How is the Bible the Word of God?

[metis]

Little warning though. They cost 15 dollars upwards

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The singularity contained electrically charged particles. The singularity is a complete mystery but it is not a mystery that is not in need of a cause and no significant evidence posits that anything natural predates it.

What? The singularity contained electrically charged particles? If it is a total mystery, how do you know what it contained? By the way, was there enough space to contain more that one particle?

I would reccomend to mentally replace the word "singularity" with the sentence "what we do not know" in any article that mentions it.

2 and 4. Electrically charged particles go back as far as the universe does. There is no known pre-electrically charged particle period in natural history. At least if there is I have never heard anyone mention it.

Electricity makes sense only when electromagnetism acquired autonomy as a different force via a process of symmetry breaking. When all forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitation) were one, as we believe they were, it makes no sense to speak of electrical forces or particles.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Most major faiths all begin the same way. We approach our texts. We must establish textual integrity throughout it's transmission history, internal consistency, philosophic validity, historical accuracy, translational integrity, moral excellence, and so on...........

Moral excellence?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Objectively prove (no "believe me" or subjective approval) to me why you think your opinion of other's beliefs, completely created out of nothing more than comments from this website, should be considered as reliable.

Glad to hear from you, I thought you might have been offended by my asking if you cared if I asked another poster gave his experience on the born again issue.

Let me ask you two things. Many of my questions you do not answer and points you do not respond to at all but please answer these. Which of these contentions are you making?

1. That I have misjudged you and that you are actually born again?
2. Or that I have misjudged Christianity and that you are a Christian despite not having been born again?
3. Or that it does not matter because you have found an alternative way to God and so it does not matter what Christ did or did not say?

I really need a specific answer to this. Not some "middle way" answer from oriental philosophy. Please do be specific.

Ok, now as to your request. What you asked is not something I can prove from my own personal views objectively. I can only show you that the bible is extremely reliable, especially concerning core doctrine. That that core doctrine includes extremely exclusive claims by Christ as to being the only way and hat way to being the been again experiences. My "proof" will only be as good as his words are reliable. Among the things I can prove are that no known natural infinites exist, oriental philosophy is untrue in most cases, the textual integrity of the bible is greater than any other work in ancient history by an extreme margin, that objective moral duties and values exist if God odes, that abortion is unjustifiable, that inherent rights only exist if God does, etc.......... and things of this nature. I never have and hope I never even mistakenly claim to be able to prove everything.

Theological, historical, and many other types of claims are never argued to a certainty. They are resolved to a probability. Actually faith does not even have that burden, I am intellectually justified in having faith in anything that lacks a defeater but I generally assume the burden of probability for my claims, unless I specifically claim to be able to prove something. That is not to say I don't know your wrong or right about something but that something may not be objectively provable.

So you cannot demand I prove anything I did not claim to be able to, or you should not do so anyway. You can only demand I make the cases I say I can make to the extent I claim to able to. So what did I claim to be able to prove that you claim I have not done so?

 

[1robin]

What I have objected to, and continue to object to, is how you treat others here. About two weeks ago, you labeled Hinduism as being a "stupid religion". Yesterday, you questioned here whether leibowde84 was a true Christian. And then you have the gal to get upset if I point out point out just how judgmental and insulting you are being here.

Please quote any statement I ever made than Hinduism is stupid. I try and be careful not to use words that are unnecessary inflammatory. I believe I used irrational, maybe illogical, etc..........

1. So let me use this opportunity to make a few points. Do not take this as offensive (as you are very prone to doing) but I really could care less if you think I am judgmental. I am told by an authority quite superior to you:

1 Thessalonians 5:22
reject every kind of evil.
1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 Thess: 5
20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
1 Corinthians 14:29
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
Galatians 6:10
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers

2. When who is considered by more people in history than any other in human history to be the highest possible moral authority says to his own priests:

New International Version
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

You should easily be able to understand why I don't really consider over sensitive people and false accusations all that accurate in that context. I called no one a viper, I simply said what Christianity is almost universally granted to be.


{quote]If I attack your Baptist faith and called it "stupid", how would you react? If I questioned whether you're going to be "saved" because maybe you're not being Christian enough because you violate a politically-correct belief that I have, how would you react? [/quote] I will tell you what I would think, I would think your an ignorant (not stupid) person but I would take little offense. My faith has been called infinitely more offensive terms than stupid. When my savior was killed for my faith, I think I can live with being called stupid. I would not be threatened in the slightest if you said I was not saved enough because far higher authority than you said I am. However this is another opportunity to correct AGAIN mistakes your making about my claims.

