Do you think the Bible could be the word of G-d? /for atheists & agnostics

[viole]

Objective what?

Well, if moral laws are relative, then they cannot be objective, can they?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unification]

Love this post hoc rationalization. Keep fitting the pieces of modern knowledge in whatever you wish. It is hilarious watching people read whatever they want into a text.

I suppose you missed the part that said "could," as the thread is about "could/potential." "Could/potential" would indicate any possible or potential meanings.

If you were aware and honest with yourself, YOU are the one reading into a text I wrote about "could" and reading into it yourself as you please.
Didn't even need "biblical text" to show hypocrisy, as it's done with any text any human writes. That is what is comical. Watching you do the very thing that you laugh at. Guess you may not know yourself as well as you think.

To eliminate the "could," all probabilities and possibilities would be eliminated.

 

[Shad]

I suppose you missed the part that said "could," as the thread is about "could/potential." "Could/potential" would indicate any possible or potential meanings.

Which is speculation backed by post hoc rationalization. This does not undermine my point that you are reading modern knowledge into a text even as a could

If you were aware and honest with yourself, YOU are the one reading into a text I wrote about "could" and reading into it yourself as you please.
Didn't even need "biblical text" to show hypocrisy, as it's done with any text any human writes. That is what is comical. Watching you do the very thing that you laugh at. Guess you may not know yourself as well as you think.

Irrelevant to my point which is you are still reading something into the text after the fact which is exactly what I said in the first place. Could be and ifs are irrelevant to the method you used.

To eliminate the "could," all probabilities and possibilities would be eliminated.

Irrelevant to the method you used, You are merely hedging your bets that you could be wrong but this does not make your post hoc rationalization vanish.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, if moral laws are relative, then they cannot be objective, can they?

Ciao

- viole

Actually, sure they could. They could be objective, yet presented in the context of a relative subject or religious adherence.

 

[Unification]

Which is speculation backed by post hoc rationalization. This does not undermine my point that you are reading modern knowledge into a text even as a could



Irrelevant to my point which is you are still reading something into the text after the fact which is exactly what I said in the first place. Could be and ifs are irrelevant to the method you used.



Irrelevant to the method you used, You are merely hedging your bets that you could be wrong but this does not make your post hoc rationalization vanish.

"If's" and "could" very much are relevant "if" there is some sort of "God," or if there "could" be some sort of "God" and "if" those particular texts "could" be the "word of God."

"If" there is some sort of "God" and the texts are "the word of God," then post hoc could be irrelevant.

Even if a human was inspired to scribe them without having any knowledge of what they were writing.

As much as this is distasting to you, it is still a "could/possibility."

It's also not really "after" the fact. Cell replication was occurring with or without its modern discovery and knowledge "of" it thousands and millions of years ago and today. 900 trillion years ago, meiosis could have been discovered by a human.

 

[Shad]

"If's" and "could" very much are relevant "if" there is some sort of "God," or if there "could" be some sort of "God" and "if" those particular texts "could" be the "word of God."

Which is just speculation.

"If" there is some sort of "God" and the texts are "the word of God," then post hoc could be irrelevant.

Nope as even if there is a God this does not mean your post hoc rationalization is correct. The Bible could still be a man made texts with no input from God at all

Even if a human was inspired to scribe them without having any knowledge of what they were writing.

Which is more speculation to support previous speculation.

As much as this is distasting to you, it is still a "could/possibility."

I am calling it was it is post hoc rationalization backed by hedging your bets.

It's also not really "after" the fact. Cell replication was occurring with or without its modern discovery and knowledge "of" it thousands and millions of years ago and today. 900 trillion years ago, meiosis could have been discovered by a human.

Yes it is since you are interpretation modern knowledge into an ancient texted based on religious whim. Biological events happened but this does not mean the text is addressing it at all. You are still reading what you want into a text. You made an irrelevent point which does not solve the issues with your creative speculation.

 

[Unification]

Which is just speculation.



Nope as even if there is a God this does not mean your post hoc rationalization is correct. The Bible could still be a man made texts with no input from God at all



Which is more speculation to support previous speculation.



I am calling it was it is post hoc rationalization backed by hedging your bets.



