INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Traditionally attributed to Moses (Though even his historicity is called into question). The authorship of the Torah by Modern Scholars is that it was completed during the time around 7th to 9th century b.c. Hence the documentary hypothesis which looks at the books drawing from the J, the E, the P, and the D.

That said it does not mean that the stories themselves did not exist prior to that formation, but they were not nearly as concise as they were now.

There is plenty of ways to investigate the claims of the older books.

Particularly when it starts meshing in history.

Genesis Parallels are found in many mesopotamia cultures. Even evident in literary styles, seen in the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 and also in the flood story "two of every kind, or 7 clean pairs and 2 pairs of every kind"...Did Noah send a Dove or a Raven? The story of the flood matching up with the epics of gilgamesh for instance.

Abram, Jacob, Isaac, all up in the air if they were real or actual composite characters.

But even when you step away from that.

Exodus mentions a mass evacuation of a number that could easily tally up to 2+ million people. There have been no records as of that that has Egypt ever having such an exodus. Especially when they left in such a rush, there would have been things left behind...and of course when did it actually happen? But so far there is no evidence of that, the Egyptian empire was huge and stretched a good distance, what may have been called an exodus may have really just been small scale rebellions.


What Secularist books have you read on the Canaanite wars? Because none of the articles and research have indicated that these lands were privy to the massive attacks lead by Moses and Joshua (anything can be justified by those who need it to be). Rather it seems to indicate that things were relatively peaceful. It also seems at least with current evidence that the Israelites were a subset group of Canaanites...of course as more evidence comes out there is much to learn. Digressing though, Jericho as you mentioned the burned wall which was crushed does not fit the timeline as described by the Bible, with most archaeologist agreeing that the wall feel several hundred years before the narrative in Joshua.

The five kings slew by Joshua, have yet to turn up evidence of their existence, but again I do not believe the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence necessarily.

The destruction of Tyre did not go by the way Ezekiel claimed it would. Tyre was destroyed not by Nebudchanezzer which is made explicit in the chapter but rather by Alexander the great, though now it exists.

There are other countries or groups who would be told they would be destroyed forever but later were told remnants would remain (looking at you Jebusites and Edom).

It is said that the Lord sent an angel to kill somewhere along the lines of 185,000 of Sennacherib men and that he was forced to retreat, and was later killed by his sons. Sennacherib actually did get assassinated, by whom isn't actually recorded in history, however (and yes he could have been lying):

Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took 46 of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about, I took and plundered a countless number. From these places I took and carried off 200,156 persons, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mules, ***** and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude; and Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape... Then upon Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, and diverse treasures, a rich and immense booty... All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government.

Hezekiah's actions according to some archaeologist nearly bankrupted Judah and it was during the time of his Son Manasseh there was peace.

Now of course there is actually some mentions by Josephus that some disaster had befallen Sennacherib's men and Herodutus mentions it as well, perhaps that is the disaster that had befallen his men, but how closely related that is to Judah (which he left to go put down a coup), is lost to history currently.

There are definitely good amounts of theological and poetry in the Bible that are beautiful (Book of Job, Song of Solomons, story of Esther and Ruth), there are great lessons that can be drawn from them. However as history? It's not holding much weight currently as it once did.

but there is so much more left to discover so I withhold any actual judgement.

