Who Wrote the Bible?

[hyperborean]

I do wish many of the Christians on the forum take a look at this documentary by a Christian theologian. Afterwards you'll realize that the book shouldn't be taken completely literally because of it's messy background. There is a good Christian message in this film so don't immediately accuse it as pro-athiest.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

[Triskele]

i have never taken the bible literally, i am agnostic, but recognize various social truths inherant in the bible.

[Marcus]

That's OK. You aren't supposed to. Mythology such as we see in many of the ancient texts of the world is important in order to explain the unexplainable, so to speak. The Scriptures, depending on which ones you are talking about, have had many hands in their completion, through initial composition, editing, revision and interpretation, so there is no one person to take full credit. And the Mythology of the Ancient Near East can be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures quite clearly. Remember, they were written by humans, and humans can only use what they have. Tales of heroic adventure, of men confronting the gods, of disasters and floods and all those exciting things can be seen throughout the literature of the ANE. It's on stone tablets, but it's there.
Marcus

[Redzeppelin]

That's OK. You aren't supposed to.

Says who?


Mythology such as we see in many of the ancient texts of the world is important in order to explain the unexplainable, so to speak. The Scriptures, depending on which ones you are talking about, have had many hands in their completion, through initial composition, editing, revision and interpretation, so there is no one person to take full credit. And the Mythology of the Ancient Near East can be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures quite clearly. Remember, they were written by humans, and humans can only use what they have. Tales of heroic adventure, of men confronting the gods, of disasters and floods and all those exciting things can be seen throughout the literature of the ANE. It's on stone tablets, but it's there.
Marcus

Everything you gentlemen have said is correct, true and reasonable - assuming that the Bible was created by human beings as a manifestation of their beliefs, ideas, etc. However: if we accept the premise that the Bible is what it says it is - the revelation of God's character, inspired by God - then much of this becomes merely academic speculation. I do not believe you can subject a holy text - the transcendant word of God - to scholarly criticism like a humanly created/inspired book. Once again, like the arguments about objective morality and creation - unless you accept that God is real and Who He says He is, then everything connected to Him (Bible, creation, objective morality, etc) becomes silly and subject to dismantling by secular critics. I understand I've just opened myself up to various degrees of hostility - but I think it odd that we parse up a book with little details like scribal errors, text inconsistencies, original vs. copies, blah blah blah - but we ignore what it says.

In terms of the "mythology" comment: the Bible (unlike mythology) references actual historical events. If you compare mythologies from around the world, you will see a clear difference between those stories and those in the Bible. There are clear differences. The situations may bear some similarities, but the characters are vastly different, as is the idea of who God is.

[hyperborean]

You probably didn't watch the documentary because you either don't have the time or you don't think it's worth your time.

The bible is a messy piece of literature and you speak of it as if the writers were the holiest of men and the historical facts are real. Do you understand how big of an influence politics had on the contents presented in todays bible? From hebrew to latin to english...from the removal of the book of mary ...to paul's propaganda presenting jesus as "a jewish savior" in order to convert jews into christianity... Constantine's filtering of what should be in the book. The list goes on and on.

Governments edited the bible to fit their standards so it's easier to run their nation. It's very similar to how ancient Greece used mythology to keep everyone on the same page. I wouldn't consider the bulk of the writers "inspired by God".

[ennison]

'Governments edited the bible ' ?????

[Redzeppelin]

You probably didn't watch the documentary because you either don't have the time or you don't think it's worth your time.

You have no idea what my education is and what I've spent time studying. I've done plenty of reading on this subject. You imply that if I had read said documentary that my mind would be changed? You're kidding, right?


The bible is a messy piece of literature and you speak of it as if the writers were the holiest of men and the historical facts are real.

I said nothing about "holiest of men" - I said the writers were inspired by God; the Bible references actual historical figures, times and events.


Do you understand how big of an influence politics had on the contents presented in todays bible? From hebrew to latin to english...from the removal of the book of mary ...to paul's propaganda presenting jesus as "a jewish savior" in order to convert jews into christianity... Constantine's filtering of what should be in the book. The list goes on and on.

Governments edited the bible to fit their standards so it's easier to run their nation. It's very similar to how ancient Greece used mythology to keep everyone on the same page.

As my last post said: I've heard all this stuff before and it's only convincing if you don't believe in God. If God isn't real, then the Bible is nothing but fairy tales, translation errors, yadda, yadda, yadda. But: if God is real, don't you think He who is described as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent is capable of inspiring/creating a book to guide His followers with? And, that if He is capable of doing so, then He's also capable of making sure that - despite all the obstacles that you mention - that He still gets into print the vital information that the believer needs? These discussions over translations, copyist errors, political censoring, suppression of certain books and all that, seem to infer that God helplessly watches His Holy Word get sliced, censored and suppressed. Ridiculous. He who created the universe is perfectly capable of protecting His Word and making sure that - no matter what obstacles are placed in the way - what it ultimately contains is true and vital.


I wouldn't consider the bulk of the writers "inspired by God".

Hence your misguided opinion on the veracity of the Bible.

[hyperborean]

Sorry for questioning your knowledge, zeppelin. Just wanted to make sure you knew how messy the bible is, because your comments on this forum would never hint at it.

You rapped it up pretty well, but you have to admit that there are Christians that are completely unaware of the bible's background.

[Marcus]

Just because we have no real historical basis for much of the Bible's events, and we don't, it still is a very valuable book and yes, Red, it IS the inspired word of God. But that word was handed down to humans who were limited in language at best, and could only put that which was so profound,so powerful, and so amazing into stories that everyone could understand.

[Marcus]

I don't know what happened there. But getting back to my point, the fact that we are human means that we need to plod along through our academic exegesis and redaction in order to understand what it says, because, again, in our limited human state, that's all we have to work with.
But don't believe for a minute that after all the academics are done, and the books and critiques are all put away, that the real seekers of truth don't simply lift their eyes to Heaven and Praise Him who is unknowable and unexplainable, but totally accessible How many times did you have a brilliant revelation which you wished to share, and when you attempted to do so, no-one could understand it? So it probably was with the writers of scripture, and most definitely with the Prophets who most of the time said things that no-one wanted to hear. Keep the dialogue going, and I will certainly neutralize any hostility that might evolve from outside sources. Everyone has a piece to the puzzle. Getting together to complete it is called community.
Shalom,
Marcus

[Thorwench]

I am with Hyperborean here (although I didn't watch the documentary) and I can see nothing wrong in looking at the Bible in its historical, political and indeed translatory context. We not only have translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin but also into any other modern language conducted by different people in different times. Of course this will have an influence. Language develops and every translation is also an interpretation. It can be weaker or stronger than the original.
I also find it odd that meaning should entirely depend on belief or faith. I personally don't belief in God but I find the Bible quite interesting, helpful and (sometimes) even inspiring because it contains a lot of truth that are worth to be internalised even if you do not happen to be a Christian. This not only applies to the Bible. I don't belief in the existence of the Greek gods either but there is a hell of a lot of knowledge and understanding to be gained from Greek mythology. However, what I don't understand (perhaps someone can explain) is this reluctance or aversion to scrutinise the basics of one's belief, faith or convictions. If faith is strong enough wouldn't it hold up to any form of scrutiny? Do I not have to look at my faith critically in order to find out where I unwittingly intermingle faith with prejudice or subjective or even instrumentalised interpretation? ( which, in essence, can be seen as Luther's original conflict) Even if a person decides to take something literally interpretation creeps in through the backdoor: some things seem more important than others, is God more wrathful or punishing than saving ? etc.

[miss tenderness]

Who wrote the Bible?

interesting...

According to Islam, the Bible was God's words revealed for Jesus,pbuh,.It was purely God's words. But then with the passing of years and through the history ,a lot of additions were added by people and mixed with God's words.
I have a question and wish someone to answer me,please..

