What was the cutoff date?
Offline Most biblical scholars admit that there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' life. This poses a serious problem.
Since the gospels were clearly written after Jesus' death, and Paul never met the man, it is obvious (but necessary) to say that the bible as we have it was written (or at the very least compiled) "after the fact."
Further, the bible as we have it was not compiled until much later, when certain books were rejected and others were included in what would become the "infallible" and "irrefutable" word of god.
Here's the important question: How do christians know that the people who compiled the bible were inspired by god? There's no prophecy in the OT about a group of new Christians who would dig up all the "real" biblical books. What evidence do you have that their authority was genuine?
For that matter, how do we know that the people who translated the bible (King James), or retranslated it (and made significant changes in some cases!) were inspired?
If, after Jesus death, it was ok to compile the bible, then edit it, then retranslate it, what's the cutoff date for new revelation, and how would you know that, since ALL of the bible was compiled AFTER Jesus supposedly lived?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Excellent question, especially in regard to Paul's writings. The lion's share of the New Testament was written by PaulCo (either Paul or Paul's cronies), and yet there were many more writings of Paul that never made it into any canonical Bible.
Oh, King James was inspired, alright--inspired by the Puritans of Parliament to persecute them and their Geneva Version of Bible, which denied the King any claim to a Divine Right to Rule. King James I of England and II of Scotland ensured that a "correct" "translation" of The Bible guaranteed an interpretation of specifically Romans 13 that backed up his claim to Divine Right, and that's despite the fact that Paul's other Epistles did that on their own.
In order to claim that the KJAV was simply an authorized "translation", the original preambles included in the original KJAV are today quite missing; one has only to read these preambles to ascertain that King James himself regarded his "translation" to be divinely inspired, and that his minions recognized this Bible as one that he WROTE--not merely "translated".
I'm holding my breath waiting for it...
Xtian: "Yeah, but KJV is not the correct one. We know that now that we've compared to Dead Sea Scrolls, and done better scholarly work on the extant books, yada yada yada..."
Which still avoids my question entirely.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm going to make my sentences short as I can... I seem to be long winded at times to account for all possible counterarguments.
I don't be the bible to be necessarily 'infallible,' although I do believe at this time it to be 'irrefutable'-- since I see no reason to believe that it has not been 'disproved' or 'refuted' (refuted being, 'disproven' or 'shown to be false'
Neither of these words require that I believe the Bible to be true.
They don't.
"New Christians"? The religion was new.. but your structure her seems to imply that there were "old Christians."
To evidence that their authority was genuine would be to evidence that God is real. I cannot do this.
I can give reasoning to why one 'could' accept that their authority was genuine. This would be rational.
But then again.. evidence to me that current scientific law is genuine.. and I would predict that you would come to the same problem using an argument that would require me to accept that scientific law is genuine before you are able to evidence that it is.
Don't know.
There would be no 'cutoff.' Yet.. if somehow one book became necessarily contradictory to the necessary assumptions of older books-- then they could not both rationally be held.
Even as a new theory of science cannot contradict a necessary assumption of science in general-- and both still be rationally held.
Possibly true. But does that mean that those other books were written by Paul? and if they were, that they are necessarily contradictory to his other ones?
Selfish origin of entity does not prove or disprove validity of said entity.
Or would you agree that since that since aspects of nuclear science came out of countries wanting to create superweapons somehow makes those aspects of nuclear science more or less valid?
A statement of fact does not mean fact indeed.
Look above.
True.. it would seem too.
Rhad, your posting in its entirety shows that you're not caught up in all the studies that have been done regarding The Bible, as what's "obvious" is what has been generally accepted by historical scholars on the matter.
I recommend that you get caught up by additional reading on this subject, because what was stated as "obvious" is indeed obvious to those of us who have done our homework on the matter.
Freakin eh. "What is indeed obvious to those of us who have done our homework on the matter."
The only time I mentioned "Obvious" was in the context of how he used it.. in which it was placed into a poorly constructed sentence from which I could not derive it's meaning to a plausible certainity.
"It is obvious but necessary....."
Accept he put parathesis around (but necessary).
But in this case.. his use of the word doesn't even matter to the argument.. since I accepted it (the premise that obviously the Bible was written after the fact).
So read the argument. I would venture to say that it's a lot shorter than all the other reading you've done to be in the know about what is obvious and not obvious to historical scholars.
____
Sorry if this came off as rude-- it was not my intention. I am merely frustrated.. because people are consistently side stepping the argument.. or, reading what is not there in the first place.
In the same way many atheists, here claim, that atheists cannot talk to a Christian without that Christian assuming many things about him... I seem to be getting the impression that I am subject to that here-- and that somehow we can't move past these assumptions-- and therefore ask questions as opposed to arguing against what was never stated, or sidestepping arguments, because one might believe that I, or another, are sidestepping an argument when in fact they have not.
I asked questions in my post. Or answered straight up. You did not.
---
Correction of my previous post. Believing something to be "infalliable" would require believing something to be true. To believe something is "irrefutable" is not.
--
Look above. C asked for examples of Pauls writings. I do as well in my earlier post.. but even if the letters are presented-- I do not conceed that these writings are necessarily contradictory to anything actually included the Bible-- since I have not read them, and you have not pointed me to the points where I should believe they are contradictory to anything actually included in the Bible. But.. that's all in my previous questions/argument as to the validity of this post in the first place.
