Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Ziggy Stardust]

How do you figure that without any evidence?

Why isn't: chemical processes in the brain stop and all that's left is rotting meat, a better and a demonstrative description of events?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Here was the declarative statement:



The part you bolded was a biblical reading using vapor in place of salt.

Please address the statement I bolded.

I never said I had it... But we know people can be vaporized.

A quick google search turned up references to technology that did not exist in the era we're discussing. So no, Lot's wife - if she even existed - could not have been vaporized.

If you're going to insist on this, please link to technologies or natural processes of that era that would have done so (non-magical, non- "goddidit" ones, please). I will admit my error if you can do this, since my search was a very quick one.

The story is far different, fire and brimstone rained from the sky and destroyed several cities. But we dont know where the region is, so obviously we dont know where to find the evidence.

What "fire and brimstone"? If there was a volcanic eruption? Okay, fine. An ordinary fire, due to accident or arson? No problem.

The bible is the only place fire and brimstone are mentioned. You already know how unreliable I consider that source.

As for "we don't know where the region is"... Really? You don't know where the Dead Sea is, or the general region where these stories are said to have happened?

I think I've found information about which documentary I saw, unless there was more than one I watched about Sodom and Gomorrah: The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

In brief, the hypothesis put forth in the program is that this is a seismically active region, and an earthquake was only the beginning. A process called liquefaction (in which water rises to the surface) caused a catastrophic landslide.

Note that this is an interesting hypothesis, and I have not heard of any archaeologists or geologists saying "this definitely happened."

After all, there is still no definitive proof that either city as described in the bible ever existed.

I wouldn't call it cloning... The Bible says Adam was put to sleep and a rib was taken for Eve's flesh to form around. Is that how we do cloning? If any cells will do, you dont need a rib. I dont think a rib was used... As evidence of early alterations I offered the rib story, Eve was the lady of life and the lady of the rib. Its a play on words based on Sumerian mythology.

Since I'm not a researcher into cloning techniques, I can't enumerate the steps required. But cloning will do as a general term for what is described in the bible.

Is It necessary to point out that the Bible has been subject to multiple copy errors?

Since it appears to be a super-hard concept to grasp, yes, it is necessary. It's mind-boggling how many Kindle books have an egregious number of typos and formatting errors. And that's with modern technology that is supposed to be so user-friendly that it should be a rare thing to have such errors. But they're more common than mosquitoes in July.

In reference to the bible (or any other book), all it takes is a few errors that are faithfully copied from edition to edition, year after year, and at some point nobody remembers how the original version was supposed to go.

Personally, I am not too worried if things have changed, and as for being true, that is a made up argument by those who do not want it to be true. Otherwise it would not be a point to bring up. It would not matter if people claimed or believed it is true. The point is there is no reason to not think it is an acurate account of human experiences, as they were being experienced.

We're back to "show me the evidence." You can't, because there isn't any. Archaeologists, geologists, and scientists and researchers from many other disciplines who know a hell of a lot more than either of us have been searching diligently for evidence that might confirm the stories in the bible. So far they haven't found anything that would support miracles or divine retribution or impossible things such as the sun standing still. Things like that are physically impossible. But the human imagination can conjure up all kinds of magical things that have no evidence to show they're real.

It is a way to avoid the point that writing things down when they happened is one of the distinctions found in how we got the Bible in the first place. You seem to accept the possibility that Moses could have written the first 5 books, as long as there is proof somewhere that he even existed. Is it convenient that he foretold that his body would never be found?

I never said I accept the possibility that Moses could have written the first 5 books. How could he have, when his death is part of the narrative? Since he couldn't have written them, whether or not his body would be found is irrelevant (but would have been a more convincing piece of evidence than "just because" or "maybe").

What is the point of blaming things on medieval copiest? Are you saying they could have messed up every literary item from past history? At some point you have to accept what we have is a decent account of history, or nothing we have is. If you pick and choose, you are creating a history that you think happened.

This should not be so damn hard to understand.