1. I never said anything about my criteria what so ever.
2. I said what a Christian is, is defined by Christ himself. We can have great certainty (by scholastic means) about what Christ's core criteria were. They include a very emphatic demand that to be saved we must be born again.
3. So by CHRIST"S criteria, not mine, any one not born again is not merely not saved enough but not saved at all.
4. It is my highest possible commission to spread the good news (or Gospel) who's corner stone is being born again.
5. It is not some mere technicality or "political belief (whatever that means)", it is the absolute bedrock of Christianity.

So it is the highest possible virtue to attempt to supply truth especially if I sincerely believe it to be the sincere truth. It remains a virtue as long as my motivations remain free from malevolence and they are.

My aim is not to attack you but to try and get you to understand that your attacks on someone else's religion and on whether they're "saved" is taken very personally by many here, as we've seen. It violates the "Golden Rule" by insulting both one's religion by calling it "stupid", and then judging whether a specific person is Christian enough.

I do not think you are attacking me, I think your just oversensitive to mu judging any other faith. I hope you can get past this because I do not intend to stop. AS long as I do not do so vindictively, or suggest that my judgments are about a persons worth I really can't think of any possible complaint you could have.

Just because we may think of such things, do we really have to say them in a manner as to insult them? If I see a person whom is mentally challenged, is it OK for me to say "Too bad you're an idiot."? Some things are best unsaid, and insulting people and their religion is both judgmental, mean-spirited, and insulting.

IT is no insult to man denying that being born again is true that he is not. It is no more insulting than your saying I do not obey the Vedas. I made no personal judgment, I in fact took the time and effort to make sure it was known specifically that I was not making a moral or intellectual judgment. I said the person in question may be the better person in every regard compared to me but just that they did not meet a criteria Christ established (which is not an intellectual or moral criteria by the way, it is a faith criteria that the person even denied the existence of).

OK, I made my point, so this is the end of my "rant".

1. If you are trying to convince me your not insulting me, no need I do not think you are.
2. If your trying to convince me you have an objectively legitimate complaint, don't bother I am positive your just being overly sensitive.
3. If your trying to say I have malevolent intent or the effect is such even by accident, your wrong about the former and I am virtually certain your wrong about the latter though I am only human and do make mistakes. I go way out of my way to even contradict an y mistaken belief I am being morally, or intellectually judgmental. For example I am pretty sure I gave academic reasons for my rejection of Hinduism, Pantheism, and Islam. I did not call their faiths stupid (though the term may actually apply). If you can show that I called anyone or any faith stupid to the person who held it I will seek them out and apologize.

Ok, I have made my response, the only reason I have bothered with doing so is your an intelligent, knowledgeable and with this one exception a civil poster and I believe a civil person. If I suspected malice (and I originally came close to doing so) would place you on my ignore list, but I think an occasional rant is worth it if it also includes intellectual content but I hope you do not get the ratio so lopsided I have to reverse that decision. It is my theological duty to defend my sincere (and personally validated faith) and to indicate what I believe to be untrue. I will continue to do so within the context of love and truth and will continue to do so. I hope you can live with that.

 

[1robin]

Well, let's see whether we can reach a compromise here, by laying down my position more accurately. Maybe I am a compatibilist without knowing it, lol.

So your compatible with compatabilsm? As long as your not compatible with cannibalism I think we have an accord.

Carroll says that free will is as real as baseball. I think it is as real as the probability applied to a game of roulette. What do I mean?

Carroll (if you mean Sean) is the best debater secularism has.

When I play a round of roulette, I make the rational assumption (if it is not rigged) that I can apply the laws of probability in order to calculate my expected return. Each slot has the same probability to get the little ball.

You could if you knew them in theory. The best a bunch of MIT grad students could do was get within a 1/8th section with a computer.

Of course, I know that if I had perfect knowledge of the microphysics of the ball, its initial momentum, the roulette, its initial spin, air conditions, pressure, etc. etc....i could determine the outcome with perfect precision.

In theory I agree.

But this information is not accessible to me. Detailed information about a physical system like that might require a lot of energy, and it is possible that I cannot access this information, not even in principe.

Energy here is not a barrier but only a laziness multiplier. One I concur with.

So, if I win, i won because of luck not because of my knowledge of dynamics.

NOOOOOOOO, there is no such thing as luck, or true randomness. You can't bottle, measure, or point to either one. If you mean that your victory was arbitrary to the physics I can agree. By the way I use the words randomness, and chance as figures of speech but neither are true.