You have posted quite a few claims here that any one would require much time to resolve. I almost never refuse a challenge and am not doing so here. However I can't start down all these roads in a single post and do justice to any of them. I will take on whatever you think is your best claim and then the rest in order if you wish. However doing them all at the same time is meaningless and impractical. Pick any one of these and we can attempt to resolve it. The Bible is a very sophisticated book and an old one which almost never allows neutrality. Despite the fact it is the most textually attested work of any kind many times over in ancient history there are constantly people who think they can argue it away even if all their predecessors failed to do so. You have given a short statement from one side of the coin but there is another side that is inexhaustible that needs to be included and then the best side chosen. I can't present that other side beyond a drive by staccato status unless one claim is chosen and sufficient time devoted. Your choice.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You have posted quite a few claims here that any one would require much time to resolve. I almost never refuse a challenge and am not doing so here. However I can't start down all these roads in a single post and do justice to any of them. I will take on whatever you think is your best claim and then the rest in order if you wish. However doing them all at the same time is meaningless and impractical. Pick any one of these and we can attempt to resolve it. The Bible is a very sophisticated book and an old one which almost never allows neutrality. Despite the fact it is the most textually attested work of any kind many times over in ancient history there are constantly people who think they can argue it away even if all their predecessors failed to do so. You have given a short statement from one side of the coin but there is another side that is inexhaustible that needs to be included and then the best side chosen. I can't present that other side beyond a drive by staccato status unless one claim is chosen and sufficient time devoted. Your choice.

I actually tried my best to balance them, showing both how the historical view would fit in the biblical context. I would suggest reading The Bible Unearthed, and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan.

I suppose it's hard to actually define how the Bible fits in a historical perspective. It's not a straight historical document, it has theology and poetry, there's much going on in the scholarly world about the time the books in the bible were written and how the languages reflect not so much the future, but what was currently happening. The reason why they were put together has its own hypothesis as well....

 

[1robin]

I actually tried my best to balance them, showing both how the historical view would fit in the biblical context. I would suggest reading The Bible Unearthed, and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan.

You are the promptest poster I know of. I made no complaints about your balance or your information. There was just too many points to do them all justice. I am interested in resolution not simple arguments. That means when I can I like to go slow and be thorough.

I suppose it's hard to actually define how the Bible fits in a historical perspective. It's not a straight historical document, it has theology and poetry, there's much going on in the scholarly world about the time the books in the bible were written and how the languages reflect not so much the future, but what was currently happening. The reason why they were put together has its own hypothesis as well....

You seem to be retreating from what you wished to discuss. Why? I am up for discussing any and all of your points to a resolution. I just want to do that one at a time. The Bible is not perfect. It contains at worst 5% scribal error and the pedigree for Deuteronomy is suspicious. That being said it exceeds any book of any kind in ancient history and I have found that if studied long enough 99% of objections to it are resolved and the contentions evaporate. However in many cases that requires time. I find it far more accurate than faith necessitates and do not find it's very slight inaccuracy to be a reasonable impediment to faith. I will show this if you are still interested even using your points. Have you changed your mind?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I actually tried my best to balance them, showing both how the historical view would fit in the biblical context. I would suggest reading The Bible Unearthed, and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan.

You are the promptest poster I know of. I made no complaints about your balance or your information. There was just too many points to do them all justice. I am interested in resolution not simple arguments. That means when I can I like to go slow and be thorough.

You seem to be retreating from what you wished to discuss. Why? I am up for discussing any and all of your points to a resolution. I just want to do that one at a time. The Bible is not perfect. It contains at worst 5% scribal error and the pedigree for Deuteronomy is suspicious. That being said it exceeds any book of any kind in ancient history and I have found that if studied long enough 99% of objections to it are resolved and the contentions evaporate. However in many cases that requires time. I find it far more accurate than faith necessitates and do not find it's very slight inaccuracy to be a reasonable impediment to faith. I will show this if you are still interested even using your points. Have you changed your mind?

Not at all backing up, I pointed it out when I said Minamalist and Maximal viewpoints of the bible. That is the debate between is the Bible supposed to be a full blown historical account (which is how archaeology took it prior to the 19th century if I remember correctly), or is it a mix of theological, political, poetic movements upon a historical backdrop (which is what evidence seems to be pointing towards with more and more discoveries).

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers though...5% how did you get that? I'm not sure what objections you are specifically talking about, and how do you find them resolved? Did you look at other sources?

So if you want one to address let's look at the Exodus from Egypt. Can you link me to sources that indicate that there was a large exodus of the Israelites from Egypt? I only know of one Egyptian source that mentions them.

