How could a sensible person believe in the bible?

[Tiberius]

Hmmm.... I'll have to mull that over. At the moment, I still think a being who could speak the universe into existence would be even more amazing than the universe itself -- and I think most theists would tend to agree.

Curious. If we are to claim that a God is required because the universe is too complex to exist without a cause, then the same must be true of God - in fact, more so!

 

[Jeremiah]

Curious. If we are to claim that a God is required because the universe is too complex to exist without a cause, then the same must be true of God - in fact, more so!

The question that pops into my mind: Can God be rationalized?

It seems reasonable to assume that reason might or might not have limits.

 

[Eraser Salad]

I am feeling happy am I telling a lie?

Why are you feeling happy? Because you're on the internet?

There are countless people who use the internet and aren't happy, so claiming the internet makes everyone happy is irrational.

The question that pops into my mind: Can God be rationalized?

It seems reasonable to assume that reason might or might not have limits.

I think it's a lot more reasonable to think that God's alleged immunity to reason is incredibly suspicious.

 

[joeboonda]

Curious. If we are to claim that a God is required because the universe is too complex to exist without a cause, then the same must be true of God - in fact, more so!

We see a house we know there was an architect, thus a creation shows forth a creator. Scripture says God has ALWAYS EXISTED. Is that something you or I can grasp? No way. One cannot say it must be true that God is too complex to exist without a cause if he has always existed, which our limited minds and resources cannot understand anyway. The fact is the Bible declares there is a God and foretells future events precisely to prove it, as only God knows the future.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Curious. If we are to claim that a God is required because the universe is too complex to exist without a cause, then the same must be true of God - in fact, more so!

For Christians, God is a cause in itself - the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end as we say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We see a house we know there was an architect, thus a creation shows forth a creator. Scripture says God has ALWAYS EXISTED. Is that something you or I can grasp? No way. One cannot say it must be true that God is too complex to exist without a cause if he has always existed, which our limited minds and resources cannot understand anyway.

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of special pleading?

If it's your contention that complexity implies design as a general precept, then, if consistency is important to you, you must apply this precept to all complex things from watches and humans all the way up to God.

The fact is the Bible declares there is a God and foretells future events precisely to prove it, as only God knows the future.

If that's the case, why is divination listed as one of the sins in Leviticus? If it's impossible for humans to know the future, wouldn't a commandment against practicing divination make as much sense as a commandment against levitating?

 

[Storm]

If you were a member of the most popular sect in the world, you'd still be outnumbered by heathens over 2 to 1. Every alternative is a less popular deity.

Oh, I'm outnumbered to be sure, I just take issue with your uninformed dismissals. By the way, I don't believe God is a deity at all. I do believe that "all Gods are one God" (more or less), which puts all believers in the same boat.

Your senses? Please don't tell me you smelled God.

There are subtler senses. What did you think I meant by "perception"?

Actually, I'm just insensitive, but I think my point stands; by basing your philosophy purely in incommunicable personal experience, you downplay or ignore the conflicting experiences of other human beings. That's not rational.

I disagree. I'd like to know why you think I do, though.

You shouldn't think that my lack of expressed interest in the details of your theophany is a sign I've dismissed you as just another theist. I prefer to keep things impersonal

Well, that's a bit of an improvement, I suppose. I'm not a theist at all, though.

Your lack of interest isn't a personal affront to me, ftr. The reason I take umbrage with it is that it represents a lack of basic curiosity.

more importantly, the details of your experience don't change what I already know;

What you believe.

1. There is no tangible proof for God.

Depends on the God. If I'm right, the cosmos itself is tangible proof.

2. If your experience had complete conclusiveness, it would have received greater media attention.

a) You assume I'd take it to the media.
b) It was completely conclusive - subjectively. I make no claims to objective proof.

3. Feelings lie.

Yes, they do, but it wasn't and isn't a feeling. Look, if you don't want to know, that's fine. But if you're not even going to bother to find out what I'm talking about, you have no ground to contradict me.