Do Christians differntiate between God's words and human writings in the Bible?I mean how can they tell the difference?
Do they consider the additions of people in the Bilbe as holy as God's words?

thanks alot:)

[Thorwench]

As far as I know the earliest Gospel is Mark's (66-74 AD or shortly thereafter), Luke around 80 AD and Matthew around 85 AD (difficult to say of course). Not much is known of the author of the forth Gospel but it is believed that it was written around 100 AD near Ephesus. It is quite clear that the authors give their accounts, it is their words and tellings intermingled with bits and pieces apparently said by Jesus. Old testament is older of course and contains the Ten Commandmends (considered to have come directly from God) and accounts given by the prophets. Revelation (Apocalypse) is believed to have been written 94/95 AD in Patmos.

[ennison]

'Do Christians differntiate between God's words and human writings in the Bible?I mean how can they tell the difference?
Do they consider the additions of people in the Bilbe as holy as God's words?'

Reformers removed what they believed were apocryphal texts but these can still be found in some traditions. Whether there is scope for further removal or addition I am not in a position to say. It is unlikely that any whole books could be found now which are either merely human accretions or are hitherto undiscovered texts. However as varied translators and theologians are constantly discovering there are problematic bits within some of the books. I myself have a problem with the beginning and end of the Book of Job - but this may just be me. I am not a Biblolator and believe that God is too big to be revealed only through this anthology of texts. Nonetheless it is the only text that I read daily. I hope this comment is of a little general help to you.

[Thorwench]

Hi Ennison, this reminds me: Our new bible which my kids received at their christening does not contain the apocryphal texts (i.e. Judith etc.) whereas my old Luther Bible of 1933 does. There are also differences in English Bibles (James I. Bible etc.) and if I need translations of psalms etc. I always go through the best known versions in order to find the ones which seem most appropriate and are as closest to Luther's language style (which, of all German translations, is still the most popular).

[Matrim Cuathon]

yeah, thats part of it that zeppelin cant explain away, if god's bible is so perfect
how can there be so many copies? many different ones exist, so which one is the real one? how do you know that the one you believe in is the uncorrupted copy? or that the things removed were not the right things and that they still exist because god intervened to keep them alive even though the masses think they are heretical?

[Whifflingpin]

According to Islam, the Bible was God's words revealed for Jesus,pbuh,.It was purely God's words. But then with the passing of years and through the history ,a lot of additions were added by people and mixed with God's words.

Do Christians differntiate between God's words and human writings in the Bible?I mean how can they tell the difference?
Do they consider the additions of people in the Bilbe as holy as God's words?


Christians do not accept what you state to be the Islamic view of the Bible.

Read Redzeppelin's posts carefully for one Christian view - I think he is stating that the whole Bible is the uncorrupted word of God, but that the Old Testament must be understood in the light of the New Testament. He is, at any rate, as certain of the divine origin and holiness of the whole Bible as any Moslem may be about the divine origin and holines of the Koran.

At the other extreme there are Christians who believe that the Bible is a collection of writings that express the views, memories, beliefs etc., of more or less inspired humans, writing over a long period of history. Those people were writing for many different purposes, stating the truth as they understood it and as served their need at the time. Collectively the writings define Christian belief and provide sufficient material for anyone who wishes to know God. In such a view, some of the scriptures are more important or true than others - for example, the Gospels are the most important, and maybe the Song of Solomon the least important.

[Whifflingpin]

"or that the things removed were not the right things and that they still exist because god intervened to keep them alive even though the masses think they are heretical?"

Doh! The Old Testament apocryphal writings were those which, in Jesus' lifetime, were used (in addition to the rest of the Hebrew scriptures) by the Jews outside of Judaea - more particularly the Jewish community of Alexandria.

Those writings are not considered heretical by any mainstream Christian denominations.

They were generally left out of Protestant editions of the Bible because, as Jesus, a Jew of Judaea, did not need them, they are not "necessary."

They are generally included in Roman Catholic editions, because they may be "useful." The history books in the apocrypha, for instance, fill in some of the gap between the time of Ezra/Nehemiah and the time of Christ.

As far as the New Testament goes, there are no significant differences between any of the (Greek) texts used and accepted throughout Christendom. If there may be texts with minor differences, this only serves to point to one great truth - that you will not find God by quibbling over mis-punctuation.

[ennison]

As normal human adults we make distinctions between good and better, between the real and the counterfeit that only seems real. That's part of what it is to be human Matrim as I'm sure you'll agree so I don't see what is hugely significant in your first couple of questions. There are bits of the Bible as of any large anthology that are more significant than other bits. There are bits that only a few individuals can see any obvious spiritual bias in. There are parts that retell the same OT story from a slightly different point of view. There are bits that no one who finds The Bible inspiring would want to be without. Your final question is more interesting Matrim and I have sometimes puzzled over a variation on that myself but Whifflingpin's answer seems straightforward to me. Truthfully my daily life does not require me to be able to answer everything and when I consider the inexplicability of many thingsthat happen to me I am not too phased by the few things that leave me puzzled in the survival of and variations in The Bible

[botkin]

There's always the neo-orthodox approach to Scripture that states that what is most important is not if every exact single detail is historically correct (since the ultimate, the greatest, the most holy revelation of God to humanity is not the Bible, but Christ Himself), and that in reading it what one should look for is not only what the words printed in the paper mean (they are extremely important) but also the experience of communion with the divine. The case has been made for the view that sees the Bible as containing God's message, despite the messy human factor inherent to having been written (even under inspiration) by human beings, and when one reads Scripture it becomes, for that person, the Word of God- the power is not in the words and books written in themselves, but in the individual, spiritual reading of them. Rather than focusing, as fundamentalists do, on the absolute inerrancy, or as unbelievers do, looking at it as dry, empty myth, one could see the reading of it as the opening of a window in which contact with the Divine can be made through the proverbial "leap of faith".

But this is, of course, just as with any other way of looking at Scripture, mostly speculation.

[Thorwench]

Rather than focusing, as fundamentalists do, on the absolute inerrancy, or as unbelievers do, looking at it as dry, empty myth...

I do have problems with the view that non-believers necessarily look on religious texts (such as the Bible, Qumran etc.) as "dry, empty myth". You do not have to believe in something in order to value it. Where I come from, more than 2 thirds of the population are non-believers but the majority of them would assign value (including moral value) to the Bible, for instance. I always thought that it is exactly this that makes this kind of literature so great and universal. Beyond its spiritual meaning, it carries moral messages to the faithful and the faithless alike and even unbelievers regard most of the Bible's teachings as having great authority. We may disagree on who was the author but we certainly don't disagree on its general meaning and importance.
If belief would be a precondition of value any myth, legend, fairy tale would cease to have any value as soon as people stopped to believe in Zeus, dragons or magic.

[botkin]

I'm sorry, hehe. I've just been reading too much Dawkins/ Dawkinesque writers, and was referring to them, to the zealous, sneering kind of skeptic, not the one that sees the moral and aesthetic value in religious writ while still maintaining unbelief.

But thank you for pointing that out :)

[PXR5]

But: if God is real, don't you think He who is described as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent is capable of inspiring/creating a book to guide His followers with? And, that if He is capable of doing so, then He's also capable of making sure that - despite all the obstacles that you mention - that He still gets into print the vital information that the believer needs? These discussions over translations, copyist errors, political censoring, suppression of certain books and all that, seem to infer that God helplessly watches His Holy Word get sliced, censored and suppressed. Ridiculous. He who created the universe is perfectly capable of protecting His Word and making sure that - no matter what obstacles are placed in the way - what it ultimately contains is true and vital.

God does not experience the world in the same chronologic way us mere humans do. God is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, God sit's at the hub of a metaphorical wheel observing all things simultaniously. God has given us free will, we can do as we wish, including rewriting the Bible for our own fickle gain.

[hyperborean]

God does not experience the world in the same chronologic way us mere humans do. God is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, God sit's at the hub of a metaphorical wheel observing all things simultaniously. God has given us free will, we can do as we wish, including rewriting the Bible for our own fickle gain.

Perfectly put. :thumbs_up

[Wintermute]

God does not experience the world in the same chronologic way us mere humans do. God is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, God sit's at the hub of a metaphorical wheel observing all things simultaniously. God has given us free will, we can do as we wish, including rewriting the Bible for our own fickle gain.

Which God?

[PXR5]

errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm,

the one the Bible harps on about!

[Wintermute]

errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm,

the one the Bible harps on about!

Oh, ok. With so many out there its difficult for an agnostic to keep up. Thanks.