What letters are you talking about? Would you mind giving an example?
ttdm.blogspot.com
Aw. Now you moved attention away from my post.
You're right. You do take a long time to say pretty simple things.
huh?
What? If you see no reason to believe that it has not been disproved... let's reduce that down a little bit...
no reason to believe = "don't believe."
so, you don't believe it has not been disproved...
so.. you do believe that it has been disproved.
Ok. Good. We agree. Why are you a Christian then?
Or, did you mean to say that you don't think it's been disproved?
If that's the case, I'd urge you to go to your local public library immediately and begin reading books other than the bible. It's not that hard to disprove it. Just takes a tiny bit of thought.
Oh, you're so close to getting it!
I'm not sure if you're close to getting it, or just having trouble saying what you mean.
When science discovers a contradiction in two "facts" it becomes necessary to question BOTH facts until one of them is proven false.
I could go on, but I won't, since your answer didn't really address my question. I am just pointing out to you that it's really hard to understand your writing. You should work on being more precise and concise.
So, my question remains: Since all the writings about Jesus were written and/or compiled long after his death, what evidence do Christians have for the divine authority of those who have compiled, translated, and re-written the bible?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I warned ya.
Exactly. The part of your sentence that "it is obvious (but necesary)" really through me off.. for if something is obvious it is not necessarily necessary.. and if something is necessary.. it is not not necessarily obvious.
They are two different terms.. but not contradictory in any sense.. you used it as if it were... sort of if I said:
It's plausible (but fact)...
I never stated I had no reason to believe the bible. I just stated that my belief is not contingent on the infallibility of the Bible (nor is the Christian belief as whole need to believe this.. even though they many claim they do.)
I warned ya.
Exactly. The part of your sentence that "it is obvious (but necesary)" really through me off.. for if something is obvious it is not necessarily necessary.. and if something is necessary.. it is not not necessarily obvious.
They are two different terms.. but not contradictory in any sense.. you used it as if it were... sort of if I said:
It's plausible (but fact)...
I never stated I had no reason to believe the bible. I just stated that my belief is not contingent on the infallibility of the Bible (nor is the Christian belief as whole need to believe this.. even though they many claim they do.)
As for the irrefutability of the Bible. This is true. If the Bible was refuted-- refuted meaning, disproved-- it would be by necessary inference of this sentence that it would be false.
I meant (if I did not say this clearly then I apologize) to say that I do not believe the bible to have been refuted at this time.. and thus still hold true to the belief that it is irrefutable.
To not believe it has not been disproved
would be
the equal
to saying
To believe it has been disproved.
You are right. Bad triple negative on my part.
Heh. you got it.
Why to people point me to the public library when I ask for an example of the bible being disproved? and that I don't read other books besides the bible? or that I don't read books that challenge the bible?
Furthermore.. I would contend that each of these books are assuming I believe something particular is necessary to the belief in the Bible-- when its mostly not the case.
Once again. You haven't asked what I believe. Or stated what the Bible necessitates.
Each of which are required to state that it is disproven.
Heh.. thanks. Keep working on me.
My statement did not apply to to the contradiction of "facts" but to the necessarily assumptions of science in general such as: everything is explainable through natural means is a necessary assumption of science.
If someone came along with the a theory that required the assumption: everything is explainable through supernatural means.. or that something are explainable through supernatural means.. these two assumptions are contradictory-- and thus the latter would probably be the one sacrificied since.. to make science hold both these premises would make it likened to the science of old when 'scientist' used the explanation 'God did it' to stop conversation and thus stop important progress.
I answered that question. Multiple times. It cannot be evidence at this time in the sense that you are using the word.
But.. this is "Begging the Question" because you are requiring me to accept that I need to 'evidence' it in the way you assume I need to.. mainly being, through scientific methodology and assumptions.
As for the irrefutability of the Bible. This is true. If the Bible was refuted-- refuted meaning, disproved-- it would be by necessary inference of this sentence that it would be false.
I meant (if I did not say this clearly then I apologize) to say that I do not believe the bible to have been refuted at this time.. and thus still hold true to the belief that it is irrefutable.
To not believe it has not been disproved
would be
the equal
to saying
To believe it has been disproved.
You are right. Bad triple negative on my part.
Heh. you got it.
Why to people point me to the public library when I ask for an example of the bible being disproved? and that I don't read other books besides the bible? or that I don't read books that challenge the bible?
Furthermore.. I would contend that each of these books are assuming I believe something particular is necessary to the belief in the Bible-- when its mostly not the case.
Once again. You haven't asked what I believe. Or stated what the Bible necessitates.
Each of which are required to state that it is disproven.
Heh.. thanks. Keep working on me.
My statement did not apply to to the contradiction of "facts" but to the necessarily assumptions of science in general such as: everything is explainable through natural means is a necessary assumption of science.
If someone came along with the a theory that required the assumption: everything is explainable through supernatural means.. or that something are explainable through supernatural means.. these two assumptions are contradictory-- and thus the latter would probably be the one sacrificied since.. to make science hold both these premises would make it likened to the science of old when 'scientist' used the explanation 'God did it' to stop conversation and thus stop (what we see now to have been) important progress.
I answered that question. Multiple times. It cannot be evidence at this time in the sense that you are using the word.
