Sleepwalk7's forum posts
So where is the contemporary and reputable source that teaches the Bible is a collection of early mythology?[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]
Â
"Yahweh... and his Asherah"
Mithrandir50
Â
This site should be helpful for you
It isn't since it's not a reputable source. I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, the work of an actual scholar, not a basement dweller.[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]
 Again, these types of theories were thrown out a long time ago. I challenge you to find and cite a contemporary and reputable scholar that believes the Bible is a collection of early mythology.Mithrandir50
"Yahweh... and his Asherah"
So where is the contemporary and reputable source that teaches the Bible is a collection of early mythology?I've gone over this many times on this forum so I'm used to trying to describe things in terms most people can understand. I've been studying quantum physics since 1995, and I can most definately pull out the math.You proclaim that you understand quantum mechanics, but you do not know how to spell "definitely." I don't mean to be insulting, I don't buy it. And when you say you've been studying quantum physics since 1995, what does that mean exactly? Reading popular level books on the subject? Going to college? Are you an actual physicist? Do you watch YouTube videos on quantum mechanics? What? And in a sense, it doesn't matter if you know quantum mechanics or not because you're getting some very fundamental things wrong. One example is the idea that in quantum mechanics particles come into being from nonbeing. That's wrong. And it's a pretty big thing to get wrong, by the way.br0kenrabbit
See, there you go again conflating terms. Photons aren't "nothing." Nothing is nonbeing. Photons exist.By 'nothing' I was suggesting in the same way a photon is 'nothing'
Actually, we observe collections of photons all the time. In fact, the human eye can detect single photons.Going on the above, no one has ever seen a photon, either
I have no problem with looking at effects and predicting what kind of cause there would need to be in order to create the aforementioned effects. I was just making fun of the hypocrisy of some atheists on this point.We have inferred their existence from their interation with other particles and fields, the same as we can infer the exstience of extra dimensions by the fact that the math tells us that strings have to move in more than three spatial directions.
Is this unquestional evidence? Well, it's got the same weight as "Look around you = God".
It is a cop-out to say it is meaningless to ask, "What did God do with all of His time," when time didn't exist? How so?^And the cop-out.^
Now we're going outside the scope of this thread. Notice that the thread isn't titled, "Arguments for The Existence of The Judeo-Christian God"I think the best proof against the Biblical God
The argument, "the Bible is based on older myths" has been thrown out years ago by Old and New Testament scholars and historians. This sort of argument only thrives in places like YouTube or forums like this which are filled with layman.are in the stories that predate the Torah: Gilgamesh, Homers Odyssey, the Assyrian and Phoenician myths, etc.
Again, these types of theories were thrown out a long time ago. I challenge you to find and cite a contemporary and reputable scholar that believes the Bible is a collection of early mythology.And beyond that, there's Jewish history itself: the Jews borrow the Phoenician alphabet as their first written script and the first thing they come up with is something strikingly similar to The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Then there's the whole Yahweh issue...what with YHWH being traced to a pantheon of Gods where he happens to be the Storm/War God, and then his appearance in the Old Testament in the visage of storm clouds and thunder and always declaring war and so on.
Oh, what happened to his female consort, Asherah? She first belonged to Baal, then Yahweh, and then Yahweh decided he didn't like her. The Jews took a while to catch up, though...I believe Asherah poles were in the temple as late as the events of 1 Kings.
Just about every story in the OT has a pre-existing analog in the mythos of other cultures. The story of Christ has several.
Oh, and why does Hebrew record the first verse of The Bible as "In the Beginning GODS", in the plural (Elohim)? Oh yeah...Asherah.
So you see, human history itself leads to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is a construct.
Â
Yes, this does seem plausible.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.rastotm
True. Because God didn't begin to exist. He has always existed. A necessary being.
2. God has no cause.
True.
3. God never began to exist
This is a non-sequitur unless one presumes that everything in existence is contingent. In other words, you'd have to believe that everything in existence had a beginning--or that there was a "time" when everything in existence didn't exist.
4. He does not exist.
Since you didn't write anything of substance, I'm left with responding to one or two word blurbs.[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. Illogical leap.Â
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universes existence is God (from 2, 4).
---
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is no evidence that any sort of all powerful being was said cause
---
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. False assumption
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
---
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. False assumption
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. False assumption
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
---
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. False assumption
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz2UiSrAM1CGuybrush_3
I take this to mean you think the premise is false or probably false, which means you think there is a better explanation for the existence of the universe than God. What is this explanation?illogical leap
Once you conceptually analyze what the cause of the universe would need to possess as far as causal powers go, you come to the realization that it is God. For instance, the cause of the universe would need to be timeless, immaterial, powerful, and an agent.There is no evidence that any sort of all powerful being was said cause
Then how would objective moral values exist outside of God?False assumption
Then what other possible explanations are there for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life outside of physical necessity, chance or design? And why do you think it is wrong to say it is more plausible than not that the fine-tuning is due to design as opposed to physical necessity or chance?False assumption
So you're saying it is impossible for a maximally powerful being to exist? How so?False assumption
To me, it still seems like the statement "spacetime is meaningless" is hyperbolic nonsense that is being used as a way to sweep your lack of knowledge of the subject under the rug.Â[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
My first sentence is supported by the following sentences. I tell you spacetime is meaningless and then in the following sentences to describe how distance and time are both irrelevant.
Mithrandir50
Again, you would have to define what you mean by "time." In my view, God has always existed and "time" didn't come into being until God's first creation. Within this view, it becomes sort of meaningless to ask what God was doing prior to creation. But I will say He was existing, perfectly, possessing the attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
Â
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Â
Â
Â
HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I can only speculate on what you think is funny. You seem to think that writing, "Asking what God was doing (implying the existence of time) prior to the existence of time is meaningless." With "space-time is meaningless," in regard to quantum mechanics. Could you explain the parallel, because I don't see one. How could quantum mechanics make space-time meaningless when quantum mechanics is part of the fabric of space-time?I don't know what arguments you're referring to save for the ones where you implicitly mention--so I'll just respond to those. If the universe didn't have a cause, then that would mean it came into being uncaused from nonbeing. Talk about magic. You're free to believe that if you want, but to me this seems irrational. To ask what caused the first cause is logically incoherent, because you're talking about the first cause. If something were truly the first cause, then obviously it couldn't have a cause itself. Your position on morality is nothing but circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. You're going to have to provide reasons for why you think objective moral values do not exist. And by saying objective moral values do not exist, what you're essentially saying is this, "torturing and killing babies isn't objectively wrong. It is only my opinion that it is wrong."I know this has got to be a troll thread, but I feel like playing anyway
1. Unproven statements, without any support for those qualities.
2. Sequentially speaking, those three points are true. But the second point requires that the universe had to have a cause, and no one knows if it did. Besides, if the universe had a first cause, what caused that first cause?
3. Morality is not universal, also, the argument fails because the first point is groundless. Morality is based on the society around it, and therefore is not objective.
Naw, I don't care anymore
Starchaser187
Log in to comment