The bible has a passing acquaintance with history at best. I've heard bible scholars say that in their view, not one of the patriarchs were real people - they were characters in a long story, and the story was meant to teach lessons (ie. the story of Joseph is said to be a good one for the purpose of teaching forgiveness).

The mistake doesn't need to have happened during medieval times, specifically. I mentioned that time because I am familiar with some of the actions and effort needed to produce illuminated and correctly-written scrolls and manuscripts.

What's your attitude to making an error if you're typing something? Do you shrug and continue, or do you correct it? Do you proofread your posts before submitting them? Some people do and some don't bother. A friend once asked me to send some of my typing clients her way if I was too busy, but I never did - because she had such a careless, apathetic attitude to mistakes. "Life goes on," she would say and shrug it off. That's an attitude that quickly results in the typist having no more clients, because when they hire someone to type a paper that may be worth as much as 50% of their final grade in the course, they have the right to expect it to be as perfect as humanly possible, as far as mechanics and formatting are concerned. The actual content is the responsibility of the student. Careless attitudes don't fly with situations like this, I never allowed it when I was editing various SCA and club newsletters and fanzines, and when I did calligraphy, even a single mistake meant starting over... even if the mistake was the last letter of the last word.

I suppose some scribes in the past also had careless attitudes, or maybe they didn't have that much paper and ink to spare, that they could afford to start over. There is the good probability that they were simply faithfully reproducing mistakes from centuries earlier.

It's not such an awful thing if it's a simple spelling error that doesn't alter the meaning of the word or phrase, but if it does change the meaning, that's how misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and arguments get started that get passed down through the centuries.

I said it was not a given that the stories were made up, ie fiction. What are you talking about?

J

I thought it was perfectly clear that I'm talking about authors who write perfect prose - or claim to. I see various claims in recent posts that the people who wrote and copied the bible never made mistakes. That's ridiculous.

As for the stories being made up... where's the evidence that they weren't? Show me how a penguin can travel from the Antarctic to the location where Noah built the Ark, survive for the time it took for the rain to fall and then the flood waters subside, and then travel back home to Antarctica... without the food it needs to survive, in a climate that's far too hot. Penguins can't fly, so they'd have had a hell of a long walk across the desert and over/around mountain ranges. And Noah must have been rather surprised to see the animals turning up that are unique to North and South America, not to mention Australia.

 

[timtofly]

So we can strike modern editing and medieval copying from the record as examples of what may have happened in 1000 to 500 bca?

Moses was considered a prophet. If he lied about how he would die, and if they found his body, we would never have him as a Prophet and certainly not as the one who delivered the law the Hebrews were to live by. If they lied about him being the adoptive son of Pharaoh's daughter, then he would be too uneducated to even produce a law in the first place. God would have to have done all the work. Now you can point out that there was never a law given at all. But at what time and for what reason would such an elaborate law even be introduced, if not at the beginning of the Hebrews being a people group needing such a law? Why would an insignificant group of people even need to fabricate it?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So we can strike modern editing and medieval copying from the record as examples of what may have happened in 1000 to 500 bca?

Define "bca".

Alterations and copy errors can happen in any era. This can be due to honest human error, or it can be deliberate. The point is that the alterations/errors, once made, have been recopied and perpetuated down through the centuries.

Moses was considered a prophet. If he lied about how he would die, and if they found his body, we would never have him as a Prophet and certainly not as the one who delivered the law the Hebrews were to live by. If they lied about him being the adoptive son of Pharaoh's daughter, then he would be too uneducated to even produce a law in the first place. God would have to have done all the work. Now you can point out that there was never a law given at all. But at what time and for what reason would such an elaborate law even be introduced, if not at the beginning of the Hebrews being a people group needing such a law? Why would an insignificant group of people even need to fabricate it?

"People group." May I remind you that the only place I found this term was on some weird religious website. It's not a term I was taught in anthropology.