But.. this is "Begging the Question" because you are requiring me to accept that I need to 'evidence' it in the way you assume I need to.. mainly being, through scientific methodology and assumptions.
And.. perhaps I do need to work on my writing skills to be more concise (at the very least make less typos) but it's only because I don't wish to make any more assumptions then are necessary in order to have this conversation in the first place.
(Those being: I am existent. You are existent. The things I see are existent. We are using logic/reasoning in our conver sation. And, a conversation between two existent things about something they assume is existent using logic/reasoning is relevant in some respect.)
Ouch... proofread, man! proofread! Your writing is very hard to read, and you double posted. I started to edit it, but I wanted you to see how bad it is.
I'm using the word in the correct sense, so I accept your answer that there is no evidence and that the bible should not be viewed as anything other than a politically inspired compilation of writings of dubious origin.
It is not begging the question. Please refer to wikipedia for a primer on logical fallacies. Begging the question refers to circular logic. It is not circular to demand evidence for a statement.
I see what you're saying, though. You want to say that "My definition of evidence is the only definition of evidence I'll accept because it's the only definition of evidence that I'll accept" is a circular argument.
The thing is, that's not what's being said. First, it's not my definition. Second, my acceptance of the definition is not contingent on my acceptance of the definition. It's contingent on the demonstrable validity of the definition, which exists quite outside of my intellect. So, nice try, but no.
For more reading, try:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/a_small_compilation_of_contradictions
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh, and I wrote obvious and necessary because it is obvious to pretty much everybody that the bible is not a contemporary document, YET it is still necessary to point out the obvious because so many theists try to say that the bible is a historical document.
Understand?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I will make this as small as I can. Also, I will be as grammatically correct as I can be.
1.) Freakin eh!
2.) "Correct sense" of evidence?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
Unless we are in a court of law (which we are not) then there is no "correct sense" other than that dictated by reason itself.
"Correct scientific evidence" or "Correct biblical evidence" or "Correct philosphical evidence" or "Correct martian evidence" are valid statements.
But to assume that "correct evidence" can only mean "correct scientific evidence" is incorrect."
3.) I'll read it again, if you do as well. It refers to an invalid argumentative strategy in which trys to make one person conceed an assumption which necessitates the reaching of the conclusion, which is under debate in the first place.
In this case it is this: That the Bible cannot be considered evidence. Therefore what evidence do I have to prove that it is divinely inspired?
Look at the definition of evidence.
4.) You are incorrect in what you see as me saying: read number 3.
5.) I am making my way through the "list of contradictions" at the moment. As I've stated before however, all that I have read so far assume that I interpret certain aspects of the Bible in the way they do (as well as feel there to be no other way to interpret them.).
6.) Don't misquote yourself.
You did not say "It is obvious (and necessary).."
You said "It is obvious (but necessary).."
Which is why I questioned it's structure. Now that you have cleared it up-- I thank you.
Now I see what you meant to write was "It is not only obvious (but necessary) to say.." or "It is obvious and necessary to say.."
It's okay that you made a mistake. As you correctly pointed out before, I made a mistake when I wrote a triple negative that meant the opposite of what I had intended.
(as well as my double post)
Ok. You're doing much better. Thanks.
You and I have no disagreement here. Reason dictates what constitutes evidence.
ok. you seem to know what begging the question is... but can you apply it?
Nope. Can't apply it. That the bible cannot be considered evidence IS the question. What evidence do you have to prove that it's inspired? I don't know. That's why I asked.
If you can think of a different interpretation, then the bible is unclear. If it is unclear, then it cannot be used as an absolute reference. If that is true, then EVERYTHING in the bible is suspect, and it ought to be treated just like any other ancient text until there is proof than it is anything else.
I stand by my wording. Despite it's obvious nature, I felt it necessary to make the statement. Therefore, "but" was the correct word to use.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I will attempt to be grammatically correct once more. Tis a difficult thing for me to do, since my mind does not work in a grammatically correct fashion.
I will erase those elements we have agreed upon.
Yes, I believe so.
"Whether the bible can or cannot be considered evidence" IS a debate; "Can the bible be considered evidence" IS a question; "That the bible cannot be considered evidence" IS not question, it's a statement; however, I understand your meaning.
I am not debating that question. I don't believe I ever was debating that question.
I made a contention, or at least implied one, that for me to accept "biblical evidence" as "evidence" to support that the bible is "divinely inspired/truth" would be "Begging the Question"; even as it would be to make the contention that "scientific evidence" is "evidence" to support that science is "truth."
Neither is necessarily a convincing argument since they contain an informal fallacy; however, the circular logic inherent in this fallacy is not, in and of itself, necessarily incorrect.
e.g. 3+5=8=4+4=2+6=3+5=8=4+4=2+6=3+5......
Is circular logic/reasoning-- does that mean it is necessarily false?
I never stated the Bible to be clear.
I never stated that the Bible could be used as "absolute reference."
EVERYTHING in the bible is suspect, and it ought to be treated just like any other ancient text until there is proof that it is anything else.
YET, that fact that everyone should (within the construct of reasoning) treat the bible as any other ancient text does not mean that anyone of those texts is necessarily true or false.
AND, they are to be considered rational (as well as their strict followers), until it is reasoned that they cannot be.
