God without The Bible – Challenge to Theists

[dafydd]

there is more to be learned of druidic thought and practice from studying ancient irish literature, than is to be learned from roman histories.
for example, 'the colloquy of the two sages' is a discussion between an druid and his student.

Written after druidism ceased to exist because of the battle at Mon. The ancient Celts left no written records,just some Ogham inscriptions.

 

[RandFan]

Skip the question in the OP. Get to the nitty-gritty and ask the YECs how they know the first part of Genesis is true if nobody could have been around to witness it. Similar basic question as the OP, but without the possible complications.

There is not, and cannot be, a case where the author of the first part of Genesis witnessed the events, let alone has evidence. Therefore, anybody who believes that first part of Genesis is true must accept that it is true on faith that God communicated that information. And if they believe that God communicated THAT information, then they can believe that God communicated ALL of the information in the whole Bible.

The argument in the Original Post is that before about 2000 years ago the Bible wasn’t written down, but people before then still believed in God without having a Bible to cite as the basis for their belief, so if there is a God those people before the Bible was written must have had evidence to support their belief, and if that evidence can’t be shown then God must not exist.

I respect that argument, but it is indirect and problematic. It is possible for some event to occur, and witness reports of that event to be carried along for some time, and all traces of evidence of the event to disappear, and then the information about the event being written down. The OP seems to imply that if there is no evidence, then the Bible is false. But as I just explained, it is plausible that there can be no evidence, but the event was true. So the argument in the OP does not necessary determine a true or false value.

But if you cut to the chase of the first part of Genesis, it is not possible that witness reports of that event eventually wrote down their information because it is not possible that there were and human witnesses. The author could not have written information based on evidence because the author could not have existed when God made light.

If you reduce the argument to this, there cannot be any evidence and there are no plausible explanations other than accepting the information on faith. Not evidence. Faith. Not plausible in any other way. No manipulations of dates. Alternative interpretations.

The first part of Genesis cannot be accepted as true account of a witness. The witness would not have existed (which is a similar, but round-about and not iron clad, argument the OP is making). And if there was no witness to the first part of Genesis, that person wrote it without evidence. So accepting it as true is a matter of faith. And if you accept that on faith, you can accept the whole Bible on faith, which makes the OP’s request for evidence of other things to support belief in the Bible irrelevant.

Thanks. But sadly I think we are speaking past each other. I don't dispute anything you say. But IMHO, your well reasoned response doesn't obviate the OP or the discussion in general.

I've read and re-read your post. Please pay close attention to mine. I'm not trying to be condescending but I'd like to think that in the least you understood my argument. Based on your response I don't think you do.

There might be a strategy better than the OP. However, the OP has merit whether you think it is effective or not. It has merit because the belief in the age of the earth is false and circular reason is an error in logic. Now, I don't care if you think there is a ready made out for the theist. I get that. I was once a believer.

Thing is, though I was a believer, I've no idea how to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into. Having been on JREF and an avid follower of theistic debates here and on YouTube and elsewhere I'm quite confident that no such animal (best way to convince a theist) exists.

If a person sincerely believes that the Earth is flat there isn't much I can do to break his spell. All arguments are wrong before they are made. There are always explanations and fallacy that will prop up their delusion. Faith is a form of delusion. It's akin to a parasite or virus. It's not inoculated by formulating with military like precision the best possible strategy.

All we can do is poke and prod and state the truth. The Bible cannot be confidently used as a single source for truth. There are antecedent texts to the Bible. Faith can't Spackle over those facts. Truth is intrinsically valid for it's own sake. It is a source for changing people's minds. That doesn't obviate anything you have said. It doesn't matter because we are having two very different discussions.

 

[bikerdruid]

Written after druidism ceased to exist because of the battle at Mon. The ancient Celts left no written records,just some Ogham inscriptions.

that fact that st patrick burned over 1200 hundred books in 5th century ireland (from his confessionsmight account for the lack of pre-christin irish literature.
and, btw....druidry existed in ireland long after the slaughter at mon, hundreds of years longer.
infact, in ireland, the druids became the culdees.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

that fact that st patrick burned over 1200 hundred books in 5th century ireland (from his confessionsmight account for the lack of pre-christin irish literature.
and, btw....druidry existed in ireland long after the slaughter at mon, hundreds of years longer.
infact, in ireland, the druids became the culdees.

As I said before:

Evidence of existence is not specific enough.

How many sources are there to use in reconstructing the ways of druids?

 

[bikerdruid]

As I said before:

Evidence of existence is not specific enough.

