Who Wrote the Bible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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

---

It doesn't do that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

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.

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yanni Kang

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

First of all, HOW was the bible written?

---

With a Pen? :-)

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes. Just like a omnipresent narator of a novel.

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.

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".

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Canonical or not I suggest I follow my own worship.

---

I never suggested anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.