 

[metis]

I believe it was you who claimed an actual infinity existed so it is your burden to prove it does. It is at least your sides claims that suppose this.

I didn't make such a claim but only mentioned it as a hypothesis, and if a hypothesis doesn't have substantial evidence to support it, it will only remain a hypothesis.

Which is another in a inexhaustible list of things that are consistent with the Bible.

The Bible is not a science text.

So a thing that has no known example, no direct evidence, and many reasons to think can't possibly exist is more science that fantasy? How?

It's a hypothesis, meaning that there is some logical evidence to support that it could be true.

There is nothing that strikes me harder than the fact your side of these issues has one standard for everything else and one for God.

A theistic causation can be considered a hypothesis as well because there's at least some logic behind it much like there is for infinity.

However a scientists can jump to any fictional claim he wishes whether it contradicts evidence, has no evidence, or even appears possible as he desires even though he doe snot claim to be making faith claims. That is dishonest, unprofitable, and based on double standards and the misapplication of burdens.

That's not at all true.

The most accepted cosmological models in existence are of a single finite universe. Everything else is faith. There are no known natural infinites and no reason to believe there could be and all of reliable science is consistent with Biblical cosmology.

I've presented three different sources showing that most cosmologists have the hypothesis that everything might well go back into infinity, and yet you keep posting the above, which is "dishonest, unprofitable, and based on double standards and the misapplication of burdens", to use your own words. And, again, the Bible is not a science text.

 

[metis]

I have a math degree and will tell you it is mostly a boundary condition and causes many equations to blow up.

But you weren't even aware of the fact that pi goes into infinity numerically, and it's by no means the only formulation that does that. For another example, divide 3 into 2, writing it out to the final decimal point.

If you truly believe in math, then you truly must believe in infinity.

 

[1robin]

I actually tried my best to balance them, showing both how the historical view would fit in the biblical context. I would suggest reading The Bible Unearthed, and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan.

Not at all, I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers...5% how did you get that? I'm not sure what objections you are specifically talking about, and how do you find them resolved? Did you look at other sources?

The best known scholar who critiques the Bible who is not a Christian is Bart Ehrman. He gives the total number of errors in the Biblical tradition as 300,000 to 400,000. If you take all the manuscripts in the tradition and divide them by this number and so on you wind up at 5%. He is a very good scholar and I use his numbers to try and limit the stuff I must contend with. However most theologians throughout history put the number at .05%. Even Ehrman admits that no error exist in core doctrine. If you want he best and latest scholarship on the errors in the BIble I suggest Dr. James White v/s Dr. Ehrman debate. I can give you a link or the transcript if you wish. Let me add some more info here. The reason we have such an exact idea concerning errors in the Bible is the fact it has over and over and over again a vastly higher amount of copies and early ones than any other work in ancient history. You need several things to accurately know what errors have occurred over time.

1. Early copies.
2. Prolific copying.
3. Independent lines of transmission.
4. Parallel lines of transmission.
5. As a bonus it would help if early works were lost and only re-discovered long after they were lost.

The Bible has all of these in spades and virtually every error is known and indicated in all major modern Bible's. No errors exist in core doctrine and most of the errors are meaningless like two n's in John. The errors are almost always additions as well, meaning the original is still contained in it's modern versions. This is miraculously accurate compared to anything of it kind. Nothing is even close. I can add volumes to the framework I laid out above if needed.

So if you want one to address let's look at the Exodus from Egypt. Can you link me to sources that indicate that there was a large exodus of the Israelites from Egypt? I only know of one Egyptian source that mentions them.