[Matrim Cuathon]

I'm sorry, hehe. I've just been reading too much Dawkins/ Dawkinesque writers, and was referring to them, to the zealous, sneering kind of skeptic, not the one that sees the moral and aesthetic value in religious writ while still maintaining unbelief.

But thank you for pointing that out :)

the bible is pointless morally. there are hundreds of equally good systems. some of the things in the bible are not moral at all. moral value is valueless in making the bible a great work of literature. certainly religious writ has aesthetic and moral value, but so do things not associate with religion at all. lots of paganism is in fact more moral because it doesnt condemn other religions. its typically the large monotheisms that attack other belief systems.

[West]

Never mind :) I wanted to participate but changed my mind.

[Redzeppelin]

yeah, thats part of it that zeppelin cant explain away, if god's bible is so perfect
how can there be so many copies? many different ones exist, so which one is the real one? how do you know that the one you believe in is the uncorrupted copy? or that the things removed were not the right things and that they still exist because god intervened to keep them alive even though the masses think they are heretical?

Scholars have methods for determining textual reliability. I quoted this in another thread - here:

Homer's Illiad is considered to have the greatest manuscript authority next to the New Testament; Homer wrote the Illiad around 900 BC and the oldest copy is from 400 BC - a 500 year span. The total number of manuscripts is 643 and the readings agree 95% of the time.

In contrast, there are approximately 5300 original language manuscripts of New Testament writings spanning 50 years - AD 70 to AD 120. These documents agree with each other 99.5% of the time in terms of language and content. It requires no bias to come to this kind of linguistic conclusion - you simply compare what all the manuscripts say.

So much for the "corrupted text argument." Next?


God has given us free will, we can do as we wish, including rewriting the Bible for our own fickle gain.

Giving us freewill does not mean that God sits helplessly while we attempt to dismantle His plans. God's will will be done, whether humans choose to cooperate or not. The fact that God allows us to choose our path does not mean we have the individual power to derail His plan; as such, despite the potentials losses that the biblical scriptures could suffer in the passage of time, we can also assume that God inspired other individuals to spot/stop/revise the errors put in advertantly/inadvertantly by other writers. God is not helpless - He who is capable of creating the earth in six days can easily make sure that the essential truths of His Word survives human error or evil.



the bible is pointless morally. there are hundreds of equally good systems. some of the things in the bible are not moral at all. moral value is valueless in making the bible a great work of literature. certainly religious writ has aesthetic and moral value, but so do things not associate with religion at all. lots of paganism is in fact more moral because it doesnt condemn other religions. its typically the large monotheisms that attack other belief systems.

Other religions cannot give the same comprehensive view of God, reality, and the existence of morality like Christianity can. In particular, the basis of morality in other religions is suspect for a variety of reasons. The Bible's morality is unquestionable. Instead of making generalized, blanket statements, why don't you offer a clear example of the moral "pointlessness" of the Bible?

[hyperborean]

Scholars have methods for determining textual reliability. I quoted this in another thread - here:

Homer's Illiad is considered to have the greatest manuscript authority next to the New Testament; Homer wrote the Illiad around 900 BC and the oldest copy is from 400 BC - a 500 year span. The total number of manuscripts is 643 and the readings agree 95% of the time.

In contrast, there are approximately 5300 original language manuscripts of New Testament writings spanning 50 years - AD 70 to AD 120. These documents agree with each other 99.5% of the time in terms of language and content. It requires no bias to come to this kind of linguistic conclusion - you simply compare what all the manuscripts say.

So much for the "corrupted text argument." Next?

Now where did you pull those statistics from? Of course modern day translators are going to claim that the bible is accurate. They follow it for Christ's sake!

[Redzeppelin]

Now where did you pull those statistics from? Of course modern day translators are going to claim that the bible is accurate. They follow it for Christ's sake!

I do not have the source handy - but I will respond thusly: textual reliability studies deal with the languages the texts were written in (hence the statement of 5300 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE copies). So, your point just evaporated into air. Textual studies can be read by believers and non-believers alike. If they were deemed invalid, that's one thing. But textual agreement can be verified - there's the words and they're the same.

Edit: Here, my friend - in the meantime you can consider this:

"'In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'{8}

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God."

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.""

The last sentence is something of a non sequitur.

[Redzeppelin]

Redzeppelin: "B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.""

The last sentence is something of a non sequitur.

OK - but I just cut and pasted that.

[PXR5]

Giving us freewill does not mean that God sits helplessly while we attempt to dismantle His plans

I'm not claiming that God is helpless. I'm merely stating that God gave us free will to do as we wish, as individuals or as a collective.


we can also assume that God inspired other individuals to spot/stop/revise the errors put in advertantly/inadvertantly by other writers

so this is suggesting that the Bible has been distorted and has been corrected.
How can we assume what is considered a correction today will not be viewed as a distortion in years to come? Those who are inspired by God to spot/stop/revise the errors in the Bible may not have even been born yet.

This is also suggesting that the free will given to us by God is not really our free will at all. This is suggesting that we all do as God wishes through his inspiration/influence.

[hyperborean]

This is also suggesting that the free will given to us by God is not really our free will at all. This is suggesting that we all do as God wishes through his inspiration/influence.

Thank you PXR5.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm not claiming that God is helpless. I'm merely stating that God gave us free will to do as we wish, as individuals or as a collective.

But the suggestion that humanity has altered the Bible so that it doesn't reflect truth does suggest that God had no power to stop such distortions.



so this is suggesting that the Bible has been distorted and has been corrected.
How can we assume what is considered a correction today will not be viewed as a distortion in years to come? Those who are inspired by God to spot/stop/revise the errors in the Bible may not have even been born yet.

It suggests a speculation that intentional or accidental errors of serious consequence did not succeed in making it into scripture - whether or not such things were ever documented. The Bible was beyond altering hundreds of years ago because the canon in its original languages was "fixed" during the early dark ages.


This is also suggesting that the free will given to us by God is not really our free will at all. This is suggesting that we all do as God wishes through his inspiration/influence.


No it does not; God allows individual free will - meaning that people have the free will to alter the Bible if they wish - He doesn't stop that choice or action; what it does mean is that He instigates some sort of action to stop or correct such behavior via the free choice of another human being. I don't get why people are so confused as to what free choice is: free choice means you can choose to do as you wish; if what you do creates an obstacle in the path of God's divine plan, then He will take action to respond to the consequences of your choice - but you were still able to freely make the choice; whether or not the results of the choice work out your way is a whole different story.

If I am "inspired" by a TV commercial to give money to a good cause, I've not been denied my freedom of choice. We are free to reject God's conviction/inspiration in our lives.

[hyperborean]

I don't get why people are so confused as to what free choice is: free choice means you can choose to do as you wish; if what you do creates an obstacle in the path of God's divine plan, then He will take action to respond to the consequences of your choice - but you were still able to freely make the choice; whether or not the results of the choice work out your way is a whole different story.

My view is very existential so "one is "responsible" for all the consequences of one's action, whether it is possible to know about them or not". How can one be responsible for divine intervention?



If I am "inspired" by a TV commercial to give money to a good cause, I've not been denied my freedom of choice. We are free to reject God's conviction/inspiration in our lives.

You've been influenced by an outside force. That's not true free will.

[Redzeppelin]

My view is very existential so "one is "responsible" for all the consequences of one's action, whether it is possible to know about them or not". How can one be responsible for divine intervention?

You've been influenced by an outside force. That's not true free will.

Based on these comments, nobody has freewill at any time. How can that be? That points us back to Naturalism. "Freewill" in theology does not mean "free from outside influence" but "free to choose."

Either way, freewill still exists. That God may interfere with the results of our intended actions by using other individuals to counter us does not change the fact that we were free to choose as we wish - just as the counter-agents employed against us also freely choose to accept God's inspiration.

[billyjack]

Based on these comments, nobody has freewill at any time. How can that be? That points us back to Naturalism. "Freewill" in theology does not mean "free from outside influence" but "free to choose."

