Atheists: what would it take?

[PearlSeeker]

Nope, if you record history, you record history.
If you write fiction, you write fiction.
What the reader does with a historical record is a different story. Historical revisionism is common - especially when atheists look at biblical historical records.
People just love to refer to it as Bible stories. That is not an honest description of a historical account.

How do you know Bible is historical records?

 

[Alien826]

What about information, VR, internet space...? Is it really physical or it just depends on something physical?

I'll take VR as an example, as I've just purchased a Quest 2 headset.

Physically, we have a computer that produces images and sound, two eye pieces that display the images, speakers that produce the sound and a framework that allows me to wear these things on my head.

"Virtual Reality" describes a mental "state" that is induced by the images and sound, that my brain tells me (incorrectly) is an environment that surrounds me and that I can interact with. That mental state is a pattern of impulses (maybe not a good word) in my very physical brain. The impulses themselves are electrical in nature, which itself is physical. So far so good.

The question you are asking, I think, is whether the experience of VR exists as a physical "thing" or is simply a name we give to the sensations (themselves physical) that our brain perceives. I'd go with a different definition of "exists".

 

[Alien826]

Nope, if you record history, you record history.
If you write fiction, you write fiction.
What the reader does with a historical record is a different story. Historical revisionism is common - especially when atheists look at biblical historical records.
People just love to refer to it as Bible stories. That is not an honest description of a historical account.

I seems to me that you are referring to the intention of the author who (mostly) tries to write things that are factual (history) or invented (fiction). There is nothing, though, that automatically converts those intentions to actual factual accuracy, or total invention. An author can honestly believe that what he writes is accurate, but he can be mistaken. Incidentally, fiction can contain a lot of historical fact. I'm sure you are aware of "historical fiction".

 

[Alien826]

I agree. Science can only observe things that are part of the created universe.

I'm not with you.

I think it is a glimpse into the world after death - another dimension perhaps.

I was just trying to tell the story using a "physical" framework, to contrast it with your "spiritual" framework. I wasn't suggesting it was correct, and of course I understand you see it differently.

 

[Brian2]

Past performance, future results. What reason do I have to give any belief in "god" - absent, invisible, any credence?

Faith, and trust, must be earned. You might as well worship the construct 'Satan' if past performance isn't important to you.

If the Bible is read as a fiction then I would say that if the prophesied outcomes happened then God would be justified in the way He has gone about doing things.
It sounds like you are judging God on past performance however and judging God without looking at who and what He is said to be in the book and what He is doing and achieving in the light of who and what He is.

 

[Brian2]

What does it even mean to say that something exists that cannot be detected *at all*?

When I say undetectable I mean undetectable in any way science can use.

 

[Brian2]

So why draw a line between "scientific" and "spiritual"? The difference lies in quality of the evidence submitted, not some hard deliminator.

Science detects things with empirical evidence and that is not really a part in finding God, who is not a thing to be studied with empirical evidence.

 

[Five Solas]

How do you know Bible is historical records?

Firstly I accept the historicity of the Bible. Then, it's not all historical as such. There are various literary forms. Each literary genre must be understood in its own special way.

I accept the historical narratives that record what happened in the past - almost half of OT is narrative history.

So, the Bible presents the events described in historical narrative as history. I accept that because I have not found any compelling evidence to the contrary. Many question that because many do not believe in God.

The Bible describes people and events as real and true. This doesn’t happen in ‘myths.’

Scripture is God's self-revelation. If it is only myth then God is also only myth.

 

[Five Solas]

I seems to me that you are referring to the intention of the author who (mostly) tries to write things that are factual (history) or invented (fiction). There is nothing, though, that automatically converts those intentions to actual factual accuracy, or total invention. An author can honestly believe that what he writes is accurate, but he can be mistaken. Incidentally, fiction can contain a lot of historical fact. I'm sure you are aware of "historical fiction".

I agree with all you say but not all that is true of biblical narratives. The Bible presents the events described in historical narrative as history. Real people really did these actual things.

Example: Luke 1:1-5 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

This is remarkable. Luke doesn’t present Jesus as a fanciful illusion of his personal ideas – true for him, but not true historically. He presents the gospel narrative in the same style as the great Greek historiographers. These events are set in a historical context – with Herod king, and the division of Abijah serving in the temple courts.

I accept that as true and reliable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the Bible is read as a fiction then I would say that if the prophesied outcomes happened then God would be justified in the way He has gone about doing things.
It sounds like you are judging God on past performance however and judging God without looking at who and what He is said to be in the book and what He is doing and achieving in the light of who and what He is.