First of all, I am not the only one who doubts that Moses ever existed, or that Exodus really happened as it's written. There are some parts of the story that are either flat-out impossible, there is a non-mystical explanation available, or... yeah, it's made up. Why would you think that only one specific person could think up that stuff? And it's not just a matter of not finding Moses' body. It's not finding evidence for the rest of the story, as well.

And why would you think that only princes were educated in Egypt? They weren't the only literate, tutored class there.

And according to some interpretations, God did do all the work. He told Moses what to say, and Moses parroted what he was told.

 

[onejayhawk]

I thought it was perfectly clear that I'm talking about authors who write perfect prose - or claim to. I see various claims in recent posts that the people who wrote and copied the bible never made mistakes. That's ridiculous.

As for the stories being made up... where's the evidence that they weren't? Show me how a penguin can travel from the Antarctic to the location where Noah built the Ark, survive for the time it took for the rain to fall and then the flood waters subside, and then travel back home to Antarctica... without the food it needs to survive, in a climate that's far too hot. Penguins can't fly, so they'd have had a hell of a long walk across the desert and over/around mountain ranges. And Noah must have been rather surprised to see the animals turning up that are unique to North and South America, not to mention Australia.

Not clear at all. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever claimed to write scripture. They simply write. Canonization occurs much later.

There is concrete evidence that they were not made up. Like most archaeological evidence, it is fragmentary and subject to dispute. It largely consists of the story being accurate when the science of the day was wrong. My favorite is Pontius Pilate. In the 18th and 19th century, the Bible was attacked having a ficticious character in such an important position. The first proof was a civic theater donated by Pilate. His name was literally cut in stone and inlaid in bronze. More recently, the taxing from the Christmas story was questioned. There were no records preserved. Proof came in the form of a casual reference to a different tax in a business letter. Psalm 22 is reliably placed more than 500 BC. It contains an accurate medical description of a crucifixion. Nineva was destroyed by fire and water, contradictory as that seems. The construction of Babylon's hanging gardens are depict in the book of Daniel. And so on.

For origin stories, all evidence is lost to time. At that point we are back to the evidence of believers, which is real evidence, and on consistency.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not clear at all. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever claimed to write scripture. They simply write. Canonization occurs much later.

There is concrete evidence that they were not made up. Like most archaeological evidence, it is fragmentary and subject to dispute. It largely consists of the story being accurate when the science of the day was wrong. My favorite is Pontius Pilate. In the 18th and 19th century, the Bible was attacked having a ficticious character in such an important position. The first proof was a civic theater donated by Pilate. His name was literally cut in stone and inlaid in bronze. More recently, the taxing from the Christmas story was questioned. There were no records preserved. Proof came in the form of a casual reference to a different tax in a business letter. Psalm 22 is reliably placed more than 500 BC. It contains an accurate medical description of a crucifixion. Nineva was destroyed by fire and water, contradictory as that seems. The construction of Babylon's hanging gardens are depict in the book of Daniel. And so on.

For origin stories, all evidence is lost to time. At that point we are back to the evidence of believers, which is real evidence, and on consistency.

J

LOL. Are you under the impression that crucifixion was a one-time thing, only for Jesus and the other two men with him?

Crucifixion was a common method of execution, used for low-class criminals and slaves. Spartacus and his followers were crucified. So were many others.

As for Pontius Pilate, groovy. Evidence was found that he was real, so I have no problem acknowledging that he was real. I've been accused of not believing Augustus was real, which is ludicrous. There were copious amounts of evidence for his existence, including some that he wrote himself, while he was alive (I specify that because someone else here is under the impression that Moses wrote part of his autobiography after he died, which is a pretty neat trick/sarcasm).

 

[Akka]

I offered 2 options for the origin of life because those are the only options I can see. Either the inanimate gave rise to life, or life was present in one or more of the available elements (or was 'written' into the rule book). Now what chemical reaction perfectly explains life?

Look at a bacteria, you'll see all the chemical reactions needed. Ask a specialized chemist/biologist for more details.