First let me set up some goal posts. You have chosen the 5% of the Bible where evidence for or against is the hardest to come by (this stuff is pre-historic or barely historic), so whatever exists will be fragmentary and not much of it either way. Second I believe you want only evidence for an exodus. Not their slave status or numbers, correct? Will you go with the side that has the most evidence even if neither side has much evidence in totality?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The best known scholar who critiques the Bible who is not a Christian is Bart Ehrman. He gives the total number of errors in the Biblical tradition as 300,000 to 400,000. If you take all the manuscripts in the tradition and divide them by this number and so on you wind up at 5%. He is a very good scholar and I use his numbers to try and limit the stuff I must contend with. However most theologians throughout history put the number at .05%. Even Ehrman admits that no error exist in core doctrine. If you want he best and latest scholarship on the errors in the BIble I suggest Dr. James White v/s Dr. Ehrman debate. I can give you a link or the transcript if you wish. Let me add some more info here. The reason we have such an exact idea concerning errors in the Bible is the fact it has over and over and over again a vastly higher amount of copies and early ones than any other work in ancient history. You need several things to accurately know what errors have occurred over time.

1. Early copies.
2. Prolific copying.
3. Independent lines of transmission.
4. Parallel lines of transmission.
5. As a bonus it would help if early works were lost and only re-discovered long after they were lost.

The Bible has all of these in spades and virtually every error is known and indicated in all major modern Bible's. No errors exist in core doctrine and most of the errors are meaningless like two n's in John. The errors are almost always additions as well, meaning the original is still contained in it's modern versions. This is miraculously accurate compared to anything of it kind. Nothing is even close. I can add volumes to the framework I laid out above if needed.

First let me set up some goal posts. You have chosen the 5% of the Bible where evidence for or against is the hardest to come by (this stuff is pre-historic or barely historic), so whatever exists will be fragmentary and not much of it either way. Second I believe you want only evidence for an exodus. Not their slave status or numbers, correct? Will you go with the side that has the most evidence even if neither side has much evidence in totality?

Doctrine is Doctrine, that is something that is always changing. Like when you find houses and inscriptions that say "Yahweh and his asherah (sp). I'm talking about historicity though. Are the events 100% historically accurate or have parts been added in/taken out?

Egypt was in the past, however evidence of it would be clear , given the size of Egypt, during the period it would certainly have been noted of any mass exodus of slaves from the country. This would be seen in many ways. Mind you it's not just 605,000 people who left, that only accounted for me. If you include women and children as well as other groups who left with them you are talking an exodus of about 2+ million people. They would leave scraps, broken pottery, animal bones, graveyards (if the laws of moses had already been pass down), burial sites would have been abundant in the area simply for the fact that an entire generation had to die before God was okay with them.

Then you have to deal with the conquest of Canaan, for which a nomadic movement around areas conquering and settling in cities (at one point it is said that all the land was conquered, but later it's told to Joshua that there is more to do conquer). Also with given evidence of all the cities labeled in the campaign only 3 were actually habitable at the time. Jericho, Lachisch and Hazor, and they don't match the time period (though I will admit that the period itself is speculation), but even if there doesn't appear to be evidence of such a large result of conquest in the area in the manner described in the book of Joshua. You have to deal with the issue of the five kings slain by Joshua whose bodies were cast away into the cave, what was their nation? Was king just a bad translation?

And of course it's the date of textual composition and what the sources were. Tradition attributes them to Moses (if that is true then this whole discussion is moot), but given that scholarly consensus is moving towards a formation during the time of King Josiah to the time of Babylonian exile, then you start getting some interesting issues, especially in Motive and Intent. I suppose my argument isn't that the Bible is not inaccurate in and of itself, but how accurate is it in reflection to what was actually going on in the world. How did the average person live? Things like that.

 

[PolyHedral]

Infinity is an abstract concept not an actuality. I have a math degree and will tell you it is mostly a boundary condition and causes many equations to blow up. I believe it was you who claimed an actual infinity existed so it is your burden to prove it does. It is at least your sides claims that suppose this. There are many reasons to think that no actual natural infinites can exist. Which is another in a inexhaustible list of things that are consistent with the Bible.