Yes it is since you are interpretation modern knowledge into an ancient texted based on religious whim. Biological events happened but this does not mean the text is addressing it at all. You are still reading what you want into a text. You made an irrelevent point which does not solve the issues with your creative speculation.

No one said it was anything other than a possibility. No hedge fund set up or a bet that it IS that. Doesn't mean that it is or isn't addressing. It means the text "could" be addressing it. You are still reading and assuming what you want into the texts I wrote.

As for you now, are you saying it flat out isn't, can't be, and that there is no possibility that it "could" be?

Of course it "could" be manmade, and "could" have nothing to do with a true sort of "God" if there is such.

There are no issues, or the need of a solution. The thread is about "could."
The only reasoning I am trying to get across is that there could be alterior meanings other than the common dogma, and that the mind/word of "God" would/could be different than the mind/word of mankind.

No religious whim, cell replication would have nothing to do with religion.
The texts all could have nothing to do with religion. Religion is religion. Texts are texts.

Well, at least you called the "could" creative. Makes more sense that if the text were of some sort of normal and true "God," cell replication whether inside of the body or evolution would seem more rational, objective, true, and natural than the sickness of many common interpretations.

 

[Shad]

No one said it was anything other than a possibility. No hedge fund set up or a bet that it IS that. Doesn't mean that it is or isn't addressing. It means the text "could" be addressing it. You are still reading and assuming what you want into the texts I wrote.

You are speculating still which is hedging your bet. You still read something into the test that was not there.

As for you now, are you saying it flat out isn't, can't be, and that there is no possibility that it "could" be?

I am confident that it has nothing to do with your speculation since the book is the produce of men from antiquity which had no knowledge of what you are injecting into the text.

Of course it "could" be manmade, and "could" have nothing to do with a true sort of "God" if there is such.

All evidence points toward it is man made thus my conclusion is valid. It is your position that lack evidence for it.

There are no issues, or the need of a solution. The thread is about "could."
The only reasoning I am trying to get across is that there could be alterior meanings other than the common dogma, and that the mind/word of "God" would/could be different than the mind/word of mankind.

From which I did not think, with confidence, it is from God. Again it the position of those claiming it is to support their claim.

Again pure speculation based on an assumption you have not supported.

No religious whim, cell replication would have nothing to do with religion.
The texts all could have nothing to do with religion. Religion is religion. Texts are texts.

No it is a religious whim since you are reading knowledge not within the text into the text. based on speculation.

Well, at least you called the "could" creative. Makes more sense that if the text were of some sort of normal and true "God," cell replication whether inside of the body or evolution would seem more rational, objective, true, and natural than the sickness of many common interpretations.

Why would I say could when I am confident that it is not. You are still reading what you want into the text so it makes sense to you as the alternative is that it is nothing divine but just stories form antiquity.

 

[Unification]

You are speculating still which is hedging your bet. You still read something into the test that was not there.



I am confident that it has nothing to do with your speculation since the book is the produce of men from antiquity which had no knowledge of what you are injecting into the text.



All evidence points toward it is man made thus my conclusion is valid. It is your position that lack evidence for it.



From which I did not think, with confidence, it is from God. Again it the position of those claiming it is to support their claim.

Again pure speculation based on an assumption you have not supported.



No it is a religious whim since you are reading knowledge not within the text into the text. based on speculation.



Why would I say could when I am confident that it is not. You are still reading what you want into the text so it makes sense to you as the alternative is that it is nothing divine but just stories form antiquity.

One can be confident all that they want, confidence doesn't rid of all "coulds" or "possibilities." Confidence is speculation also. It's never been about knowledge, it's been about "could" or "speculation" as you put it. There was never a claim that it is, only the claim that it "could" be. The support for the "could" has been plenty.

I understand the hard time admitting that. You are confident it isn't there but that it "could" be "divine," even with a small probability. I know it's tough to admit that.

If it were divine, man did scribe, and man would likely have no knowledge about what they were even writing. They would probably have thought they were crazy.

You say it is not there, I say that it could be. Both speculation.

It also could make sense that it isn't divine and it is story from ancients. That is speculation also. I have no difficult time admitting that.

Since the thread is about "could" and not "is"... the only rational conclusion we can make is to have confidence that it is not, but could be.