In the same way, I cannot possibly access the microstate information relevant for an intentional agent. The perfect state of his brain and the perfect state of the physics around him, even if I think that they would make me anticipate her actions. So, I settle for agency and, at the same time, can make sense of moral responsability in the same way I could make sense of probability for the roulette case.

So your saying your ignorance of the physics that produced a brain and most of everything else is the only reason you cannot predict what all decisions would be? That a defense from ignorance and one I do not agree with. I do not care what initial conditions were nor what our knowledge of them would be they would never so conveniently line up as to make this conversation possible. Why would unintentional matter be so obliging as to allow our countless desires to be fulfilled when it has no interest in fulfilling any one of them.

Does that make me a compatibilist?

Nope, it makes you a preferential optimist. IOW you decide what you want to be true and then hope it is, at any cost. Just kidding, but it is not compatabalism. compatabalism is the idea that truly free will is compatable with physical determinism in general.

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.
Google

 

[1robin]

I am afraid that is not sufficient. Nobody knows whether our universe is infinite or not. It is entirely possible that it is, with or without its time past finiteness or it beng the only one or not.

Nobody knows anything beyond the fact we think if you want to be hyper technical about it. However all the evidence points to a universe that began in a very small space a finite time ago That all matter, space, and time originated at that point. Regardless of the speed it expanded, or how dense the singularity was it would still never ever produce an infinite anything. All we could debate is how much, how far, and how long if evidence is to be the judge. The reason I get frustrated with most pure theoreticians and atheists is while insisting their being "rational" they ultimately living in a fantasy world where their conclusion bend a tiny fragment of evidence into and ignore virtually all the actual evidence. Your literally defying all the evidence and are operating on far more faith than I.

What we know with a certain degree of certainty is that it is flat. So, it could look like a dounut (finite) or a cilinder (infinite) or any other surface that is flat. All those solutions are compatible with what we observe and the physics that underly relativity and inflation (the assumptions used by Vilenkin).

Every model I have ever seen has been of a bubble or a sphere, not one nor simplistic logical results in a cylinder or a plane of any kind. Are you talking about the universe or something else? Are talking about maybe a cylindrical cross section or something?

If you really had strong arguments against its infinity, you would be very famous. You would have considerably reduced the number of solutions that are compatible with evidence, and you would win a free ticket to Stockholm to have a beer with viole, and a meeting with her king, lol.

No I would be in an ocean of those who for every reason possible believe it is finite. I don't even know of anyone that believes this universe is infinite. A few claim (apparently without thinking or as a figure of speech) claim the singularity could have infinite properties but that is actually disprovable, not just contradictory to all the evidence.

But I accept your declaration of belief, vs. being certain, that no natural infinities can exist in any possible world. Nothing to object here. Almost nothing...

What I meant to convey is that there is no reason to think natural infinites exist in any way or any possible universe but no one can emphatically state what is impossible of a fantasy realm.

BTW what defines almost nothing? Anything is inherent not close to nothing.

Hey, I got an off the wall question for you. How is it that we know we almost remembered something?

 

[1robin]

What? The singularity contained electrically charged particles? If it is a total mystery, how do you know what it contained? By the way, was there enough space to contain more that one particle?

The whole universes existence is a total mystery, One I think God easily resolves (that does not mean he exist, but it does mean iron or bronze age men gave him the exact characteristics of a cause they did not know the properties of the effect of). I don't know but scientists claim that helium and on other atom existed from the very beginning (depending on how you define beginning I guess). Atoms contained charged particles.

Nucleosynthesis[edit]
Between 3 minutes and 20 minutes after the Big Bang[17]
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
During the photon epoch the temperature of the Universe falls to the point where atomic nuclei can begin to form. Protons (hydrogen ions) and neutrons begin to combine into atomic nuclei in the process of nuclear fusion. Free neutrons combine with protons to form deuterium. Deuterium rapidly fuses into helium-4. Nucleosynthesis only lasts for about seventeen minutes, since the temperature and density of the Universe has fallen to the point where nuclear fusion cannot continue. By this time, all neutrons have been incorporated into helium nuclei. This leaves about three times more hydrogen than helium-4 (by mass) and only trace quantities of other light nuclei.
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: If you think I buy they actually know the chronology this accurately you can forget it, but obviously charged particles existed as far back as can be determined with any accuracy.

I would reccomend to mentally replace the word "singularity" with the sentence "what we do not know" in any article that mentions it.