So a thing that has no known example, no direct evidence, and many reasons to think can't possibly exist is more science that fantasy? How? There is nothing that strikes me harder than the fact your side of these issues has one standard for everything else and one for God. Science can have valid theories (and many times claims to truth) that have no evidence, no reason to think they will ever have any, and fly in the face of reliable science and that is just fine. The Bible can have inexhaustible evidence and God can be all but a logical necessity and it is never sufficient.




1. I never said the concept of infinity was a fantasy.
2. I said claims to cosmological models that use infinity as a basis are fantasy. Because they are speculations about things that have no evidence, contradict what evidence does exist, and have many reason to think that can't be true.
3. As a theist I do not jump to illogical conclusions but it is still claimed I do even though the faith camp is allowed to do this if it does not contradict reliable evidence. However a scientists can jump to any fictional claim he wishes whether it contradicts evidence, has no evidence, or even appears possible as he desires even though he doe snot claim to be making faith claims. That is dishonest, unprofitable, and based on double standards and the misapplication of burdens.

The most accepted cosmological models in existence are of a single finite universe. Everything else is faith. There are no known natural infinites and no reason to believe there could be and all of reliable science is consistent with Biblical cosmology.

Do explain what evidence contradicts the idea of an infinite homogenous inflationary universe

 

[metis]

No matter if one believes in a theistic causation or not, it's quite likely infinity exists. If one believes in the Abrahamic concept of "God", who supposedly always was, then that implies "infinity". If one says "God created time", that doesn't make sense since time is not a thing but a matter of sequencing. Unless one pictures "God" as being a spiritual blob that just is there whereas nothing ever happens, then time must be involved.

So, the question becomes more like this: What likely goes back into infinity? Well, at least we know sub-atomic particles exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

No matter if one believes in a theistic causation or not, it's quite likely infinity exists. If one believes in the Abrahamic concept of "God", who supposedly always was, then that implies "infinity". If one says "God created time", that doesn't make sense since time is not a thing but a matter of sequencing. Unless one pictures "God" as being a spiritual blob that just is there whereas nothing ever happens, then time must be involved.

So, the question becomes more like this: What likely goes back into infinity? Well, at least we know sub-atomic particles exist.

You can get away with non-infinite time if you say that time is cylical. (Which isn't totally implausible, given the state of particle physics)

 

[metis]

You can get away with non-infinite time if you say that time is cylical. (Which isn't totally implausible, given the state of particle physics)

Actually one can't get away with it even then because there's still sequencing going on, therefore it makes little difference if we view time as being infinitely linear or cyclical.

 

[PolyHedral]

Sure, but it's not infinite anymore.

 

[1robin]

I didn't make such a claim but only mentioned it as a hypothesis, and if a hypothesis doesn't have substantial evidence to support it, it will only remain a hypothesis.

This is a theological forum and this is a theological thread. The only reason to bring a hypothesis forward is if it contains sufficient explanatory power to comment on the subject. A hypothesis that has no evidence and contradicts the evidence we do have, and has virtually no reason to think possible has little power to explain or contradict anything. If scientists think they deserve grant money for ding this stuff then fine, but it has little relevance in a debate about God.

The Bible is not a science text.

That is not true for some of it's claims nor would it matter if it was. The Bible makes many scientific claims, historical claims, theological claims, philosophical claims, supernatural claims, etc..... I use reliable science to evaluate the scientific claims, history to evaluate the historical ones, etc....

What is it you were trying to say above? I have no idea why you typed that.

It's a hypothesis, meaning that there is some logical evidence to support that it could be true.

What evidence?

A theistic causation can be considered a hypothesis as well because there's at least some logic behind it much like there is for infinity.

However not all hypothesis are equal nor have equal explanatory power. There is no biblical causation. There is causation which God is the only candidate for it's terminus. A terminus for cause and effect and cause and effect it's self are consistent with every known fact there is. God is the only candidate currently known for it's terminus but the existence of a terminus and what characteristics it must have are also consistent with all known evidence. Not all things that fall short of proof are equal.