Either way, freewill still exists. That God may interfere with the results of our intended actions by using other individuals to counter us does not change the fact that we were free to choose as we wish - just as the counter-agents employed against us also freely choose to accept God's inspiration.

yes, yes, yes...but are we free to choose? choice only exist in the realm of conventions. when you make a choice, in actuality there are so many things leading up to that "choice" that the arbitrary line of when the "choice" was made and before it was made is so blurry that the only thing saying it was "your" choice lies in liguistic artificial categorizations (note, artificial--not real). so throw language aside for a skosh and let me know if "choice" really exist or if its just a made up term to make us feel like we should have to be punished for not acting in accordance with conventions...

[Redzeppelin]

yes, yes, yes...but are we free to choose? choice only exist in the realm of conventions. when you make a choice, in actuality there are so many things leading up to that "choice" that the arbitrary line of when the "choice" was made and before it was made is so blurry that the only thing saying it was "your" choice lies in liguistic artificial categorizations (note, artificial--not real). so throw language aside for a skosh and let me know if "choice" really exist or if its just a made up term to make us feel like we should have to be punished for not acting in accordance with conventions...

Would you like to ravel out all the things that your line of argumentation indicates had to lead up to this inevitable post of yours? I contend that your post was not inevitable and that you freely chose your thoughts, your opinions, and your words.

[ennison]

We all act and live our predestinated lives as if we had free will.

[billyjack]

Would you like to ravel out all the things that your line of argumentation indicates had to lead up to this inevitable post of yours? I contend that your post was not inevitable and that you freely chose your thoughts, your opinions, and your words.

i wasnt saying that we have no choice. what i was saying was that the line between "choice" and "not choice" is a slippery one. a little off point, but i'll get back on i a bit: i presume you find man as an animal to be one that is understandable--you must, since you attribute him with the power of choice and knowing what was chosen.

but how can we distinguish neccessary events from chance ones? how can we know what is our goal and what are the means to it? how can this become calculable? in order for us to know this, man must be understandable. yet, we are not understandable (look at psychology and physiology today, we have only skimmed the surface of man). so all that is understandable is our "idea" of man, man himself is not. so, to get back on point, your "idea" of man has made choices. but your "idea" and actual man are as seperate as a mile on a map is from a mile driven on the road.

so did i make the choice to write this? well, so many things happened to put me in this computer chair that its really tough to say. of course, as you've gathered, what i consider to be "me" is the entire universe (i think you'd say i'm in hell because of this) so in a sense, i did make a choice. but not "i" as we normally consider it as simply something that lies soley within a bag of skin.

[hyperborean]

We all act and live our predestinated lives as if we had free will.

I really hope you don't believe that's true. Predestination...:lol:

[billyjack]

We all act and live our predestinated lives as if we had free will.

sounds like the book timequake by kurt vonnegut. read it?

[Redzeppelin]

i wasnt saying that we have no choice. what i was saying was that the line between "choice" and "not choice" is a slippery one. a little off point, but i'll get back on i a bit: i presume you find man as an animal to be one that is understandable--you must, since you attribute him with the power of choice and knowing what was chosen.

Man is not an "animal" - he is very different from animals and possesses capabilities and faculties that clearly differentiate him from the animal kingdom.


but how can we distinguish neccessary events from chance ones? how can we know what is our goal and what are the means to it? how can this become calculable? in order for us to know this, man must be understandable. yet, we are not understandable (look at psychology and physiology today, we have only skimmed the surface of man). so all that is understandable is our "idea" of man, man himself is not. so, to get back on point, your "idea" of man has made choices. but your "idea" and actual man are as seperate as a mile on a map is from a mile driven on the road.

How does any of this relate to our discussion of freewill?


so did i make the choice to write this? well, so many things happened to put me in this computer chair that its really tough to say. of course, as you've gathered, what i consider to be "me" is the entire universe (i think you'd say i'm in hell because of this) so in a sense, i did make a choice. but not "i" as we normally consider it as simply something that lies soley within a bag of skin.

Somebody/thing made a conscious choice to assemble the words contained in your post: was it you or someone/thing else?

[billyjack]

Man is not an "animal" - he is very different from animals and possesses capabilities and faculties that clearly differentiate him from the animal kingdom.



How does any of this relate to our discussion of freewill?


man is an animal, but an animal that evolved unique characteristics.

the foundation of the free will argument is whether or not the subject of the subject-object dichotomy exist.

i am still waiting for a non-anthropomorphic idea from you.

[Redzeppelin]

man is an animal, but an animal that evolved unique characteristics.

No. Evolution is a fairy tale.


the foundation of the free will argument is whether or not the subject of the subject-object dichotomy exist.

Sorry - I'm a bit dim on the philosophy so I'll say something stupid here: freewill is about whether or not we choose freely the course of our life.


i am still waiting for a non-anthropomorphic idea from you.


I don't think I necessarily disagreed with this.

[cuppajoe_9]

From dictionary.com:

an·i·mal /ˈænəməl/
–noun
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
Sounds like a person to me. But wait:

2. any such living thing other than a human being.Billyjack is using definition number one, Redzeppelin is using definition number two. Hope that clears that up.

[Redzeppelin]

From dictionary.com:

Sounds like a person to me. But wait:
Billyjack is using definition number one, Redzeppelin is using definition number two. Hope that clears that up.

I believe that would be correct.

[billyjack]

No. Evolution is a fairy tale.



Sorry - I'm a bit dim on the philosophy so I'll say something stupid here: freewill is about whether or not we choose freely the course of our life.




I don't think I necessarily disagreed with this.

1) *edit*

2) yes, that is what free will is. but the idea of free will exist in a foundation that dichotomizes subject and object. this foundation says the two are seperate rather than unified. in order to solve the free will debate, or at least shed some new light on it, we need to come at it from new angles. this is what i am attempting to do.

3) you have said you agree with watts' statement saying:

"All ideas about the world, whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations of the physical world and of worlds beyond the physical into the terms and shapes of the human mind. There is no such thing as a nonanthropomorphic idea"

well then you would be accepting that any concept or meaning we have of god/eternity/the beyond/morals/ect..., is a product of the human mind (brain and central nervous system). i agree.

[Redzeppelin]

1) *edit*

2) yes, that is what free will is. but the idea of free will exist in a foundation that dichotomizes subject and object. this foundation says the two are seperate rather than unified. in order to solve the free will debate, or at least shed some new light on it, we need to come at it from new angles. this is what i am attempting to do.

3) you have said you agree with watts' statement saying:

"All ideas about the world, whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations of the physical world and of worlds beyond the physical into the terms and shapes of the human mind. There is no such thing as a nonanthropomorphic idea"

well then you would be accepting that any concept or meaning we have of god/eternity/the beyond/morals/ect..., is a product of the human mind (brain and central nervous system). i agree.


I'm sorry - I can't keep going round and round with you - I've lost track of what we were originally discussing. Yes, Watt's is probably right. There - can we move on to something else now?

[hyperborean]

No. Evolution is a fairy tale.

Even if there is an element of faith behind each theory...evolution is still less of a fairy tale. There is nothing physical backing up adam and eve besides a few pages in an ancient book of myths.

[Redzeppelin]

Even if there is an element of faith behind each theory...evolution is still less of a fairy tale. There is nothing physical backing up adam and eve besides a few pages in an ancient book of myths.

Here:

Sir Frederick Hoyle, a Bristish astonomer, has said that the occurrence of a single-cell organism from random couplings of chemicals is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard. There's your fairy tale, my good man. (I assume - let me know if my gender is wrong and I'll edit accordingly.)

[Babbalanja]

Sir Frederick Hoyle, a Bristish astonomer, has said that the occurrence of a single-cell organism from random couplings of chemicals is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard. There's your fairy tale, my good man.Is everyone an expert witness when it comes to biology? Why should an appeal to the authority of a famed astronomer have any bearing on the notion of the origin of life?

And where did anyone ever say that complete organisms just popped up out of random chemical combinations?

[Redzeppelin]

Is everyone an expert witness when it comes to biology? Why should an appeal to the authority of a famed astronomer have any bearing on the notion of the origin of life?

Because the possibility of an event occuring can be mathematically calculated. Astronomers know how to calculate just like biologists do. No biological training is necessary to use a computer and a calculator.


And where did anyone ever say that complete organisms just popped up out of random chemical combinations?

The theory of evolution posits that the first single-celled organism came out of a "primordial soup" on the oceans of the ancient earth.