---

Life is worth a thread of its own. Something undefined leaves. All that remains is rotting meat. What, why and how are unsolved mysteries. So far, the best anyone has come up with is that the breath of God has gone back to its source. See. We learned a lot in 5000 years.

J

Nice usual circular argument, you take your conclusion ("souls exists") as a premises ("something undefined leaves").
We all know the value of circular arguments.

 

[warpus]

Moses was considered a prophet. If he lied about how he would die

There is no evidence at all that there were large numbers of Jews in exile in Egypt to begin with, so that whole story is most likely a large embellishment of some oral tradition story or even completely made up.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For origin stories, all evidence is lost to time. At that point we are back to the evidence of believers, which is real evidence, and on consistency.

J

Indeed. It's subjective evidence which can't be transferred or tested, so no validity can be placed upon it.

The origin story is far from consistent.

 

[onejayhawk]

There is no evidence at all that there were large numbers of Jews in exile in Egypt to begin with, so that whole story is most likely a large embellishment of some oral tradition story or even completely made up.

Not true. A complication is the enmity between Blue Nile and White Nile dynasties. Both sought to remove evidence of the other. However, there are things that have been found which are consistent with the stories in Genesis and Exodus. For example, a significant tomb of the period contains a body clearly depicted as Asiatic. Some say he is Joseph. There are grain storage sites nearby, which would be consistent. I am aware of no references to the man other than his tomb, despite his evident importance. There are large works of mud-brick, which is also consistent.

This is not dispositive, but it would be inaccurate to say that there is no evidence. It is better to say that there is no contradictory evidence.

Indeed. It's subjective evidence which can't be transferred or tested, so no validity can be placed upon it. The origin story is far from consistent.

This is a fallacy. Subjective evidence does have value. Weighing it can be difficult, but it is improper to discount it entirely.

The consistency is not with just the origin story, but with the entire narrative as a body of work.

J

 

[timtofly]

Define "bca".

Alterations and copy errors can happen in any era. This can be due to honest human error, or it can be deliberate. The point is that the alterations/errors, once made, have been recopied and perpetuated down through the centuries.


"People group." May I remind you that the only place I found this term was on some weird religious website. It's not a term I was taught in anthropology.

First of all, I am not the only one who doubts that Moses ever existed, or that Exodus really happened as it's written. There are some parts of the story that are either flat-out impossible, there is a non-mystical explanation available, or... yeah, it's made up. Why would you think that only one specific person could think up that stuff? And it's not just a matter of not finding Moses' body. It's not finding evidence for the rest of the story, as well.

And why would you think that only princes were educated in Egypt? They weren't the only literate, tutored class there.

And according to some interpretations, God did do all the work. He told Moses what to say, and Moses parroted what he was told.

What do you mean by interpretations? What does that have to do with the actual account? So you are saying that a human cannot prophecy the account of his death?

Why claim he did not exist and then make fun at his death? A prophecy has to come first. It was not written after the death, else it is not a prophecy. There is no trick to prophecy. If the prophecy was false, the prophet was stoned to death, and every thing he did would be discredited.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What do you mean by interpretations? What does that have to do with the actual account? So you are saying that a human cannot prophecy the account of his death?

Why claim he did not exist and then make fun at his death? A prophecy has to come first. It was not written after the death, else it is not a prophecy. There is no trick to prophecy. If the prophecy was false, the prophet was stoned to death, and every thing he did would be discredited.

I asked for a definition of "bca." Please provide it.

Show me where I made "fun at his death."

You claim that Moses wrote all of the first 5 books. Since he dies in Deuteronomy, I am understandably skeptical that he wrote what you claim he wrote.

 

[Agent327]

It is, arguably, doubted that 'Moses' is a historical person. But few scholars today believe Moses wrote the Mosaic books. Primarily because of the difference in style between them. (But, this being religion, certain individuals will believe al kinds of things - and be honestly convinced that what they believe is the God-honest Truth.) As for the OT text: it's certain the editors actively edited the final result. Which makes the final text all the more remarkable.