E.G. An ancient text that necessitates a person to accept contradictory ideas/assumptions.
1.) God kills people.
2.) God cannot kill people.
Well, I admit. I'm completely stumped now.
I can't tell if you are agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or talking about something completely different.
Is this what you believe?
If so, I'm with you through the last step. Your last step contradicts the first two.
1) The bible is treated as any other ancient text until proven to be anything else.
2) It is not assumed that anything in the bible is true or false.
3) Therefore, anything in the bible is to be considered unproven until proven.
4) Therefore, anyone assuming an unproven text to be the inspired word of god is Irrational.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant. There is no such thing in logic as a burden of disproof.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Heh.
I believe that my faith is a choice out of a group of reasonable arguments.
I don't believe so.... but let us see.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant in the court of law.
Anywhere else it is not, unless you are trying to prove a claim.
BUT, the ability to prove what is real and what is, in actuality, real are not the same thing. EVEN THOUGH I may fail to prove that God exists outside of circular logic, this does not mean that he does, in actuality, not exist.
BUT whether a particular belief can be proven or not, exists independently of the effects it has on your life.
FOR INSTANCE, the only way to prove that "2+2=4" is through circular logic (that I accept mathematical principals as valid as proof that mathematical principals are valid). Does this mean that believing mathematical principals have no effect on ones life? No.
"4.) Therefore, anyone assuming an unproven text to be the inspired word of god is irrational." No. Incorrect; unless, by this you are meaning to say that: "assuming an unproven text to be the proven, inspired, word of god is irrational."
This I would agree with.
Dammit!
My last reply seems to have been lost in the ether. God must not like me.
I'll sum up:
So... you're saying that if I'm not interested in proving anything, I don't have to worry about a burden of proof, but if someone wants to claim something, then they have the burden of proof? Why didn't you just agree with me that the burden of proof is on the claimant?
You're making my hair hurt and my ears bleed.
... really, I'm actually sure that what is real actually exists in reality, actually...
I agree that if you fail to prove that God exists, it does not disprove god's existence. However, a lack of evidence for god is a perfect reason not to believe. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Until you bring a proof, why would I bother trying to disprove anything? Nothing to disprove. It's axiomatic, if you think about it. "If there is no proof, then there is nothing to attempt to disprove."
You're making a category error. Quantities exist, and mathematics describe them. You can't use a descriptive model in an analogy with a physical (or super-physical) entity.
A thing affects my life only if it exists. If it cannot be proven, that is the same as saying it has no measurable effects. Therefore your statement is false.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hah. Sorry.
My writing is as much for my benefit as anyone else. I had to work it out in my head. Isn't that what this forum is for? Reasoning?
Oops.
Heh.. and I'll erase the next line you wrote since it didn't have any relevance except to point out that something is particularly hard to comprehend.
Good.
True. As well as, the existence of evidence for a god is a perfect reason to believe in him.
The universe is here is 'evidence' of his existence. Granted. It's not necessary to believe in God because the universe is 'evidence.' For 'evidence' is merely reason and/or basis for a belief.
I realize that you could be using the word "proof" in a means that is not interchangeable with "evidence"; even though they can be used in such a manner.
BUT if you are using, 'proof' as a word to denote 'sufficient evidence for something to be proven as true.'
Then.. by means of me getting 'sufficient evidence,' by definition, you would not be able to disprove it.
Fine. If you want to change words mid-stream then.
Give me 'sufficient evidence' for the truth of science.
But you didn't ask for absolutes. I much rather you meant proof in the, simply, 'evidence' sort of way.
OTHERWISE,
we will have to get back on the big circle train and argue what is and what is not even considered 'evidence'-; ALTHOUGH, this would make MY ears bleed and my hair hurt, as well as possibly my toenails.
Yup. However. Look above.
Heh.. I knew you might pick up on this.
Fine.. let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make.
Prove to me that some relationship of somethings that is not something else can be the same as something else.
For me to use numbers, or quantities, would already place me within the construct of mathematics.. which, I can't do.
But I am saying the same thing-- just assuming less.
THE BELIEF being held HAS an EFFECT INDEPENDENT of WHETHER it is proven or not.
I thought this is what I said, but perhaps it's not. I've lived in a shoe my whole life and needn't have explained myself to myself before-- so this is all new to me.
AS much as I've re-read your question, I'm still not seeing where I've mentioned any letters. I refer to his other writings, such as the Apocalypse of Paul etc.
Pls consider how it is also frustrating for people who have already covered that ground to cover it again, when material already exists that would have answered your questions had you just sought it out. There's frustration a-plenty to go all the way 'round.
And as I said before, those questions are FAQ level--already addressed, already answered, by just a little basic reading. It's the difference between Athesim 101 and Atheism 102, you could say. Atheism 102 has Atheism 101 as a sort of pre-requisite.
I 'mistake' all things as assumptions.
Heh.. and yes-- there is plenty of frustration to go 'round.
GIVEN merely means that I accept it as an assumption in order to move the mathematical or argument forward.
What you accept as GIVEN affects the way you live your life-- it does not mean that I MUST accept by through logic that I MUST accept it.
I'm just stating
.
I may have understood more by reading. But to say that I would not have been 'mistaken' in reading your statements as assumptions.. is not a statement you can make based on evidence.