[cuppajoe_9]

The theory of evolution posits that the first single-celled organism came out of a "primordial soup" on the oceans of the ancient earth.For the last freakin' time: that's an abiogenesis hypothesis, not the theory of evolution. Furthermore, nobody thinks complete cells just popped up out of the primordial soup. Most hypotheses suggest that cells evolved from certain self-replicating molecules which were formed in the primordial ocean.

[HannibalBarca]

some guy that had nothing better to do, that's who

[Redzeppelin]

For the last freakin' time: that's an abiogenesis hypothesis, not the theory of evolution. Furthermore, nobody thinks complete cells just popped up out of the primordial soup. Most hypotheses suggest that cells evolved from certain self-replicating molecules which were formed in the primordial ocean.

Excuse my inaccuracy, please. Despite my imprecise terminology, the point stands: scientists who believe in evolution/abiogenesis suggest that life sponatneously appeared in the primordial ocean - whether in single-cell form, replicating molecules - whatever. Either way, the mathematical odds are against such a formation. We can argue fossil records, transitional forms, yadda yadda yadda - but the math points to impossible odds - odds that time doesn't change.

[cuppajoe_9]

Well, time does, in fact, change the odds, as time leads to greter understanding of the conditions of early earth. One can calculate the odds of an event with greater precision if one has more precise information about that event. Note, however, that while biologists do treat common descent as fact, they do not, if they are good biologists, treat the currently accepted hypotheses of abiogenesis as one. For the purposes of biological evolution, it doesn't really matter if the common ancestor came from primordial DNA-like molecules, God, martians, the infinite improbability drive or whatever.

[Redzeppelin]

Well, time does, in fact, change the odds, as time leads to greter understanding of the conditions of early earth. One can calculate the odds of an event with greater precision if one has more precise information about that event. Note, however, that while biologists do treat common descent as fact, they do not, if they are good biologists, treat the currently accepted hypotheses of abiogenesis as one. For the purposes of biological evolution, it doesn't really matter if the common ancestor came from primordial DNA-like molecules, God, martians, the infinite improbability drive or whatever.

But I think it does matter - because the presupposition of science is Naturalism - and Naturalism denies the existence of God (or any other supernatural power); as such, sooner or later, science must persue evolution of life on earth backwards until it finds a proper answer. Once you pull God out of the loop in terms of the 6-day creation and say He could have used evolution (though the Bible gives no clear indication that He did), we now wonder why He's necessary for the explanation at all (except that the current explanation of life-from-chemicals-and-random-chance requires me to accept numbers far beyond belief).

[cuppajoe_9]

Once you pull God out of the loop in terms of the 6-day creation and say He could have used evolution (though the Bible gives no clear indication that He did), we now wonder why He's necessary for the explanation at all (except that the current explanation of life-from-chemicals-and-random-chance requires me to accept numbers far beyond belief).Why this means that evolution is dependant on abiogenesis is, I confess, quite over my head.

[Babbalanja]

Either way, the mathematical odds are against such a formation. We can argue fossil records, transitional forms, yadda yadda yadda - but the math points to impossible odds - odds that time doesn't change.And the mathematical odds of modern species popping up instantly at the behest of a Big Magic Guy are so much better? Thanks for showing us true scientific objectivity where it counts.

[mtpspur]

Free will, science, belief, unbelief. I believe my free will consistently has gotten me into much mischief and is probably the reason God is protrayed as a Father who watches over his wayward children. Good to know he cares. Science--a great believer in it as a testimony to a VERY precise Creator and the marvelous results of his operations. Belief--I have a bit but that darn free will interferes with my effectiveness. Unbelief--very much so.

Bottom line for me--Faith, Faith, Faith by the grace of God. I could but won't even bother trying to refute the Bible. I have discovered over many years that God is not all concerned with my opinion of Him but that I should be very concerned with His of me.

With respect to an unanswerable debate--been watching this site for awhile and decided to chime in with the same old song.

[Redzeppelin]

And the mathematical odds of modern species popping up instantly at the behest of a Big Magic Guy are so much better? Thanks for showing us true scientific objectivity where it counts.

I'll ignore your sarcasm (since it does nothing for your argument); I did not indicate my position was the better or more believable: I indicated one of the difficulties of the "God didn't do it" option. Please read posts carefully before you attempt to critique their logic.

First, your term "Big Magic Guy" shows that you know little, if anything about the true nature of God.

Second, if God is who He claims to be (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present) then it's quite reasonable that He could do such a thing. Design implies a designer; nature is far too complex to have come about randomly. While we're at it, why don't you tell me the "mathematical odds" against the existence of God, OK?



The "objectivity" of science is up for debate.

[Babbalanja]

The "objectivity" of science is up for debate.This just plain bugs me.

Science is meant to produce and refine a testable model of reality through empirical inquiry. The process itself is open to all and is constantly getting us closer to an accurate view of the way our universe works. Okay, not everything it has produced is to our liking, but there is much we owe to science that we should be proud of: we understand the nature of heredity, we can appreciate the vastness of history, we know we are part of an intricate biosphere.

Science is reviled as the destroyer of illusions. No matter what we see every day in the sky, we know the Sun is the center of our solar system. Thus, we also know that what we believe and feel is nothing in the face of objective scientific inquiry. Science should be a humbling experience: knowledge is constantly progressing, and many of today's certainties will be tomorrow's obsolete information. The orderly world of Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's universe of uncertainty, just as the model of our solar system progressed from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

The progress in our collective knowledge is not made through personal contemplation but by empirical evidential inquiry. We can't learn by starting with our beliefs and trying to find evidence to support them. The real submission and humility is in staring at our beliefs about the universe objectively and wanting to make them better through honest inquiry.

That's the only way we learn.

[billyjack]

magic--Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

isnt the above definition of magic an accurate portrayal of the qualities the christian god would neccessarily possess in order to do what he is said to have done?...
"big magic guy" isnt that weird of a take on the matter.

[Redzeppelin]

This just plain bugs me.

Science is meant to produce and refine a testable model of reality through empirical inquiry. The process itself is open to all and is constantly getting us closer to an accurate view of the way our universe works. Okay, not everything it has produced is to our liking, but there is much we owe to science that we should be proud of: we understand the nature of heredity, we can appreciate the vastness of history, we know we are part of an intricate biosphere.

Science is reviled as the destroyer of illusions. No matter what we see every day in the sky, we know the Sun is the center of our solar system. Thus, we also know that what we believe and feel is nothing in the face of objective scientific inquiry. Science should be a humbling experience: knowledge is constantly progressing, and many of today's certainties will be tomorrow's obsolete information. The orderly world of Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's universe of uncertainty, just as the model of our solar system progressed from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

The progress in our collective knowledge is not made through personal contemplation but by empirical evidential inquiry. We can't learn by starting with our beliefs and trying to find evidence to support them. The real submission and humility is in staring at our beliefs about the universe objectively and wanting to make them better through honest inquiry.

That's the only way we learn.

Did you tell me all this because you think I don't already know it? I'm well aware of the value of science (heck, it's what allows me to be here posting in cyberspace) - I get all the stuff you wrote. I think science is essential to living life here on earth - we gain great things from its continual probing and exploring. What I'm suggesting (and seems to rankle an number of people here) is that you be realistic and fair and admit the shortcomings of science; some things it can assert with definitive authority and I totally acknowledge that; however, other things it can only speculate on and offer a reasonably educated guess on. It is when people will not admit to that, that I become concerned. I'll freely admit that I cannot prove God to you; I'm asking you to admit that science cannot - in and of itself - provide all answers. It never has, and it never will.

[Babbalanja]

What I'm suggesting (and seems to rankle an number of people here) is that you be realistic and fair and admit the shortcomings of science; some things it can assert with definitive authority and I totally acknowledge that; however, other things it can only speculate on and offer a reasonably educated guess on. It is when people will not admit to that, that I become concerned. I'll freely admit that I cannot prove God to you; I'm asking you to admit that science cannot - in and of itself - provide all answers. It never has, and it never will.I never asserted that science has all the answers. In fact, I declared quite openly that scientific truth is only ever tentative, the best answer we have until more information comes in. I only objected to the claim you made that scientific objectivity was open to debate.

