariah 9:9, 11:16, 12:10 and 13:6, along with Micah 5:2: for these prophecies were definitely fulfilled in Jesusâ Life.
I appreciate your honest candor, Mordant, and am thankful you had a good homelife while growing up. But, religion had nothing to do with changing my lifeâfor thatâs a manmade system of âseeking after God,â while true Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. I could tell you many, many stories of how He helped me in some very difficult situations: especially when I struggled with depression, panic attacks, mood swings and even suicidal ideations even as a Christian.
As someone said, âChristians arenât perfect; weâre simply forgiven.â
That chorus of laughter you hear is Jewish scholars chortling at the risible and arrogant nonsense of retconning passages (some of which arenât even attempted prophecies) to âpredictâ Jesus as Messiah. Some of those passages are even misquoted in the NT. But I digress.
What I will just say is that the gospels evolved to match developing proto-orthodox views and the need of nascent Christianity to piggy-back off the more ancient Jewish religion for various reasons. Consequently, Jewish scriptures were appropriated and misconstrued to fit the need of the moment.
I vividly recall an itinerant Christian teacher who was an excellent chalk artist who would illustrate their teachings on Biblical prophecy. I was maybe six or seven years old but I remember them quoting the Revelation where a plague of locusts âwith hair like the hair of womenâ came and she said this was âobviouslyâ the contrails of fighter jets and the resulting mayhem âclearlyâ in light of modern tech was the aftermath of those fighters delivering nuclear payloads.
In the years since I have heard a half-dozen completely incompatible âobviousâ âself evidentâ take aways from the exact same passage by teachers from the exact same sect.
This is how prophecy works. It is symbolic and vague and can even have multiple and/or partial interpretations and âfulfillmentsâ. This should tell you all you need to know about âprophecyâ.
Even my teachers admitted that prophecy was âmore forth-telling than fore-tellingâ and we were taught that the âfulfillmentâ was never clear to the original audience but only âin retrospectâ to people living at or near the time of the fulfillment!
As could I. Donât forget â I was once as you are. When youâre operating from the assumption that you canât help yourself and are nothing without god, everything becomes miraculous intervention.
Weirdly, after leaving that realm, the miracles (and at times non-miracles) just continued. I simply had better explanations for them.
So, I have a question for you, Mordant: whatâs your beliefs on why youâre here, what happens to you when you die, etc.? As I said, if thereâs no God, then weâre here by âchanceâ and life is little more than getting a little pleasure here-and-there and enjoying it while you can: because, âwhen youâre dead, youâre dead.â Penny for your thoughts.
I think âwhyâ is the wrong question. Iâm simply here. The question is what do I do with that.
I find things that are meaningful to me, and I do them.
I think it most likely that death is the end of me, as me â and no more relevant than where âI wasâ before I was born. If thereâs an afterlife then Iâll be obliged to deal with it the same as this life, but thereâs no evidence in its favor and quite a lot against it.
My life is a lot more than pleasure-seeking. My wife told me just last night that she feels secure and happy with me. My client is content to give me money to do something I love and would not charge them for if I didnât need money. Iâm able to both emotionally and financially provide for my disabled stepson, who I love as my own. I have many structural advantages in life (e.g. white, cis-het, middle class, upwardly mobile, male, decent health, can fit in to the prevailing social fabric without real effort) for which I am grateful, even if not to a specific person. I look forward to each and every day despite the usual challenges and setbacks.
But I also am not obligated to justify my existence or its worthiness to anyone else. Iâm doing it as a courtesy, to suggest that not everyoneâs life is a sucking void looking for something with which to fill it. That not everyone who has a different framing for their engagement with reality from yours has an inferior life or is destined to choke and burn and scream forever because of differing beliefs. Or would want to serve a despot who would make such vile threats.
1 Like