That's not at all true.

That is a matter of demonstrable fact unless your interpretation of my statement is a distortion of it and this conversation is evidence. I was educated in science and mathematics and work in the field along with Phds in several fields they all agree with what I have stated.

I've presented three different sources showing that most cosmologists have the hypothesis that everything might well go back into infinity, and yet you keep posting the above, which is "dishonest, unprofitable, and based on double standards and the misapplication of burdens", to use your own words. And, again, the Bible is not a science text.

That is not the most common model of cosmology and the argument it is will not work any better for you, than it did for the previous person that claimed it. The two dominant cosmological models/theorems are the BBT and the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. One is inconsistent with an eternal universe and the other flat out states in it's name that is not a reliable claim. In fact Vilenkin apparently got tired of the slight allowance he made for the possibility that maybe someday the infinite would be more logical than it is now, (that was dishonestly distorted into his agreement with it by atheists) that he went through the eternal models one by one and pronounced most impossible and all virtually impossible. I am not going through what it takes to convince someone who does not want to be what cosmology today posits as the most accepted models every few days. Look back at my discussion in this thread the last time this was claimed and the link to Vilenkin's claims will be found as well as the more exhaustive discussion concerning cosmological models.

No way, no how, is a past eternity consistent with the most accepted and evidenced modern cosmology.

 

[metis]

Sure, but it's not infinite anymore.

But if it keeps going around in a circular fashion, then time is still infinite.

 

[PolyHedral]

But if it keeps going around in a circular fashion, then time is still infinite.

A circle doesn't have an infinite circumference.

 

[1robin]

But you weren't even aware of the fact that pi goes into infinity numerically, and it's by no means the only formulation that does that. For another example, divide 3 into 2, writing it out to the final decimal point.

If you truly believe in math, then you truly must believe in infinity.

For goodness sakes, is there no new atheist arguments any more. Where are the Nietzsche's and Hume's? I have a math degree. I have 190 semester hours in it. I do science every day on the latest military aircraft. I am quite familiar with pi. Mathematics is not a natural actuality anyway. It is an abstract concept that reflects the rational relationships in nature. I tell you what, I can make this very easy for you to prove. Post the infinite series of integers which pi has been computed to that equals an infinite series. Since we both know you can't and it is impossible you ever could, my claim is still standing. Pi's infinite value is theoretical and exists no where as an infinite actual anything. Whenever an infinite is discussed it is theoretical and abstract. There exists no actual known infinites. The last possibility was space, however BBT and relativity ruined even that. If time were eternal it is impossible to cross an infinite series of seconds to arrive at this one. If the single universe any actual evidence exists for was eternal why has thermodynamics not made it expand until no atom could be seen from another? If energy was eternal (even given the fictional multiverses) which is it concentrated instead of dispersed and how did it get wound up in the first place. Thermodynamics is lethal to almost all claims of eternity and that law was said by Einstein to be the most immutable law in physics. It has also been said if your theory or HYPOTHESIS runs counter to it there is no escape but for it to die a humiliating death. The only universe we know of appears in every aspect to be very young. Multiverses do not have enough evidence to rise to the level of myth. Actual eternals are even less probable. The best you could do is a unbounded finite and this is not much help either and is also highly speculative. I am going with the most reliable science. Why aren't you?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy | Of Particular Significance

 

[1robin]

A circle doesn't have an infinite circumference.

That is correct. If the circle actually exists it is composed of a finite length. I am sure you know that that is called an unbounded finite and is not in any way an infinite.

 

[1robin]

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy | Of Particular Significance

Mr. Franklin if this was directed at me I have very limited time. All the time I have comes from one factor. Science (even application science is very unreliable). If it was more reliable I would have virtually no time to debate. Please post what in that paper you wish to stress and I will evaluate it if that is what you wish. I have no time to read anymore books or papers that I already have to. Sorry.