In reality, the strength of science is that new information and continuing research changes and refines scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, the better theory replaces the obsolete one. If the evidence is there, scientific truth changes for good. Does science still support the concept of a flat Earth? Does science still assert that fermentation and putrefaction are the product of spontaneous generation? These may have been heated debates once upon a time, but now the case is closed.

Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence. Whenever I hear someone denigrating science as "not objective" or "propaganda" or "a religion in itself," I suspect that someone is concerned that science won't reinforce his prejudices.

[Redzeppelin]

I never asserted that science has all the answers. In fact, I declared quite openly that scientific truth is only ever tentative, the best answer we have until more information comes in. I only objected to the claim you made that scientific objectivity was open to debate.

Good; your first two sentences indicate we agree.


In reality, the strength of science is that new information and continuing research changes and refines scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, the better theory replaces the obsolete one. If the evidence is there, scientific truth changes for good. Does science still support the concept of a flat Earth? Does science still assert that fermentation and putrefaction are the product of spontaneous generation? These may have been heated debates once upon a time, but now the case is closed.

Yep.


Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence. Whenever I hear someone denigrating science as "not objective" or "propaganda" or "a religion in itself," I suspect that someone is concerned that science won't reinforce his prejudices.

Depends on what you mean by the word "evidence."

Of the three terms you listed, the first is not a denegration but a qualification. Science is not completely objective because it is studied and conducted by people who have different philosophies and world-views. Some of us will admit to the truth that our perceptions very much color our interpretation of the facts; others of us like to pretend that we are totally objective. We're not. Science functions from the premise of naturalism - so therefore it is not totally objective in its conclusions; the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two different and equally reasonable conclusions, due to their two contradictory suppositions from within which they interpret the meaning of the facts they find. Science can only be as objective as those practicing it - and human beings have extreme difficulty being objective.

[cuppajoe_9]

Science is not completely objective because it is studied and conducted by people who have different philosophies and world-views. Some of us will admit to the truth that our perceptions very much color our interpretation of the facts; others of us like to pretend that we are totally objective. We're not.That's what the process of independent confirmation is for. If your conclusions are coloured by personal prejudice, you will get caught for it. Either you will not get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or somebody else will perform experiments that show your findings to be fallicious. It isn't just one person or group of people deciding what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.


Science functions from the premise of naturalism - so therefore it is not totally objective in its conclusions; the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two different and equally reasonable conclusions, due to their two contradictory suppositions from within which they interpret the meaning of the facts they find.But only one of those conclusions gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because the ID scientist can't back up his assumption that complexity implies design, because he can't compare objects that are known to be designed to objects that are known to be undesigned because he doesn't believe that the latter exists. Also, he can't make testable predictions, can't perform experiments to test his hypothesis, and can't seem to remember the arguments he lost fiteen years ago. He is, in short, a poor scientist.

[Redzeppelin]

That's what the process of independent confirmation is for. If your conclusions are coloured by personal prejudice, you will get caught for it. Either you will not get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or somebody else will perform experiments that show your findings to be fallicious. It isn't just one person or group of people deciding what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.

But only one of those conclusions gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because the ID scientist can't back up his assumption that complexity implies design, because he can't compare objects that are known to be designed to objects that are known to be undesigned because he doesn't believe that the latter exists. Also, he can't make testable predictions, can't perform experiments to test his hypothesis, and can't seem to remember the arguments he lost fiteen years ago. He is, in short, a poor scientist.

But joe, I'm speaking from more than just a "personal" position (meaning the individual's personal "filters"); I'm speaking of a collective suppositional stance, and I'm going to be very bummed when you tell me that you don't acknowledge what I'm about to say (and have said here before ): I think it is possible for people to begin from a certain standpoint - a foundational belief system - and that that foundation largely decides what will and will not be considered as cogent evidence; as such, it has been fairly evident that - from the Enlightenment on - Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.

[RJbibliophil]

I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I watched the documentary, and something's wrong with it. It seems like he's jumping to conclusions without real proof. He's definitely reading between the lines of the Bible. He's missing something major. I found it interesting, but I'm not swayed.

[Morrisonhotel]

the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist

Now, my dad works in the field of evolutionary science. I quote him here when I say that ID scientists don't exist - at least within the peripheral of modern fundamentalist ID belief. There are those within the field that are agnostic, and, furthermore, those that believe the God created the process of evolution - and, furthermore, those who do have leanings toward a creator are almost exclusively proponents of evolution (very few and far between are the scientists who differ from a model of evolution - and even then, most of these have been shown to have seriously flawed methods).

[cuppajoe_9]

I think it is possible for people to begin from a certain standpoint - a foundational belief system - and that that foundation largely decides what will and will not be considered as cogent evidence; as such, it has been fairly evident that - from the Enlightenment on - Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.Well if there was a God who created the universe, He would be as much a part of the natural world black holes, quantum uncertainty and other dimensions, and naturalism would therefore be able to uncover evidence of him, and maybe it will. There's no inherent reason why the hypothesis of a divine being should not produce testable predictions like any other.

[Redzeppelin]

Well if there was a God who created the universe, He would be as much a part of the natural world black holes, quantum uncertainty and other dimensions, and naturalism would therefore be able to uncover evidence of him, and maybe it will. There's no inherent reason why the hypothesis of a divine being should not produce testable predictions like any other.

No - that is flat-out wrong; God is beyond that which He creates - He exists above, beyond and outside nature - because the creator is not a part of the created (that's pantheism). Nature - in the cohesion and intricacy of its design - gives testimony to His hand and presence, but He Himself cannot be "located" via our observational methods unless He chooses to manifest Himself in such a way. "Testable predictions" are very dependent upon 1) the nature of your measuring devices, and 2) the nature of that which you are measuring. Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you; I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.

[cuppajoe_9]

Nature - in the cohesion and intricacy of its design - gives testimony to His hand and presence...Fine. There's no reason why that should statement should not lead to something concrete for which evidence can actually be given.


Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you;Yes. After careful consideration, the term 'supernatural' has no useful meaning.


I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.Why?

[billyjack]

a quick butt in-- redzeppellins underlying principles seem to be based in the esoteric world, the beyond. cup o joes seemed to be based in the understandable, known, exoteric world.

okay, as you were .

[Redzeppelin]

Fine. There's no reason why that should statement should not lead to something concrete for which evidence can actually be given.

You ignored the part of my post that indicated that the "creator" is not the same as the "created."


Yes. After careful consideration, the term 'supernatural' has no useful meaning.

Yes - to someone who subscribes to the philosophical position of Naturalism, the word has no meaning (which does not mean that it is meaningless; just that people who choose to believe that Naturalism is the foundation of reality have decided that the word has no meaning).


Why?

Because He is a supernatural being.

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes - to someone who subscribes to the philosophical position of Naturalism, the word has no meaning (which does not mean that it is meaningless; just that people who choose to believe that Naturalism is the foundation of reality have decided that the word has no meaning).No, see, I think it is meaningless, even if deities and ghosts and suchlike do exist.


Because He is a supernatural being.I'll rephrase: why should the hypothesis that God created the universe not yield anything testable?

[Redzeppelin]

No, see, I think it is meaningless, even if deities and ghosts and suchlike do exist.

OK - fine. You think it's meaningless. Now what?


I'll rephrase: why should the hypothesis that God created the universe not yield anything testable?

Do you not see the irony in your insistence of empiricism and "testable hypostheses"? That in your own way, you are as dogmatic as the Christian is in your insistence that the criteria of YOUR philosophic position (Naturalism) define the rules of what is "real"? I could do the same to you: "Until you accept that there is such a thing as the spiritual realm, I really can't give you any arguments about God's existence." Naturalists kid themselves with the idea that they're "open-minded" and "objective" - they're not, because they - by very nature of the suppostions that Naturalism requires - eliminate God as a possibility - which therefore mitigates the self-proclaimed "open-mindedness" or "objective" nature of their inquiry.

To explain why God is not "testable" would take far longer to write than I think you'd care to read. At issue here are the ideas of faith, freewill, love and the character of God (which Satan has challenged); God cannot be scientifically verified because the limitations of human empiricism and our "tools" of inquiry are insufficient to grasp the presence of God.