How many sources are there to use in reconstructing the ways of druids?

there are many, but there are some excellent compilations.
john matthew's: the bardic sourcebook; the seer's sourcebook and the druidic sourcebook.

 

[Minoosh]

So here's my challenge to Theists . . .

Present your belief that a God exists without referring to The Bible in any way.

Parse this ... "present your belief that God exists ..." So then someone presents their belief and you say, that is not proof. Which is true, but you did not say, present your proof that God exists.

You present this challenge, someone meets it, then you are dissatisfied because they didn't answer the challenge you meant to make?

I'm also curious what would constitute proof to you. A Podcast? A Godcast? A boxed set of DVDs? A vision? A miracle happening right in front of you? Would it have to be something obvious to your unaided senses? It's just not clear.

Then someone who cites a "hunch" is challenged, because people have bet their lives on hunches and lost ...

That is actually a famous philosophical bet. I tried searching in this thread for "Pascal" but didn't find it. The gist is, if I believe God exists, and then I die and there's no God, I haven't lost anything. But if I believe God does not exist and I die and find out I was wrong, that could be bad.

So if you're on the fence it is more rational to believe in God, since no one has proof one way or another.

The "hunch" is harmless unless it is used as an excuse to hurt or kill other people, which granted, happens a fair amount.

Truly I think the inclination to believe or not may be in part genetic. My mother and I had totally different childhood experiences, but our patterns of belief/disbelief are very similar, right down to the kind of language we us. My mother once said, "I've never been one of those people who believes there's a plan." Which could have come straight from me.

 

[RandFan]

Parse this ... "present your belief that God exists ..." So then someone presents their belief and you say, that is not proof. Which is true, but you did not say, present your proof that God exists.

The point is that many theists think the bible is proof. It's not but ynot is simply removing a variable to make a point. It's a valid inquiry used in many fields.

I'm also curious what would constitute proof to you.

Self evident, objective, coherent, lacking in fallacy.

That is actually a famous philosophical bet. I tried searching in this thread for "Pascal" but didn't find it. The gist is, if I believe God exists, and then I die and there's no God, I haven't lost anything. But if I believe God does not exist and I die and find out I was wrong, that could be bad.

So if you're on the fence it is more rational to believe in God, since no one has proof one way or another.

The "hunch" is harmless unless it is used as an excuse to hurt or kill other people, which granted, happens a fair amount.

It's a bad bet for many reasons.

 

[Minoosh]

Self evident, objective, coherent, lacking in fallacy . . . It's a bad bet for many reasons.

RandFan, there were problems with your "debunking" link in my browser - I'm throwing in a Wikipedia link that somehow knows it's a link without me telling it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

I am citing the wager in irreducible form - God is, or God isn't. I figure it improves the odds if I don't have to pick from thousands of mutually exclusive creeds. However, I admit that my own (vague) belief does not spring from a philosophical wager; I just seem to be wired that way. I don't think I could choose to be an atheist any more than I could choose to be a lesbian.

Recently a friend said re: belief in God - that "no one can know for sure God exists." I asked, "How do you know no one else can know for sure?" Just to throw him a challenge, really. I've got no monkey in this scrum.

If you are starting from a regard for reason I'm moved to ask, how rational is it to challenge in debate people whom you know to be irrational?

I do understand the incredible frustration of trying to reason with people who aren't using reason to begin with, and who maddeningly refuse to see that they are not using reason.

I've never had religion shoved down my throat, have never been ostracized for belief or nonbelief, have never embraced an entire system only to be bitterly disillusioned. My lifelong disregard for fundamentalism of any stripe may render me a bit cavalier in dismissing its dangers.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I am citing the wager in irreducible form - God is, or God isn't. I figure it improves the odds if I don't have to pick from thousands of mutually exclusive creeds.

But then the question is:

Why do all other gods not matter?

Why shove them off the table, when all of them can be equally true (if at all true)?

If it were so simple, then Pascal's Wager would still stand on that front.

 

[Minoosh]

I have just understood that "it's a bad bet for many reasons" is itself a link - I submit this as a clarification; your link does work, I just didn't realize it was a link. The underlining should have tipped me off.

 

[RandFan]

I am citing the wager in irreducible form - God is, or God isn't.

Given that logic, wouldn't it be simpler to state, God is, disbelieve at your peril? I don't understand your point.

I figure it improves the odds if I don't have to pick from thousands of mutually exclusive creeds.

Well, yeah, and it improves your odds even more if you simply posit that god exists and your choice is believe and live in candy mountain (snark conceded) or disbelieve and suffer eternally.