As for the A.O.P.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/nhlapocalypsepaul.html
It seems that there was some early Christian disagreement as to whether this writing was written by Paul the Apostle. That could be a reason for its absence from the canon as we now know it (The Holy Bible).
One last thing before I go: my knowledge of atheism is not require to speak on this board-- only my knowledge of theism as applied to me.
This is a self-proclaimed place of rationality. "Rational Responders".. not "Atheist Responders". Even more so.. their "Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as Theism"; I am a theist. I do not need to know, necessarily, about atheism to defend myself.
So: Atheism 101 to 504 are irrelevant to me in my purpose of defending myself (and by extension, other theists).
Heh. I came here because I just happened to disagree with the idea that true reason only leads to atheism.
This idea seems to be echoed all over the place here.
I'm perfectly ok with you working things out. That's why I keep responding. I don't think you're trying to be intentionally misleading, or I'd have stopped talking to you long ago.
Nevertheless, you're missing some very important points. First, let me be clear so we're on the same page:
1) Evidence is scientifically verifiable (falsifiable!) data. Evidence does not prove anything. Evidence is what we put into an argument to try to prove something.
2) Proof is a logical argument based on evidence. Remember geometry?
These are not my definitions. They are the accepted scientific definitions, scientific meaning anything regarding natural phenomena.
Now, to your errors:
The existence of the universe is not a Proof. It is not necessarily evidence, either, although it can be. We can take as a given that the universe exists. All that gives us is one point in an argument. If you'd like it to be point one, here we go.
1) The universe exists.
All you've got here is a presentation of evidence. To put this into any meaningful context, you have to present more evidence that logically leads to a deductive conclusion. For example:
1) The universe exists.
2) The universe consists of all known matter and energy, by definition.
3) I exist
4) I am made of matter and energy.
5) Therefore, I am within the universe.
Everything but point 4 and 5 are inductively true, and point 4 can be proven with a little more work, so point 5 must be true.
The problem with your argument is that it goes like this:
1) The universe exists.
2) Therefore god exists.
You see? No connection between the two points.
If you try to insert:
2) The universe must have been created
I will reply that you are making a baseless assertion, and you will have to prove 2 based on something intuitive.
Error 2:
You still are making a category error. I can't help you other than to tell you that you can't compare those things. It's just not logically valid.
Error 3
from a previous post)
While it is true that circular reasoning is valid, it is not true that it leads us anywhere, and it does not speak to the inherent truth value of the circular statement. For example:
All unicorns are blue because only blue unicorns exist
is logically valid. It's also untrue because unicorns don't exist. So you can go around a circle with god all day long, and if there's no evidence for his existence, you've done nothing but play the logically valid game. You've proven nothing.
Error 4: You're not thinking about the definition of "effect." A nonexistent thing cannot cause an effect. In science, an effect leads backwards to a cause. If there is no effect, there is no reason to assume a cause.
Error 5: Maybe you're not going to make this one, but I'm going to head you off at the pass if you're thinking about it. The universe's existence may be considered an effect, but the absence of other theories is not considered proof of an existing causal theory. That's a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, so you can't say god "has to be" the cause of the universe, because there are many other known theories, and an endless number of possible theories that haven't been thought of yet.
Error 6: Maybe you mean that people's beliefs affect me whether their beliefs are true or not. If this is what you mean, I accept this as valid. However, the fact that their actions cause change in my existence doesn't lend any support to the validity of their beliefs, only to the reality of their actions.
And Finally: Error 7:
You're still not comprehending that there is never, ever, under any circumstances a burden of disproof.
If I claim nothing, I have nothing to prove. If you claim something, I am only obliged to acknowledge its validity or point out an error in your logic. If I find an error, the burden is on you to correct your error or retract your claim.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thanks
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument
Yes. Evidence is what we put into an argument to try to prove something.
Nothing within the definition requires that it be scientifically verifiably (falsifiable!).
AND EVEN, 'reason' itself is only reasonably verifiable.
You cannot falsify reason through science; only scientific reason through science.
This is the circle that all language seems to make.
Yes.
No.. you are not the only one to hold it. But does that make it definitively correct?
You are throwing them all over the place like they are equivalent. "Scientifically reasonable" and "reasonable," "scientifically irrational" and "rational", "mathematical proof" and "proof," "scientific evidence" and "evidence."
"Scientifically reasonable" is reasonable defined "scientifically."
"Reasonable" is "reasonable" defined "reasonably."
"Scientifically irrational" is irrational defined "scientifically."
"Irrational" is "irrational" defined "rationally."
... add one more to the previous statement. "Scientific definition" and "definition."
"Definition" is "definition" defined "dictionarically." (Made up word which means through the means of the dictionary)
"Scientific definition" is "definition" defined "scientifically."
Okay.
I would admit that this is a necessary assumption in order to be having this conversation.
"Logically" leads to a deductive conclusion.
If the Universe exists then something created it.
If something created it then that 'something' is God.
The universe exists.
This is all "Logical."
I make two conditional premises and give a sufficient condition.
I'm not saying the conclusion is a necessary deduction of "reality."
1) Already conceeded.
2.) Not by definition. The universe is defined by 'all things.' It is not restricted to what is "known." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe
3.) I conceed that you exist. Otherwise I wouldn't choose to have this conversation. As well I conceed that I exist.. for once again, the conversation would be pointless if I thought otherwise.