There is no evidence at all that there were large numbers of Jews in exile in Egypt to begin with

Maybe not literally, no. But there definitely were Hebrews at some point in Egypt.

Not true. A complication is the enmity between Blue Nile and White Nile dynasties. Both sought to remove evidence of the other. However, there are things that have been found which are consistent with the stories in Genesis and Exodus. For example, a significant tomb of the period contains a body clearly depicted as Asiatic. Some say he is Joseph. There are grain storage sites nearby, which would be consistent. I am aware of no references to the man other than his tomb, despite his evident importance. There are large works of mud-brick, which is also consistent.

Be that as it may, but egyptology knows of no 'Blue Nile and White Nile dynasties' - let alone of enmity between those. (The Blue Nile isn't even remotely close to Egypt. by the way.)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Interesting thing about references and sources, and such... it wasn't until I was working as front-of-house crew at the Red Deer College Arts Centre during a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat that I really got interested in Egyptian history that was other than the story of Cleopatra and the story of the Ten Commandments. I decided I wanted to learn the real history, as much as possible (archaeologists have been debating some of this stuff for many decades).

I don't have a problem with people from Canaan being in Egypt. Since it's one of the crossroads of the world, it makes sense that at some point some of them would have been there. But there is no definitive proof that it was Jacob and/or his descendants.

 

[onejayhawk]

It is, arguably, doubted that 'Moses' is a historical person. But few scholars today believe Moses wrote the Mosaic books. Primarily because of the difference in style between them. (But, this being religion, certain individuals will believe al kinds of things - and be honestly convinced that what they believe is the God-honest Truth.) As for the OT text: it's certain the editors actively edited the final result. Which makes the final text all the more remarkable.

King James did not write the King James Bible, yet it bears his name. Moses may have done much of the work that constitutes the books that bear his name, but it is not a requirement. As Vulka D'ur has pointed out, later editors would have needed to redo the process into text. To the extent that he says the books were an ongoing process, she is correct, at least until the period of the Judges.

Be that as it may, but egyptology knows of no 'Blue Nile and White Nile dynasties' - let alone of enmity between those. (The Blue Nile isn't even remotely close to Egypt. by the way.)

This is true and I was inexact. The terms are upper and lower. Upper Egypt extended into Sudan and Ethiopia, hence Blue Nile.

I don't have a problem with people from Canaan being in Egypt. Since it's one of the crossroads of the world, it makes sense that at some point some of them would have been there. But there is no definitive proof that it was Jacob and/or his descendants.

There are Hebrew enclaves in Egypt all through history. That there is no proof of Jacob's family is not surprising. It was a turbulent period between the end of the Old Kingdom and the reunification by Amenotep. No monuments were built and generally little is known about anything. Joseph's Pharaoh was possibly black, from Sudan. Moses would be early in the Middle Kingdom, which despised the upper Nile rulers.

J

 

[Agent327]

King James did not write the King James Bible, yet it bears his name. Moses may have done much of the work that constitutes the books that bear his name, but it is not a requirement. As Vulka Dur has pointed out, later editors would have needed to redo the process into text. To the extent that he says the books were an ongoing process, he is correct, at least until the period of the Judges.

King James did commission the King James Bible. It's fairly certain no Moses did such a thing with the Mosaic books. It's tradition that attributed the Mosaic books to Moses, not logical argument. Secondly, the books of the Jewish Bible was edited into a text - a versed text, to be exact. (I'm not sure what Judges have to do with anything here.)

This is true and I was inexact. The terms are upper and lower. Upper Egypt extended into Sudan and Ethiopia, hence Blue Nile.

Egypt never extended into present day Ethiopia. The terms Blue and White Nile have nothing to do with ancient Egypt period.