However, I admit that my own (vague) belief does not spring from a philosophical wager; I just seem to be wired that way. I don't think I could choose to be an atheist any more than I could choose to be a lesbian.

I agree absolutely. It took me years and perhaps decades to go from a full time missionary who paid his own way to preach the gospel to an atheist. It takes commitment to the truth. It's painful. I had to understand the depth of human solipsism and I had to have the humility to admit that my ego and subconscious fears control me far more than I could ever understand. I had to follow logic and reason no matter where it took me. And I tell you, making that commitment took me to places I never wanted to go and I often went kicking and screaming. I know it's trite and I appologize for the cheesiness of it but, the "blue pill or red pill" choice (the matrix) is dead on. Truth isn't always about comfort and happiness. Delusion and myth often are. Though they come with their own costs and often those cost are rather high.

Recently a friend said re: belief in God - that "no one can know for sure God exists." I asked, "How do you know no one else can know for sure?" Just to throw him a challenge, really. I've got no monkey in this scrum.

Believers in the Bible think that Moses knew. Believers in Mormonism thanks that Joseph Smith knew. Given Cogito Ergo sum I'd have to agree with you and say that the only thing we can know is that there is something going on that we call thinking. Hell, I don't even know if anyone but me is doing that.

If you are starting from a regard for reason I'm moved to ask, how rational is it to challenge in debate people whom you know to be irrational?

I'll have to quote you, "How do you know" when someone is irrational?

Leaving that aside, I don't view the world that way. By and large, humans are not either rational or irrational. There are extremes of irrationality and rationality and a continuum between those extremes. Most of us are don't deviate from the norm much. To be sure, I'm not by any means a shinny example of rationality. Nor was I a quivering mass of irrationality when I scoffed at atheists. It doesn't work that way.

I do understand the incredible frustration of trying to reason with people who aren't using reason to begin with, and who maddeningly refuse to see that they are not using reason.

Again, I don't see the world that way. I don't think me so superior. I debate in the politics forum, social issues forum, etc., etc. I have no illusions that I'm always right. When I came to JREF I was a dualist, deist, ID proponent and opposed to gay rights, among other things. I changed because I was willing to accept that I could be wrong about anything. My greatest insight is that one can't see the truth unless one is willing to look.

I've never had religion shoved down my throat, have never been ostracized for belief or nonbelief, have never embraced an entire system only to be bitterly disillusioned. My lifelong disregard for fundamentalism of any stripe may render me a bit cavalier in dismissing its dangers.

Perhaps. In the end we have to, in one way or another, come to a determination about any proposition.

 

[catscratch]

OK...

Theists say people have existed for around 6000 years. For over 4000 of those years they would have had to have been aware of their God without the “benefit” of what is written in The Bible.

So here's my challenge to Theists . . .

Present your belief that a God exists without referring to The Bible in any way.

When I was a child, I wanted to know Who made the trees. Didn't you?

 

[Minoosh]

But then the question is:

Why do all other gods not matter?

Why shove them off the table, when all of them can be equally true (if at all true)?

If it were so simple, then Pascal's Wager would still stand on that front.

My beliefs are so vague I don't have to shove other gods off the table.

When I see "Allah" my brain automatically substitutes "God." I seem to have been born looking for commonalities instead of differences.

Maybe if I'd accepted a religion whole, then been disillusioned, I'd be an atheist. Instead I have this belief, that there's some force for decency out there or even in us, if we can just all get on the same page ...

Of course, I can't prove it.

 

[catscratch]

The Last Page

there's some force for decency out there or even in us, if we can just all get on the same page ...

When that same page thing happens, I will be gone... thank God.

 

[RandFan]

Instead I have this belief, that there's some force for decency out there or even in us, if we can just all get on the same page ...

Of course, I can't prove it.

"Some force"? What about innate sence of morality, empathy, compassion, riciprocal altruism, logic and reason? If you can think of a better world you can create it. Why bother with the unparsimonious idea of "some force"?

In the end it simply is not needed.

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

 

[westprog]

Even though I'm pretty sure you're joking, I can actually go along with that, as long as religious people on the forum will not busy themselves with scientific topics.

As a great Dutch comedian once said, when he was talking about the pope and birth control:

If you don't practice the sport, you shouldn't interfere with the rules.

That being said, I actually have nothing against religious people in scientific topics, just like I have no problem with atheists in religious topics.

There is no dichotomy between religious and scientific views. People with religious views should not allow them to distort their understanding of science. But there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.