... as the Bible itself suggests:

16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered[y] from thorns or figs from thistles, are they?[z] 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad[aa] tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit.

 

[Polymath257]

When I say undetectable I mean undetectable in any way science can use.

So, in what way is it detectable? Can it be detected by someone who is skeptical?

 

[Polymath257]

OK so in/for science spirits do not exist, but many scientists believe they exist. Do you think that is because they see empiricism as something for science but that there are other ways also to find out about reality and so to believe things that science has no clue about?

What other ways are there to find out about reality?

Yet things that have not been detected directly have been shown to exist because of their effects on things and because of other evidence that point to them.

Of course. For example, infrared light (we can't see it directly--we use other means to detect it), neutrinos (we detect by how they interact with certain atomic nuclei), etc.

So for something such as spirit, that is by definition, not detectable by physical means,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by science, why is this other evidence for spirit not seen as evidence. (and I'm thinking here of people who have experienced OBEs in NDE and have reported verifiable events that happened at those times.)

Sure, there are common mental phenomena for brains that are under stress and oxygen deprivation.

 

[Polymath257]

History cannot change - it is fact.

But we don't even know history directly. We always see it as interpreted by some writer.

Recording history does not change history.

But all writers are biased and their biases get into their writings. So the raw material from which we learn history (those writings) is biased.

If you had studies even a little bit of history, this would be obvious.

My feelings did not create the Bible.

No, but the feelings and beliefs of those who wrote the books of the Bible 'certainly did. The feelings and beliefs of those that selected those books to be in the Bible certainly did.

One can deny and reinterpret history but never change it.

But we can never know an unbiased history. We get history from fallible people who write to get a message across. For most ancient history, the goal was some sort of moral lesson, not what modern people would call 'historical accuracy'.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope, if you record history, you record history.
If you write fiction, you write fiction.

I can tell you haven't read much history as recorded by ancient people. It is *never* simply recording events. It *always* has a different goal: usually to convey a moral message or some sort of propaganda.

What the reader does with a historical record is a different story. Historical revisionism is common - especially when atheists look at biblical historical records.
People just love to refer to it as Bible stories. That is not an honest description of a historical account.

Oh, it absolutely is an honest description. It is also an honest description of the writings of Homer, or of the Roman historian Livy, or of the writings of the Venerable Bede, or *any* other historical writings. The Bible is no different in this sense.

 

[Five Solas]

Would we be guided by God? Would we still thank God for the "blessings"?

If it is a mind-depended god, then one would be seeking blessings from the idea in your head. In my view that is just silly.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree. Science can only observe things that are part of the created universe.

Really? Why is that? It seems that the scientific method would apply to *anything* that could be detected in any way that is verifiable.

I'm not with you.

I think it is a glimpse into the world after death - another dimension perhaps.

OK, and how do you support your belief? Why should anyone else take your belief as anything other than your opinion?

 

[Polymath257]

Science detects things with empirical evidence and that is not really a part in finding God, who is not a thing to be studied with empirical evidence.

In that case, how can God be found and verified? The scientific method still seems like a valid way to proceed? Hypothesize, test, modify if required.

 

[Five Solas]

I can tell you haven't read much history as recorded by ancient people. It is *never* simply recording events. It *always* has a different goal: usually to convey a moral message or some sort of propaganda.

So? I don't see the problem. The Bible has an agenda. The focus is on God and His deeds. It is the history of salvation. It has a clear focus.

That does not change history.

Oh, it absolutely is an honest description. It is also an honest description of the writings of Homer, or of the Roman historian Livy, or of the writings of the Venerable Bede, or *any* other historical writings. The Bible is no different in this sense.

The Bible presents the events described in historical narrative as history. Real people really did these actual things. One reason for treating the historical narratives of the Bible as history rather than as myths is the point here: the biblical narratives take the form of “historical narrative.” The Bible talks about people and events as though these events and people are true. This doesn’t happen in ‘myths.’ No one, not even the original storytellers, took these mythical stories too seriously.

 

[Five Solas]

Really? Why is that? It seems that the scientific method would apply to *anything* that could be detected in any way that is verifiable.

As I have said.

OK, and how do you support your belief?

I don't support a belief. If you read with comprehension you would have noticed I was clearly speculating.

 

[Five Solas]

But we don't even know history directly. We always see it as interpreted by some writer.

An interpretation does not change the facts.

It is *never* simply recording events.

So?
The Bible is not simply recorded events either.

***My feelings did not create the Bible.***

No, but the feelings and beliefs of those who wrote the books of the Bible 'certainly did. The feelings and beliefs of those that selected those books to be in the Bible certainly did.

No it didn't. They did not write it