4.) You are made up of what you scientifcally suppose to be matter and/or energy. (scientific concepts constructed through scientific reasoning).
5.) Yes.. by my definition you are within the universe. By yours.. I do not agree.
No. Because you misrepresented a definition-- you expressed "scientific definition" not "definition."
4 can be proven with a little more "scientific work" since it is a "scientific definition."
5 No.
No. My argument was to say that "the universe cannot exist without God" IS an assumption.
The fact that the universe exists is 'evidence' that God exists-- IN ACCORDANCE with this assumption.
NOT THAT HE ACTUALLY DOES.
...
Once again. If I was trying to prove God, and I thought one could by THIS argument that he existed, I would be baseless in any assertion I made.
Because.. unless you accept 'absolute truth' is provable-- then all assertions to the contrary are 'baseless' assertions.
Work with me. See that I am not trying to PROVE God exists. Merely that the argument CAN BE RATIONAL.
...
I NEVER SAID THAT IT DID LEAD YOU ANYWHERE closer to truth. In fact. I most certainly said that it did not-- only that it has its uses.
FURTHERMORE, on what basis do you say that blue unicorns don't 'reasonably exist'?
Because as you just stated.. it is logical.
So you must be missing an adjective again... "scientifically reasonable to exist"?
As Vessel once pointed out to me.
There is no such thing as a "nonexistent" thing in science. Science merely refuses to consider anything that they have not 'observed' to be 'existent.'
They do not make a statement about what 'causes' a nonexistent thing can or cannot have.
Reason/logic, however, does.
Yes it is. Proof is evidence.
Unless you are using 'proof' in the sense that you want 'sufficient evidence.'
I made this qualification before.
What is 'sufficient' is qualified only in LAW, SCIENCE, and by an individual's perspective as to what is 'sufficient.'
MY 'sufficient evidence' may not be 'sufficient' for you.
So.. I think you mean to say "Sufficient evidence as defined by science."
I'd be guilty of the fallacy if I was trying to use the assumption god "HAS TO BE" as a means to convince you that he "Has to be."
I'm not.
THATS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
I'm saying ones beliefs affect ones own life INDEPENDENT of whether it is true or not.
You believe that you'll be alive tomorrow would have an effect on you INDEPENDENT of whether or not you will be alive tomorrow.
You believe that you'll die tomorrow would have an effect on you INDEPENDENT of whether or not you'll be alive tomorrow.
Understand?
Finally finally.
Eh?
First part: Conceeded.
Second part: True. If you find a "logical error," then the burden is on that person to correct that error, retract the claim, or be irrational for holding the belief.
Point out my logical error.
Furthermore.. the claim of this site is that Theism is irrational.
That is the claim. I'm trying to contest THAT using the assumption that we are rational, and that one accepts the rules of grammar, the objective of clarity, and (partially) the idea of prescriptive linguistics.
Think the question of which of the hundreds of holy texts and interpretations of them were right is what tore Europe apart for around 1700 years... In mainstream Christinaity it was decided by the papacy, and the level of morality and divine guidance there is best exemplified I think by Rodrigo Borgia, pope from 1492 to 1503. He and his son Cesare, the model for Machiavelli's The Prince, make the Corleones look like saints. Very entertaining to read up about their conspiracies, mistresses, bribery, murders and orgies. What does St.Michael think of those good Catholics?
Didn't the Mormons only 'discover' their version of the scripture in the US desert in about 1850? That really is a long time after Jesus died - wonder if there are any more texts with important holy revelations out there? Shame God doesn't just give out map co-ordinates for them.
And the question.
"Is there any relationship between matter and energy?" Led to the development of the nuclear bomb.
I grant that asking questions can possibly lead to negative results.
I am kind of interested in talking with St.Michael at somepoint-- I haven't really spoken with many Catholics.
As for the Mormon text. Haven't read them. If you ask me whether I believe the Book of Mormons to be a God inspired Revelation.. I would have to say no. But I have no way of proving that I am right, only the ability to present an argument as to why I believe them not to be a God inspired revelation.
(It would be along the lines of: how do you rationalize some central tenants as to the nature of Man, and the nature of God, as well as the concept of God in general, when they seem to contradict the OT, and NT, in 'X' way. Yet as I have said: I can't prove they do, in fact, contradict one another.. since I've never heard a mormon rationalize his faith; only read tidbits of what it is.)
However.. this is all, somewhat of, a side point to me. I'm still looking forward to Ham's response-- the conversation has been very educational to me thus far.
Rhad,
Sorry for the delay in addressing your last reply to me. My time is short at the moment, so I'm only going to hit one point.
All other mistakes aside, the one that's sending you consistently into irrationality is the assertion that there is a connection between the existence of the universe and the existence of a creator.
Unless you can demonstrate the statement to be axiomatic, you have to make a connection. No theist has yet made a connection, and the statement is not axiomatic.
The proof that the statement, "The universe exists, therefore it must have been created" is not axiomatic is that other possibilities exist, and they are not internally contradictory. In other words, I may retort with "The universe exists, and it was not created."
Since there is not sufficient logical evidence that either is true, it's ridiculous to assume one of the two statements to be axiomatic.
Just as an exercise, try to argue against my statement, "The universe exists, and it was not created." You can't do it without just being contrary.