To the believer (whose presuppositional mindset begins from the idea that God is real) the universe has loads of evidence that testify to His presence; to the individual proceeding from Naturalism, this same evidence has to be explained in some other way (i.e. evolution).

[billyjack]

i think you two have found where you division lies. as joseph needham suggested, a break between western science and western scholasticism took place quite a while ago. it comes down to this: science subscribes to the book of nature. scholasticism to the bible, aristotle, and st. thomas aquinas. its similar to the split between the confusianism and toaism in b.c. china. confusian authority was based in social tradition. toaism's authority was found in the observation of the natural universe. spirituality for toaist was found in a different realm than redzeppelin finds his--ie, the natural realm, the observable, testable, and knowable world. point being, the spiritual realm and naturalism can go hand in hand. chrsitianity doesnt have a monopoly on what is spiritual.

[Redzeppelin]

chrsitianity doesnt have a monopoly on what is spiritual.

No it doesn't; it merely has the monopoly on who God really is. And that's enough for me :D

[Babbalanja]

Naturalists kid themselves with the idea that they're "open-minded" and "objective" - they're not, because they - by very nature of the suppostions that Naturalism requires - eliminate God as a possibility - which therefore mitigates the self-proclaimed "open-mindedness" or "objective" nature of their inquiry.Once again, methodological naturalism isn't atheism: it merely limits the amount of relevant variables in any scientific endeavor to those that can be verified empirically. How could scientific inquiry take place without such a limitation? There could conceivably be an infinite amount of undetectable, supernatural beings or forces that could be proposed as having relevance to a scientific matter: without methodological naturalism, what basis would we have for excluding any of them?

I could accuse someone of "bias" merely because he refuses to allow me to define something as visible unless it can be seen. Could I claim that my opponent is unfairly limiting what can be considered visible due to the flaws in his foundational assumptions? Or would everyone see how ridiculous that accusation of bias is?

So why are "naturalists" being so unfair in expecting empirical evidence before they consider something real? Isn't this what we expect in every argument? The evidence against a defendant must be presented, not merely assumed. The evidence for a conspiracy theory must be presented, not taken for granted.


God cannot be scientifically verified because the limitations of human empiricism and our "tools" of inquiry are insufficient to grasp the presence of God.Okay. So why don't we accept scientific evidence for phenomena like evolution and the age of the Earth (since our tools of inquiry are quite sufficient for grasping natural phenomena) and leave God out of it?

[Redzeppelin]

Once again, methodological naturalism isn't atheism:

I'm sorry - any methodology that limits reality to only that which is material automatically excludes the existence of Spiritual beings; that sounds a lot like atheism to me.


it merely limits the amount of relevant variables in any scientific endeavor to those that can be verified empirically. How could scientific inquiry take place without such a limitation? There could conceivably be an infinite amount of undetectable, supernatural beings or forces that could be proposed as having relevance to a scientific matter: without methodological naturalism, what basis would we have for excluding any of them?

Good point. I have no problem setting limits - but naturalism provides only a partial picture of reality - and that is too limited.


I could accuse someone of "bias" merely because he refuses to allow me to define something as visible unless it can be seen. Could I claim that my opponent is unfairly limiting what can be considered visible due to the flaws in his foundational assumptions? Or would everyone see how ridiculous that accusation of bias is?

I must be tired - I'm not sure I follow this.


So why are "naturalists" being so unfair in expecting empirical evidence before they consider something real? Isn't this what we expect in every argument? The evidence against a defendant must be presented, not merely assumed. The evidence for a conspiracy theory must be presented, not taken for granted.

It's not that naturalists are "unfair" it's that they're arrogant; they think they have all the answers and fancy themselves to be the models of objective analysis; they're not. To suggest that all of reality can be apprehended through empirical evidence only is absurd.


Okay. So why don't we accept scientific evidence for phenomena like evolution and the age of the Earth (since our tools of inquiry are quite sufficient for grasping natural phenomena) and leave God out of it?

Because that "evidence" (or at least a percentage of it) exists due to the interpretations provided by naturalist scientists whose methodological "filter" excluded the possibility of a divine agent. We can't leave God out because He claimed credit and the limitations of naturalistic science cannot adequately account for much of what evolution hypothesizes to be true.

[Babbalanja]

I'm sorry - any methodology that limits reality to only that which is material automatically excludes the existence of Spiritual beings; that sounds a lot like atheism to me. In that case, you must think plumbing is atheism as well, since it favors explanations that involve natural forces like hydraulic pressure and physical material as the source of clogs and other problems. Should we be concerned with the unfairly naturalistic foundational assumptions of the plumbing industry? Should we demand that plumbers investigate supernatural causes for frozen pipes, clogged drains, and the like?


It's not that naturalists are "unfair" it's that they're arrogant; they think they have all the answers and fancy themselves to be the models of objective analysis; they're not. To suggest that all of reality can be apprehended through empirical evidence only is absurd.Like I've said before, scientific methodology and inductive reasoning will only give us the best available picture of reality, one that is constantly improving with new methods and information. Does that rival the arrogance of the believer who feels that scientific inquiry should pander to his metaphysical wishful thinking? Is it humble of you to assume that the amateur can handwave away mountains of geological, genetic, and historical evidence and accuse scientists of fraud and conspiracy? Is it humble to expect everyone to accept that "God did it" is a sufficient scientific explanation for natural phenomena?


Because that "evidence" (or at least a percentage of it) exists due to the interpretations provided by naturalist scientists whose methodological "filter" excluded the possibility of a divine agent.Nah. There are plenty of scientists who are believers. They just look at the naturalistic basis of scientific methodology realistically, and don't let it conflict with their personal beliefs.

[Redzeppelin]

In that case, you must think plumbing is atheism as well, since it favors explanations that involve natural forces like hydraulic pressure and physical material as the source of clogs and other problems. Should we be concerned with the unfairly naturalistic foundational assumptions of the plumbing industry? Should we demand that plumbers investigate supernatural causes for frozen pipes, clogged drains, and the like?

Is this supposed to be funny, condescending, or just plain silly?


Like I've said before, scientific methodology and inductive reasoning will only give us the best available picture of reality, one that is constantly improving with new methods and information. Does that rival the arrogance of the believer who feels that scientific inquiry should pander to his metaphysical wishful thinking? Is it humble of you to assume that the amateur can handwave away mountains of geological, genetic, and historical evidence and accuse scientists of fraud and conspiracy? Is it humble to expect everyone to accept that "God did it" is a sufficient scientific explanation for natural phenomena?

I disagree. My position has nothing to do with my personal humility. I have never claimed that my belief system was superior. Naturalists do claim, however, that theirs is.


Nah. There are plenty of scientists who are believers. They just look at the naturalistic basis of scientific methodology realistically, and don't let it conflict with their personal beliefs.

None of that changes what I said by even a degree.

[Babbalanja]

Is this supposed to be funny, condescending, or just plain silly?You said your problem is with any methodology that only deals with natural forces, because that's de facto atheism. Plumbing only deals with natural forces, so I assume you condemn the entire industry of hydraulic engineering as an atheistic conspiracy.

Hey, if it's silly, so is your objection to the "atheism" of naturalistic biology.


My position has nothing to do with my personal humility. I have never claimed that my belief system was superior. Naturalists do claim, however, that theirs is.When it comes to increasing our understanding of the universe and its history, yes, methodological naturalism has proven its worth. The scientific method is the basis of what we know about the world we live in.

But the scientific method works because it removes the subjective element of inquiry. Cognitive biases and wishful thinking are obstacles to objective inquiry. We have to be humble enough to realize that what we believe isn't the end of the story: despite what our eyes tell us, the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Despite what we think, humanity isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.


None of that changes what I said by even a degree.Well, it doesn't change it, but it does contradict it.

You accused scientists of engaging in a vast conspiracy to exclude God from science. I pointed out that lots of scientists are believers, but realize that God doesn't belong in science. Pasteur's experiments didn't use God as a variable, so why aren't you railing against the atheism of germ theory?

[Redzeppelin]

You said your problem is with any methodology that only deals with natural forces, because that's de facto atheism. Plumbing only deals with natural forces, so I assume you condemn the entire industry of hydraulic engineering as an atheistic conspiracy.