That is almost exactly how I meant it but even a thing which is contained by the label "I don't know what it is" is in all likely hood no exception to having an explanation or cause. I would have to reject the evidence a take a flaying leap of faith into your fantasy realm to think it probably did not.

[/quote]lectricity makes sense only when electromagnetism acquired autonomy as a different force via a process of symmetry breaking. When all forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitation) were one, as we believe they were, it makes no sense to speak of electrical forces or particles. [/quote] That is another theoretical fantasy land and this particular fantasy land would have applied to the singularity when:

The breaking of an exact symmetry of the underlying laws of physics by the random formation of some structure.
Symmetry breaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is guessed to have occurred.

There is also an entire category of symmetry breaking called spontaneous which I guess would defeat your determinism idea. BTW half of the ten or so possible quantum mathematical formats are non-deterministic.

 

[1robin]

Moral excellence?

Ciao

- viole

Your a funny person ehhhh?


"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.

No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.

He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

Christianity is more associated with moral excellence than any similar source in history. Our highest authority despite being divine was tortured and died for your and my sins. We build museum and give medals to humans who display this, the highest possible aspect of moral virtue

 

[metis]

Please quote any statement I ever made than Hinduism is stupid...

Either you're being very forgetful or dishonest. I challenged you on this a couple of weeks ago over a series of back-and-forth posts, and I honestly cannot believe you come back with the above.

 

[1robin]

Either you're being very forgetful or dishonest. I challenged you on this a couple of weeks ago over a series of back-and-forth posts, and I honestly cannot believe you come back with the above.

I remember it very well. I remember pointing out to you at the time everything I said about Hinduism was an academic conclusion. Irrational, contradictory, etc.......are intellectual and academic conclusions they are not vindictive, malevolent, personal, or sarcastic. I was quite clear about that. However your response that my academic conclusions were "disgusting" was a personal comment. So your not being accurate but you are being hypocritical here. I wish you would discontinue this line of discussion as it is not flattering for you at least in my eyes. I have explained quite exhaustively the theological and academic justification for my comments. They are uncontestable, especially since you cannot or at least will not post any statement about someone's faith being "stupid" I actually made, even after I told you that if you did I would apologize to that person. You appear to simply be arguing for the sake of not having to admit the error at this point. Reminds me of a confederate general who said "we would rather lose the war than admit to the mistake". I cannot justify continuing the discussion about this issue any longer. Either learn to live with my comments, ignore them, or produce the statements where I actually said what you claim I did, I have just wasted a long time searching through all my posts where I used the word stupid. In 11,000 plus there are a grand total where I used the word stupid at all, and I can find none where I called anyone's faith stupid (unless you consider an application of social Darwinism a faith). That is enough time wasted on this issue.

I actually spent the time (that you should have) to find the original claim I made. Here it is:

I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied.

The word "stupid" does not appear in that statement. So your getting close to pure dishonesty and absolute hypocrisy by claiming I used that word and accusing me of dishonesty. If you value credibility in future discussions with me I would halt that line of discussion before irreparable damage is done.

 

[outhouse]

The reason I get frustrated with most pure theoreticians and atheists is while insisting their being "rational" they ultimately living in a fantasy world where their conclusion bend a tiny fragment of evidence into and ignore virtually all the actual evidence. Your literally defying all the evidence and are operating on far more faith than I.

No, No , No.

We do not defy evidence.

That is the signature of faith. Faith is the belief in something when there is ZERO evidence in support.

We know you have faith, but don't start lumping all atheist in your imaginative category's, because you personally determine what many would claim as biased views, are correct.

 

[outhouse]

I have explained quite exhaustively the theological and academic justification for my comments. They are uncontestable,

That is simply not true.

All of your academics are contestable, and because you refuse to change you mind no matter how much credible evidence is provided, does not mean you are correct.

 

[outhouse]

I said what a Christian is, is defined by Christ himself

Unsubstantiated

All we have are what later followers wrote of this Galilean.

No one person in the NT ever met or knew Jesus, or was witness, to any event.

Not one word was written by the Galilean.

 

[1robin]

No, No , No.

We do not defy evidence.

That is the signature of faith. Faith is the belief in something when there is ZERO evidence in support.

We know you have faith, but don't start lumping all atheist in your imaginative category's, because you personally determine what many would claim as biased views, are correct.

This is an argument of the form "I know you are but what am I" that I had in grammar school. I responded to a specific example of a person doing exactly this. I have evidence and saying "nu-uhhhh" will not change that. Almost every single thing you said was perfectly wrong in this post but there is one thing I do need to correct. I was explaining what I find to be true of atheists in general and I should clarify I did not intend to say it was true of every single atheist. I don't know every single atheist but my statement was a good characterization for the ones I do know in general.