Further, there is an inherent contradiction in the god theory that effectively proves the potential validity of the proposition that the universe was NOT created. That is: If the universe was created, but god always existed, without being created, then it is possible for you to conceive of a "beginning-less existence." Since you can clearly conceive of such an existence, your argument that the universe is NOT "beginning-less" demands proof, i.e. is NOT axiomatic.
Once you realize that it is possible that the universe was not created, you have a choice between believing in an unquantifiable, unverifiable, infinitely complex eternal being who magically created the universe (which leads to the question, "What was there before the universe, and how long had that existed?"
or you can just go with the rational conclusion, that is, there is no creator.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
No problem. Better to focus on one point anyways-- I will try the same.
Well.. that's not very nice.
A assertion cannot be irrational in and of itself-- it is just an assertion. Assertions coupled with other assertions, deductions, inductions, and other elements of logic however, CAN be irrational. (Granted.. I am speaking from a PURELY logical viewpoint.)
Here's my assertion:
There is a pencil in the next room.
It's just an assertion. It's not irrational (logically)-- of course, I would also agree that its not (logically) rational either.. it's nothing but an assertion, a starting point, from which logic works with.
Now.. if I said.
Here's my assertion:
There is a pencil in the next room.
Pencils cannot exist.
Those would be irrational, for they are illogical, assumptions to hold together.
Furthermore, it would be illogical to say:
If there is no pencil next door, then one does not exist.
Objective evidence: There is a pencil next door.
It does not exist.
This i an assumptive conditional statement. If I accept it as valid yet still come to the conclusion that a pencil does not exist even though the sufficient condition is that it does... I would be illogical.
It is not irrational to say "If universe, then creator."
It is a conditional statement.. it does not denote truth.
It is however, logical to move from the acceptance of this conditional statement and say:
Sufficient condition: The universe exists.
Therefore, creator.
Even though the above reasoning is Logical and Rational,
THEY do not necessarily denote reality.
The only axiomatic statements I know of within logic is that "logic cannot prove itself illogical logically," and, "I think therefore I am."
There are 'other' axiomatic statements existent within different realms of specialized reasoning.. but these are the only two I know of within logic. And we are only speaking logically here.
Logic does not require objective evidence, only assumptions (which may be subjective).
Now.. Logic is not very convincing in and of itself-- and if that's what you suspecting I'm trying to do, I'm not. I'm not trying to convince you that God exists through logic. I'm just saying that the belief itself is logical and can be rational.
True. I never said the statement was axiomatic. I thought I made that clear.
There is sufficient logical evidence to prove that it is logical statement.
There is not sufficient logical evidence to necessary convince anyone that either of them is expressive of reality.
And once again.. I did not claim it to be.
I cannot. Yet.. my inability to disprove it and your inability to prove does not make any less logical.
Granted. It would seem illogical for someone to accept the possibility that one thing can have existed forever, but not accept the possibility that another could.
I agree with the first part of your statement. It is a choice to believe that God always existed, AS WELL AS that the Universe always existed, even though there is not objective evidence for either of these beliefs.
Unless.. somehow you believe that the the statement "the universe has always existed" is somehow more provable than "god has always existed". But I don't see how that is possible.
Tis true.. the universe exists.. but this could be evidence for either of these options.
Both are rational choices.
Not accepting the possibility of one while accepting the possibilty of the other... that is irrational (in my humble opinion.)
Read more carefully, please.
Hamby wrote: the one {assertion} that's sending you consistently into irrationality is the assertion that there is a connection between the existence of the universe and the existence of a creator.
If you examine this statement carefully, you'll see that I did not call the assertion irrational. I said that the assertion leads you to irrationality. I will not respond to the lengthy logic lesson that was a waste of time for you to write and me to read.
Truthfully, I'm not interested in going off on a tangent. I'll grant you that there are epistemologies that do not deal with self evident truths in the way that I'm using them. If you want to discuss logical theory, I suggest grabbing one of the more studied logicians who frequent these boards.
I'm well aware of the difference between logical validity and objective/subjective truth. I'm also not interested in discussing philosophical differences between epistemelogical systems' assessments of "truth."
I'm also not going to deal with your bizarre statement that just by assigning the label "sufficient" to the statement that the universe exists, you can jump to "therefore, creator." All you've done is make another leap without a link.
You were speaking of the statement that there is a connection between the existence of the universe and the existence of a creator.
What you have done here is a naked assertion. If you can produce this evidence, please do. If not, please retract this statement.
Once again, you miss a basic point, and it's the only point that I think is worth talking about with regard to the topic of the forum.
The existence of the universe only leads to a creator if a link between the universe and a creator can be established. Period. No evidence, no link, no reason to take your statement seriously.
With no link between the universe and a creator, the default position is non-belief in a creator. Just saying that the Universe's existence (P) is sufficient for a creator (Q) does nothing. Without evidence of a creator, this statement should be taken exactly as seriously as (P) is sufficient for (Q) where Q= a rather well-worn pair of my old boxer shorts orbiting jupiter and sending out get well cards every Easter.
Belief in an irrational option is not rational. Therefore, make with the link between the existence of the universe and the existence of a creator, or withdraw your assertion that it is rational to believe in a creator.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh, yeah...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
And all I'm saying that irrationality is a function of logic. As long as my beliefs are logical (based off of assertions and deductions) then my belief is rational (definitively).