I already know before you say anything that as real as whatever happened to you might have been, it lacks the conclusiveness I would require even if I had experienced it myself.

And how exactly do you know that? You're making an awful lot of groundless assumptions to justify your dismissal. I shoot one down and two spring up to replace it. That's not rational, it's defensive.

 

[joeboonda]

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of special pleading?

If it's your contention that complexity implies design as a general precept, then, if consistency is important to you, you must apply this precept to all complex things from watches and humans all the way up to God.


If that's the case, why is divination listed as one of the sins in Leviticus? If it's impossible for humans to know the future, wouldn't a commandment against practicing divination make as much sense as a commandment against levitating?

It would not apply to God if he has always existed, only to something created. Since we do not have the capacity to grasp the eternal existence of God, we take him at his word. Divination was going to another source than God and trying to predict the future. God came to men and revealed the future on his own without them seeking it through other means to further his purposes and so we would know he is indeed God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would not apply to God if he has always existed, only to something created. Since we do not have the capacity to grasp the eternal existence of God, we take him at his word.

Then your argument becomes a tautology: created things must have been created. How do we then go about determining whether anything in particular, whether it's a watch, a human, or the universe as whole, has been "created"? What are the characteristics that you think would indicate this to us?

Since you apparently hold that complexity doesn't imply design for the most complex (and possibly infinitely complex) thing imaginable, i.e. God, why do you claim that complexity must imply design for anything else?

 

[Smoke]

For Christians, God is a cause in itself - the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end as we say.

But that's not a belief that one arrives at rationally, so what relation does it have to the argument that there must be a god because the universe must have a cause?

 

[joeboonda]

Then your argument becomes a tautology: created things must have been created. How do we then go about determining whether anything in particular, whether it's a watch, a human, or the universe as whole, has been "created"? What are the characteristics that you think would indicate this to us?

Since you apparently hold that complexity doesn't imply design for the most complex (and possibly infinitely complex) thing imaginable, i.e. God, why do you claim that complexity must imply design for anything else?

A creation has a beginning and a creator. God, who has always existed had no beginning and thus no creator. We cannot fully grasp eternity and we are not God. God has given us enough to know him and his Son in his Word, his sure word of prophecy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A creation has a beginning and a creator. God, who has always existed had no beginning and thus no creator.

On its face, this is the exact opposite of the watchmaker argument, a version of which you tried to use previously: if something as complex as a human being could not have "just happened" without some intelligent cause, how could an infinitely complex God "just happen" or "just have always been there" without an intelligent cause of His own?

But anyhow... those are your criteria whether something is a "creation"? A beginning and a creator? Okay; let's see if we can go somewhere with this.

I take it that this statement (even though I wouldn't call it a complete argument) speaks to your position on God's lack of beginning:

We cannot fully grasp eternity and we are not God. God has given us enough to know him and his Son in his Word, his sure word of prophecy.

Now, if you could, please illustrate how you know that human beings, for example, have a creator and are thus "creations".

 

[Eraser Salad]

Oh, I'm outnumbered to be sure, I just take issue with your uninformed dismissals. By the way, I don't believe God is a deity at all. I do believe that "all Gods are one God" (more or less), which puts all believers in the same boat.

Most believers don't believe that.

There are subtler senses. What did you think I meant by "perception"?

I think you're being dishonest implying there's something pragmatic about ESP.

Your lack of interest isn't a personal affront to me, ftr. The reason I take umbrage with it is that it represents a lack of basic curiosity.

If you want to submit one of the most important experiences of your life up for debate, go ahead.

Depends on the God. If I'm right, the cosmos itself is tangible proof.

If it was tangible proof, there wouldn't be a debate. God is a hypothesis created to explain the world. Claiming the world proves that hypothesis is circular reasoning.

a) You assume I'd take it to the media.

If your experience was conclusive at all, the media would wind up with it, regardless of how you felt about that.

b) It was completely conclusive - subjectively.

My instincts are telling me it was much more subjective than you're letting on.