As I thought: silly


Hey, if it's silly, so is your objection to the "atheism" of naturalistic biology.

That's fine. I wouldn't expect you to feel otherwise.


When it comes to increasing our understanding of the universe and its history, yes, methodological naturalism has proven its worth. The scientific method is the basis of what we know about the world we live in.

Certainly - and there is no arguing against the value of scientific naturalism as a valid tool for examination of the world and the universe. No argument here. I am asking you to accept that - despite its usefulness and considerable ability to bring us understanding, that scientific naturalism has its limits - it cannot fully answer for the totality of reality, and it cannot explain all phenomenon in reality. It is the refusal of people to accept the limitations of scientific naturalism that reveals its flaws. It is a limited tool - it has value, but it is not the sole arbiter of what is "real."


But the scientific method works because it removes the subjective element of inquiry. Cognitive biases and wishful thinking are obstacles to objective inquiry. We have to be humble enough to realize that what we believe isn't the end of the story: despite what our eyes tell us, the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Despite what we think, humanity isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

False - and clear proof that you are unaware of the presuppositions that drive your interpretations. Naturalism is not objective in nature; it claims objectivity, but it is simply another subjective filter used by people to assess the world; it is subjective because it presents a bias - a bias towards observable reality - but only very ignorant people would insist that only what is observable or measurable is the standard by which we should evaluate reality. Naturalism limits its view by choosing to make only material reality the standard.


Well, it doesn't change it, but it does contradict it.

It doesn't do that either.


You accused scientists of engaging in a vast conspiracy to exclude God from science. I pointed out that lots of scientists are believers, but realize that God doesn't belong in science. Pasteur's experiments didn't use God as a variable, so why aren't you railing against the atheism of germ theory?

No - I claimed no "conspiracy" - that is your term and I request that you be more careful and precise in your restatement of my position, thank you. I indicated that some scientists have chosen the world-view of Naturalism through which to view the world; other scientists choose the world-view of Christianity. There is no difference: both are equally influenced by the philosophic outlook they have chosen.

Germ-theory is not the same as evolution. Germs are here, now - and we can observe them here, now. Evolution is not here, now - and we cannot observe the primordial soup and all the so-called "transitional life forms" here, now. Certainly you can see the difference between the two. I can.

[Babbalanja]

only very ignorant people would insist that only what is observable or measurable is the standard by which we should evaluate reality. Naturalism limits its view by choosing to make only material reality the standard. Sorry, Red, it seems I'm wasting my time here. Arguing with someone whose knowledge of scientific methodology comes from whatever Phillip E. Johnson tells him is the very definition of futility.

I'm sorry that you expect scientific methodology to pander to your religious biases. Perhaps you'll read up on the philosophy of science and get a more realistic perspective on empirical inquiry.

[Yanni Kang]

If we see this question as a Mind trap, I think Bible was wrote by human beings.

[Redzeppelin]

Sorry, Red, it seems I'm wasting my time here. Arguing with someone whose knowledge of scientific methodology comes from whatever Phillip E. Johnson tells him is the very definition of futility.

Who's Phillip E. Johnson?

First off, you know nothing of what I know about scientific methodology (evident by your allusion to someone I don't know). Your response shows that either a) you're unwilling to address my points, or b) you are unable to do so. Either one is fine with me, but don't try to make it sound like I'm being unresonable when you haven't effectively dealt with the issues I've brought up in the least.


I'm sorry that you expect scientific methodology to pander to your religious biases. Perhaps you'll read up on the philosophy of science and get a more realistic perspective on empirical inquiry.

Here you demonstrate your misunderstanding yet again; I do not "expect" scientific methodolody to do anything to "pander to [my] religious biases." I do not require science to agree with the Bible. I have made it clear in my posts that my issue is not with science but the attitude of Naturalists who think that their philosophic point-of-view is the definitive one in terms of understanding reality - that Naturalism is somehow more "objective" than Christianity; it's not, and that's all I've been trying to say. If you don't understand that, then I am sorry. But if you leave the conversation, understand that it may be that I'm impossible to talk to; or, it may be that you cannot or will not deal with what I have said. You decide.

[Vittoria666]

i disagree with hyperborean..your first post.
its is written like a pretty story but it is very realistic in its own way.. you will never guess but most of the events that were described in the bible are actully true facts!!!

[Lote-Tree]

If we see this question as a Mind trap, I think Bible was wrote by human beings.

All books are written by human beings including all the scriptures.

[Stieg]

First of all, HOW was the bible written?

I mean these stories both in the old and new testament have many accounts written in them as though the writer/scribe occupied these people in their most private and personal moments even personal accounts of nations distant and even hostile to god's chosen people. A la frankly the writers have a uncanny quality of omnipresence. Did god share all this with the writers and scribes? Whew that must been a mouthful. And some real humdingers and cliffhangers in there.

[Lote-Tree]

First of all, HOW was the bible written?


With a Pen? :-)



A la frankly the writers have a uncanny quality of omnipresence.


Yes. Just like a omnipresent narator of a novel.

[weepingforloman]

I really don't think this is a good debate for anyone who takes the Word literally to be involved in (like me). This is only bound to cause frustration and anger. Let me just say that it's a matter of faith-- literally, you choose to believe it or not. It's not necessarily a thing of logic. Take it or leave it, brohame.

[ennison]

I've just come back to this to refresh my memory. Wonder where all these folk are now. At one point I half thought that the Internet was the epitome of transience and yet here are all these exchanges still here. Hmm. I doubt if many opinions were deeply altered but some arguments might have been sharpened as a result of this "wordy warfare of the forum".

[cacian]

Good question.
A bunch of someones wrote the bible to set a tablets of rules based on shoddy morals. God is portrayed as the main characters Jesus as the hero protagonist and the rest as sidliners . A bit like a Hollywood movie really.
Why was the bible written is the question?

[Jackson Richardson]

Why was the bible written is the question?

The Bible is an anthology, not a book. It is a collection of writings which the Jewish and Christian communities have judged to be canonical for their self understanding.

It did not come down from heaven. That is what Muslims believe about the Qur'an. If some fundamentalist evangelicals talk like that about the Christian Bible, then they do not understand the basis of their faith.

[cacian]

The Bible is an anthology, not a book. It is a collection of writings which the Jewish and Christian communities have judged to be canonical for their self understanding.

Yes that too but the other reason could be that these community wanted a large amount of people to become the bible's believers. A bit like organising a dictionary where by the language is spoken the way the dictionary wants it.

It did not come down from heaven. That is what Muslims believe about the Qur'an. If some fundamentalist evangelicals talk like that about the Christian Bible, then they do not understand the basis of their faith.
I don't know how and why would anyone believe that. I could not even if I wanted to.

[Jackson Richardson]

these community wanted a large amount of people to become the bible's believers.


I don't understand that. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. The Old Testament is the body of ancient Hebrew literature. The New Testament texts were almost certainly regarded as canonical because they were used in the worship of the community. You can take it or leave it.

[cacian]

I don't understand that. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. The Old Testament is the body of ancient Hebrew literature. The New Testament texts were almost certainly regarded as canonical because they were used in the worship of the community. You can take it or leave it.

Indeed.
Canonical or not I suggest I follow my own worship.
I certainly find religions that relies on texts and books easily be forgotten. People do not have the memory for it.
How about a religion that relies on own imagination? It is more fun and I do not need preach what I do not keep.

[Jackson Richardson]

Canonical or not I suggest I follow my own worship.

I never suggested anything else.



I certainly find religions that relies on texts and books easily be forgotten. People do not have the memory for it.
How about a religion that relies on own imagination? It is more fun and I do not need preach what I do not keep.

Until the invention of printing, most Christians didn't have a Bible. They heard scripture in the contexts of communual worship, which almost certainly the context in which the New Testament texts were first used and preserved.

The stories, concepts, images and symbolism of scripture are an inspiration for our own imaginations. They are the record of the imaginative inspiration of others.

All religious traditions have some sort of canonical texts, but they operate differently in different traditions. I certainly do not think Christianity relies on the Bible. It relies on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, to which the Bible, the creeds and the sacraments bear witness.

The sacred texts of Sikhs and Muslims are more important for them.