 

[Minoosh]

...
Well, yeah, and it improves your odds even more if you simply posit that god exists and your choice is believe and live in candy mountain ...

I have tried to believe in candy mountain. I asked Jesus to come into my heart and nothing happened. At the same time, I believe in something. Weird, innit. Certainly illogical.

Truth isn't always about comfort and happiness.

Don't I know. I'm actually kind of a deistic nihilist - like you're a Mormon atheist. Maybe your tag is ironic but I don't mean mine that way. I mean I seem to be capable of feeling
both things as true, in sequence and maybe even simultaneously.

Given Cogito Ergo sum I'd have to agree with you and say that the only thing we can know is that there is something going on that we call thinking. Hell, I don't even know if anyone but me is doing that.

That construction - "I think therefore I am" - has always struck me as circular, in that the speaker is positing an "I" to demonstrate the existence of an "I." Some time ago I was exposed to much discussion about "the problem" of "consciousness" and I wondered how you could comprehend your frame of reference from within your frame of reference. I still wonder sometimes.

Nor was I a quivering mass of irrationality when I scoffed at atheists.

Scoffed ... I scoff at what I perceive to be idiocy, but I don't think I scoff at atheists. You made a journey from belief to unbelief, or a commitment to truth as you saw it (I'm paraphrasing). But I think it can be inborn, a tendency toward belief or disbelief in the numinous.

My greatest insight is that one can't see the truth unless one is willing to look.

I feel almost too willing to look. I hear someone say "I'm lucky to be alive" and I want to ask, "What makes you think so?"

Wow, I see while I was composing this a bunch of other people posted. Just a quick note, I think it's quite possible to live ethically and happily without a belief in God. I choose my words carefully, but I don't always choose correctly.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

There is no dichotomy between religious and scientific views. People with religious views should not allow them to distort their understanding of science. But there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.

Well, not if religion doesn't hold their book to be literal.

And as I said, I have nothing against it.

 

[RandFan]

I have tried to believe in candy mountain. I asked Jesus to come into my heart and nothing happened. At the same time, I believe in something. Weird, innit. Certainly illogical.

Logic isn't the natural state for humans. If it were David Hasselhoff would never have had a career.

Don't I know. I'm actually kind of a deistic nihilist - like you're a Mormon atheist. Maybe your tag is ironic but I don't mean mine that way.

I was never excomunicated. I never left. But I don't really consider myslef Mormon

I mean I seem to be capable of feeling both things as true, in sequence and maybe even simultaneously.

Now THAT is human nature. It's like the person who demonstrates great capacity for skepticism and critical thinking and then buys into a Ponzi schme, that also illustrates the essences of humanity.

That construction - "I think therefore I am" - has always struck me as circular, in that the speaker is positing an "I" to demonstrate the existence of an "I." Some time ago I was exposed to much discussion about "the problem" of "consciousness" and I wondered how you could comprehend your frame of reference from within your frame of reference. I still wonder sometimes.

Descartes' dualistic conclusion is irrelevant. Either you are thinking or you are not. When you figure it out you let me know. If you would prefer "I think there for something that is thinking exists", then that is fine by me. It is ony tautological if it conveys no information. We could go into the circular nature of the argument but it's not necassary. Just tell me if you do in fact think, If you do then please tell me if you think non-existenxce then follows.

Scoffed ... I scoff at what I perceive to be idiocy, but I don't think I scoff at atheists. You made a journey from belief to unbelief, or a commitment to truth as you saw it (I'm paraphrasing). But I think it can be inborn, a tendency toward belief or disbelief in the numinous.

I've no problem with that so long as numinous can include Spinozas god, as Hitchens asserts it can (don't mean to appeal to authority only to note that atheists have no problemwith it).

I feel almost too willing to look. I hear someone say "I'm lucky to be alive" and I want to ask, "What makes you think so?"

If they feel that way I'm happy to cede their point. It's not a proposition about the nature of the universe. Just a subjective opinion. I often feel that way.

Wow, I see while I was composing this a bunch of other people posted. Just a quick note, I think it's quite possible to live ethically and happily without a belief in God. I choose my words carefully, but I don't always choose correctly.

No problem.

 

[tsig]

My beliefs are so vague I don't have to shove other gods off the table.

When I see "Allah" my brain automatically substitutes "God." I seem to have been born looking for commonalities instead of differences.

Maybe if I'd accepted a religion whole, then been disillusioned, I'd be an atheist. Instead I have this belief, that there's some force for decency out there or even in us, if we can just all get on the same page ...

Of course, I can't prove it.

Gods aren't decent. They kill humans for their sport.