There are Hebrew enclaves in Egypt all through history. That there is no proof of Jacob's family is not surprising. It was a turbulent period between the end of the Old Kingdom and the reunification by Amenotep. No monuments were built and generally little is known about anything. Joseph's Pharaoh was possibly black, from Sudan. Moses would be early in the Middle Kingdom, which despised the upper Nile rulers.

Hebrews aren't even mentioned prior to the 13th century in Egyptian sources. That would be later New Kingdom. The Nubian dynasty dates from the Third Intermediate period. so that would be well after the Middle Kingdom.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

King James did not write the King James Bible, yet it bears his name. Moses may have done much of the work that constitutes the books that bear his name, but it is not a requirement. As Vulka Dur has pointed out, later editors would have needed to redo the process into text. To the extent that he says the books were an ongoing process, he is correct, at least until the period of the Judges.

We're still back to the problem of finding actual proof that Moses even existed.

As for "Vulka Dur"... please. It's basic courtesy to get people's usernames right.

To the extent that he says the books were an ongoing process, he is correct, at least until the period of the Judges.

To whom are you referring when you use the word "he"? If you mean me, I'm not a "he". I'm a "she" - as my sidebar information indicates.

 

[onejayhawk]

Nice usual circular argument, you take your conclusion ("souls exists") as a premises ("something undefined leaves").

No argument to start with. That was a statement of facts. How did you drag soul into it?

We all know the value of circular arguments.

No comment on the irony here.

King James did commission the King James Bible. It's fairly certain no Moses did such a thing with the Mosaic books. It's tradition that attributed the Mosaic books to Moses, not logical argument. Secondly, the books of the Jewish Bible was edited into a text - a versed text, to be exact. (I'm not sure what Judges have to do with anything here.)

The period of the Judges is about 1-3 centuries after Moses. It is when the first clear reference to Hebraic people occurs, ie 13th century. Saying that, "It's fairly certain no Moses did such a thing with the Mosaic books." is presumptuous. As you note, it is a tradition. That constitutes evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, normal protocol is to defer to the tradition. You assume there is no Moses

Hebrews aren't even mentioned prior to the 13th century in Egyptian sources. That would be later New Kingdom. The Nubian dynasty dates from the Third Intermediate period. so that would be well after the Middle Kingdom.

I was not talking about the 25th dynasty. This is the first intermediary period.

We're still back to the problem of finding actual proof that Moses even existed.

Short of a time machine, it is unlikely we ever will.

As for "Vulka Dur"... please. It's basic courtesy to get people's usernames right.

I'm glad I did not shorten to initials, as I usually do.

J

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is a fallacy. Subjective evidence does have value.

I didn't say it hasn't.

I said: "No validity can be placed upon it"

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh yay, we're discussing the Bible in a thread about God. Yawn.
"People thought that God exists". Um, yeah. Sure. I mean, it's not a huge revelation.

They then ascribed false details to this God. And then created a morality around it that necessarily factored in the false details. And then, I have to spend endless minutes reading people write about the Bible. Ugh. And then the conversation moves no further on actually discussing God.

Ugh. We don't assume there's no Moses. But our writings about Moses were compiled after the Jews had already forgotten their own national history.

It's the Christians who take their assumptions about Moses and then foist those assumptions onto their conception of God. Right abouts now, they're all talking about how Jesus wanted us to love a God that would kill the first born peasants in a land in order to sway the mind of their Tyrant. This is so that His favorite people could go onto a different land and genocide it, as He desired.

Alternatively, there's no real evidence that God ordered his people to commit mass murder.

If I had a defense attorney, and he looked at that quality of evidence, and then spent all my money trying to convince a jury that I was justified in mass murdering people to take their stuff .... instead of just pointing out that there's actually no evidence that I did it ... I'd be less than impressed. And meanwhile, if the people who claimed to 'love' me went on to endlessly justify the killing instead of actually noticing that there's no evidence I did it ... well, I'd be less than impressed.

So, when Jesus was quoted as telling us to love the God of Exodus and Joshua, did Jesus get misquoted? Did he think we should love such an entity? Was he telling us to worship a false conception?