And how exactly do you know that?

Because the conclusiveness I'd require would have been an experience that could only be explained by God's existence, and in all those cases, the more rational response would be to doubt one's senses.

 

[Storm]

Most believers don't believe that.

So?

I think you're being dishonest implying there's something pragmatic about ESP.

That makes no sense. Restate please, preferably without the ad hom.

If you want to submit one of the most important experiences of your life up for debate, go ahead.

I don't post it on open forums for reasons of courtesy, but I provide it to anyone who asks.

God is a hypothesis created to explain the world.

Um, no. The origin of religion is a much more complex and uncertain subject.

Claiming the world proves that hypothesis is circular reasoning.

And if that I hypothesis had anything to do with what I was talking about, you'd be right. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't.

If your experience was conclusive at all, the media would wind up with it, regardless of how you felt about that.

What is it about "subjectively" that you fail to understand?

My instincts are telling me it was much more subjective than you're letting on

What?! I'm the one who pointed it out in the first place!

Because the conclusiveness I'd require would have been an experience that could only be explained by God's existence, and in all those cases, the more rational response would be to doubt one's senses.

Why is that more rational? Because it supports your predetermined conclusions? That's not rationality, it's bias. And you call me dishonest....

 

[Storm]

Actually, Eraser Salad, nevermind. I'm done. I have no interest in trying to pry open your mind.

 

[Jeremiah]

Why are you feeling happy? Because you're on the internet?

There are countless people who use the internet and aren't happy, so claiming the internet makes everyone happy is irrational.

"I am feeling happy am I telling a lie?" - Jeremiah

I asked if I was telling a lie.

 

[camanintx]

A creation has a beginning and a creator. God, who has always existed had no beginning and thus no creator. We cannot fully grasp eternity and we are not God. God has given us enough to know him and his Son in his Word, his sure word of prophecy.

Your argument doesn't hold water because a creator also needs raw material to work with, so something besides God must have always existed as well.

 

[may]

Its​

​

contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date
Origin of the Universe: Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 1978, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."—God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.​

Shape​

​

of Planet Earth: Isa. 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of "the circle" of earth’s horizon.​

Animal​

​

Life: Lev. 11:6: "The hare . . . is a chewer of the cud." Though this was long attacked by some critics, the rabbit’s cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163.​

Its​

​

internal harmony is significant​

This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.

 

[rojse]

Its​

contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date​

Origin of the Universe: Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 1978, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."—God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.​

The Big bang has so far managed to be explained without requiring the presence of God. Science works by making experiments and writing hypotheses to explain the results through natural, repeatable causes. The will of God is not natural or repeatable, let alone verifiable, and is not part of any credible scientific studies.

I will admit that the Big Bang has not been completely explained scientifically, but this could be due to our lack of research, knowledge, and amount of study time on this subject, not automatically explained by the presence of an unseen creator.
​

Shapeof Planet Earth: Isa. 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of "the circle" of earth’s horizon.

There was some debate about the fact that the shape of the earth previously. And, the Church asserted the fact that the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe, until the middle of the fifteenth century, with quotes of the bible to back up this view of the world.

I can even read that this passage uses the word circle, not a sphere. One is a two-dimensional object, the other is a three-dimensional object, both with totally different meanings when describing our planet.

AnimalLife: Lev. 11:6: "The hare . . . is a chewer of the cud." Though this was long attacked by some critics, the rabbit’s cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163.

What is the significance of chewing cud?

Itsinternal harmony is significant

This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.

I would say that this could possibly be due to them checking the previous works, and the way that the written Bible was originally compiled.

And I would disagree about the significance of the internal harmony of the Bible, too. There are many significant logical inconsistencies within the Bible, both in terms of stated facts and doctrine. Also considering that that some parts of the Bible are near universally considered not to be the absolute factual truth should say enough about it's internal inconsistencies.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your argument doesn't hold water because a creator also needs raw material to work with, so something besides God must have always existed as well.

Ours doesn't.