 

[1robin]

That is simply not true.

All of your academics are contestable, and because you refuse to change you mind no matter how much credible evidence is provided, does not mean you are correct.

You did not understand what I said. It was not my conclusions that I was claiming are incontestable but my justification for statement them. If you actually read the post in which I listed them you will find no argument against them.

 

[outhouse]

This is an argument of the form "I know you are but what am I" that I had in grammar school. I responded to a specific example of a person doing exactly this. I have evidence and saying "nu-uhhhh" will not change that. Almost every single thing you said was perfectly wrong in this post but there is one thing I do need to correct. I was explaining what I find to be true of atheists in general and I should clarify I did not intend to say it was true of every single atheist. I don't know every single atheist but my statement was a good characterization for the ones I do know in general.

You made a statement against atheism.

Start providing credible sources to back up your claims.

 

[metis]

I remember it very well. I remember pointing out to you at the time everything I said about Hinduism was an academic conclusion. Irrational, contradictory, etc.......are intellectual and academic conclusions they are not vindictive, malevolent, personal, or sarcastic. I was quite clear about that. However your response that my academic conclusions were "disgusting" was a personal comment. So your not being accurate but you are being hypocritical here. I wish you would discontinue this line of discussion as it is not flattering for you at least in my eyes. I have explained quite exhaustively the theological and academic justification for my comments. They are uncontestable, especially since you cannot or at least will not post any statement about someone's faith being "stupid" I actually made, even after I told you that if you did I would apologize to that person. You appear to simply be arguing for the sake of not having to admit the error at this point. Reminds me of a confederate general who said "we would rather lose the war than admit to the mistake". I cannot justify continuing the discussion about this issue any longer. Either learn to live with my comments, ignore them, or produce the statements where I actually said what you claim I did, I have just wasted a long time searching through all my posts where I used the word stupid. In 11,000 plus there are a grand total where I used the word stupid at all, and I can find none where I called anyone's faith stupid (unless you consider an application of social Darwinism a faith). That is enough time wasted on this issue.

I actually spent the time (that you should have) to find the original claim I made. Here it is: The word "stupid" does not appear in that statement. So your getting close to pure dishonesty and absolute hypocrisy by claiming I used that word and accusing me of dishonesty. If you value credibility in future discussions with me I would halt that line of discussion before irreparable damage is done.

I do believe on another related post you used the word "stupid", but your saying "...the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied" is pretty much saying the same thing. If you link me to that quote, let me peruse the other comments you made about Hinduism since there simply was a conglomerate of posts and not just one or two. If my memory is correct, I even stated that you doubled-down on your insults of that faith. So, I'd appreciate you linking me to your quote.

But let us both not lose track of the broader context, namely your willingness to condemn other religions and you're willingness to question another person's Christian faith to the point of wondering whether he's really a Christian after all, thus my comment that some things are probably better off unsaid instead of continuing to insult people and their religion.

 

[1robin]

Unsubstantiated

All we have are what later followers wrote of this Galilean.


Not one word was written by the Galilean.

Did you read all of what your responding to? Your more than welcome to comment on posts I address to others but you should come to understand the entire conversation before you jump into it. The comments I made your rejecting to with mere declarations were predicated upon my claims to the evidence we have that we have vastly more than enough academic justification for believing we have Christ's core messages to us. If you wish to contest with that tidal wave of evidence be my guest but your going to have to do better than attempting to declare reality into existence when it conflicts with a mountain of scholarship. There is more textual attestation to Christ's life and words than for any Character of any type from any period in ancient history. Yet countless of them are taught as fact in colleges around the world despite this. For examples Caesar's words and actions are taught a historical facts around the world despite his original Gallic Wars originally intended as propaganda and the oldest extant copy we have (and we only have 2) dates from almost 1000 years later. While we have thousands of Greek manuscripts alone from with a few hundred years of Christ.

No one person in the NT ever met or knew Jesus, or was witness, to any event.

This is almost too absurd to respond to. You can't possibly know this even if it was true and your mere declaration contradicts the opinion of histories greatest scholars on testimony and evidence.

Your going to have to pick up your efforts quite a bit, claiming to know things you can't even if true are not a good start to a discussion.

 

[outhouse]

No, the supernatural has mountains of positive evidence.

Many would view this as error.

There is no credible evidence to date for the supernatural.

That is why it is called the supernatural. It has NO evidence in support.