Only with in the context of the conditional statement that: IF universe, then creator.
The conditional statement is like any other assertion, it is either accepted or discard.. as like any other assertion.
Indeed. A naked assertion. Much like many other naked assertion. Such as the assertion that you may hold, that is: Since I see something and other people see the same thing, it is real.
This is a naked assertion, for the only way you have of "proving it" is by accepting the fact that those other people are real in the first place.
Much like my previous assertion.
Once again, I'm not saying that you should accept my acceptance of a conditional statement assertion, merely to realize that it is rational, as rational as ones you hold everyday in order to function and yet give no thought about.
I'm not sure how there is a default position in this situation.. since, there's never been a "right" answer to the question before.
Even science doesn't claim that God doesn't exist-- just that they can't consider the possible influence something they perceive to be "supernatural" would have on something else.
But I doubt they would claim to have the "right" answer. Merely theories at the moment.
And so.. how can there be a default answer already?
I'm not speaking of taking things seriously-- I'm speaking of rationality. "Taking things seriously" is completely subjective.. I don't take "Full House" (a television show) seriously.. but I'm sure someone did at some time. Things that are rational do not have to be taken seriously. Even as things that are taken seriously are not necessarily rational.
I am not trying to convince you to accept the assertion, the conditional statement, or anything about God! I am not trying to convince you to "seriously consider everything conceivable".. Merely understand that the assertions and beliefs are not IRRATIONAL.
Your belief in God is between you and you, and possibly God if he exists.
What assertion do you base this on? That only those things that have scientific evidence should be seriously considered?
___
This is part II to my post.
ok...
So... if I just admit that within a mathematic framework, you can come up with a logical formula that will make belief in a deity valid, but not true, then we can stop talking about this?
Ok. I fully endorse your position that belief in a creator will fit within a perfectly valid logical argument, given the proposition that the starting premises need not conform to objective reality.
I can also prove that I'm Ghengis Khan, given the same latitude.
I'm not sure what you've gained by this, but I'm willing to concede the point. I'm also not sure why you keep insisting on flirting with nihilism. If you refuse to concede the existence of other people or verifiable truth, why are you trying to convince me of the rationality of god-belief? Which do you want? A discussion of first year philosophy or a discussion of the real world?
Now can we get back to you telling me why it makes any sense to believe that Christianity is true or that the Bible is an authoritative guidebook given to man by God himself, based on the dubious nature and history of the Bible?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yes.
I believe you can.
I do flirt with it. The thing is.. honestly, I just view all things as equally rational. I just choose to believe one way or the other.
God may not exist. He might not. Science may one day prove the universe has been a circular timeline of expansion and compression. It may not.
I've tired myself into so many rational possibilities that all these seem plausible-- I only choose to accept one and not the other, and live accordingly.
I choose to. It can be rational. RRS vocalized the assertion that it could not be. I came here to perhaps show otherwise.
As for the reasons for my choice: Doesn't have to make sense to you why I choose to, or why anyone else does. The point is that it makes sense to me, even as I'd suspect many of your choices make sense to you. It's the choices we make along the way-- about what to accept and what not to; about what to do and what not to, or another other decisions we must decide on-- that makes all the difference.
Well..
I think I understand what it must feel like to bail water from a boat with a hole in it for ten hours. Lots of productive work, with nothing to show for it.
With the caveat that any belief (B) is rational so long as there's another belief (A), which is true or false or unverifiable, to support (B), I suppose you can say that any belief is rational. Why you would bother to do this is beyond me. Why even have the word, "rational?" For that matter, why have the word "irrational" except for symmetry?
In any case, I'm perfectly willing to grant that belief in god is logical if you're not big on empiricism or objectivity.
For lunch today, I think I'm going to invade Eastern Europe with a few Mongol Hordes. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It rational as long as all other beliefs they choose to accept do not contradict with eachother. If a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time.. that person would be irrational, logically speaking of course.
That is the purpose of those words, that is what they are defined as. Science holds it's own beliefs, even as philosphy, religion, politics, etc, etc, etc, each of which has a bucket of previously established assertions of which you cannot contradict and still be considered rational from that perspective.
We are.. however, speaking solely of logic. RRS doesn't premise it's "Theism is irrational" with any sort of adjective.
I find this dishonest.. or at least.. not accurate.
As far as your term "objective", things are only "objective" because of assertions you have already made.
No.. I'm not so big on "objective" or empirical evidence (although, empirical does apply to individual experience as well as what one might consider observational evidence.).
But let's not get into that argument.
Best of luck with your rampage. Be sure to stay away from Spain, I don't feel like dealing with raging Mongols at the moment.
---
Ah. I do believe in one self-evident assertion. One that if someone did not accept it I would consider him irrational (logically that is).
"I think, therefore I am."
Evidenced by individuals' choice, they are.
You're still above water at least.
I mean.. in your analogy. Heh.
As for me.. I'm just floating in the water keeping air in my lungs to stay above the sea-line.
..blame the cat. He blew the hole in the boat.
By the way.. I remember that skit-- with Eddie Murphy, hi lar ious.
Touche.
For my next trick, I will prove that staying above water can only be counted as progress if you like sunburns.
I really am going to go get some Chinese food for lunch now.
Peace.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Chinese food is irrational.
Later. Peace.