Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Stranger]

There are several points to make. Firstly, do you know that he doesn't exist and can't see them? If you don't know that, then you must be open to the possibility that he does exist and can tell me them if he wants to.

Surly that is the point of asking? I don't know of anybody posting here who claims to know, with 100% certainty, that there is no god.

I did ask him and he said, "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". We'll see if that's correct.

So, your god apparently doesn't know that 10 isn't a digit...

Then he said, even if he shows me the numbers, you BR might believe for a while but then would demand that he does it again for you to continue believing.

Well, if your god wasn't so effectivly hidden in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem. Why does your god hide?

Lastly how can we expect God to answer in the way we want? Someone once had a rant at God about an in-law, but got a sharp rebuke in which God showed him where the debit card he had been looking for was, then said, leave your in-law to me. So God's answers are not what we expect, and humbling. And he always answers.

So what you're basically saying is that when you pray, whatever happens will be interpreted by you as the answer. So, for example, if you pray for somebody to get better, even if they get worse and end up dying, you will still assume that that is the answer and is 'the right' thing to happen - just not the answer you expected or wanted.

It's staggering, deeply sad, self-deceptive nonsense.

[BeRational]

It's staggering, deeply sad, self-deceptive nonsense.

In a nutshell, and I do mean nuts!

[Dicky Underpants]

There's no evidence that anything in Genesis happened. In fact, what we know of the history of the Earth flatly contradicts the creation story and the flood story. There's no evidence of the patriarchs or Joseph.

Exodus is a bust. There's no evidence of a large Hebrew population in Egypt, Moses, the flight from Egypt or the wandering in the desert for forty years.

There's no evidence that Joshua conquered Canaan. In fact the archaeology suggests the Hebrews were indigenous inhabitants of the region.

The alleged Davidic empire is mentioned nowhere except in the Bible. The only reference to it is a tablet that says somebody wiped out the Houser of David. Solomon is equally illusory.

It's only when we get to the two kingdom period that we have solid history.

Perhaps all this is a little closer to the original topic, so I'll try and steer things back.

Pretty much agree with what you wrote, as far as my knowledge goes. Though I understand that some critics are questioning even the existence of the two kingdoms. However, the Israel and Judah idea makes sense to me and is corroborated by the Documentary Hypothesis.
Archaeological evidence from other sources does something to establish a few details that support the biblical accounts to some extent, but not till about 597 BC.

The date of the fall of Jerusalem was uncertain until 1956, when D.J. Wiseman deciphered (Babylonian) tablet B.M. 21946. This translation made possible to calculate and finally establish 597 B.C. as the year of the first occupation of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar, who established Zedekiah.

We also have the Prism of Sennacherib from about this period, which also corroborates a few details from the Book of Kings to some extent.
Thereafter about 586 or 587 BC there occurred the Babylonian exile, again confirmed by extra-biblical sources.

As for Solomon and his Temple, it's a bit difficult to get archaeological evidence for the existence of such a monumental edifice, since the supposed site is today occupied by structures it would be unwise to tamper with, to say the least.
However, we do have the words of Josephus (who he? Some people here don't seem to be able to distinguish his writings from the Bible.....):

the temple was burnt four hundred and seventy years, six months, and ten days after it was built

Josephus, Antiquities.

Anchorman knows a vast amount about all this sort of thing, and remains a believer (I was going to write "and yet remains", and then it occurred to me that Mr. A knows a vast deal more than some of the unbelievers who seem quite content to take their opinions from the daily press, and seem to think that no certain information can be relied on from more than 20 years ago at most, and anything older isn't worth speculating about).

[Stranger]

In a nutshell, and I do mean nuts!

The thing is that this "god always answers prayers but not always in the way you expect" is one of the best arguments for memetic evolution I know of. I mean, if you were actually designing a belief system that set out to convince people that a non-existent god actually answered prayer, you couldn't do a better job. You don't need anybody to to fake answers, you just distort people's thinking enough that they'll literally regard anything at all as the answer. It's Orgel's Second Rule for memetics.

[SteveH]

Your haven't provided the evidence to support that statement.

How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.

[BeRational]

The thing is that this "god always answers prayers but not always in the way you expect" is one of the best arguments for memetic evolution I know of. I mean, if you were actually designing a belief system that set out to convince people that a non-existent god actually answered prayer, you couldn't do a better job. You don't need anybody to to fake answers, you just distort people's thinking enough that they'll literally regard anything at all as the answer. It's Orgel's Second Rule for memetics.

In fact, I know a magic Leprechaun that answers prayers on exactly the same basis.

[floo]

How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.

As there is no evidence any god exists, the default position must be a sceptical one, unless verifiable evidence is discovered, which leaves one in no doubt of its presence.

[BeRational]

How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.

You don't have to.

Buy default, god(s) do not exist.

If you think a god or gods exist, then you have to demonstrate that.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.

Except in a kind of way you can Steve H. You can demonstrate that an opposite condition is true. So e.g. if I said to someone 'Prove that Theresa May is not the President of the United States', they could show either that Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK, or that Donald Trump is the President of the USA.

So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.

Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I sent the numbers to you.

If god can tell him the numbers, that will be interesting.

And what would be demonstrated BeRational?

If Spud were to give you the exact numbers, you would have no excuse for not believing. Something tells me however that you would find an excuse, e.g. why did God answer Spud's prayer but not the prayers of someone dying of hunger in Africa.

You guys want to test aspects of religious beliefs as if they are in a laboratory, but you *still* don't know exactly what it is you are really looking for and what would convince you. Why don't you admit that your mind is already made up and stop wasting people's time?

[floo]

And what would be demonstrated BeRational?

If Spud were to give you the exact numbers, you would have no excuse for not believing. Something tells me however that you would find an excuse, e.g. why did God answer Spud's prayer but not the prayers of someone dying of hunger in Africa.

You guys want to test aspects of religious beliefs as if they are in a laboratory, but you *still* don't know exactly what it is you are really looking for and what would convince you. Why don't you admit that your mind is already made up and stop wasting people's time?

If god is around, why does it hide away from humanity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.

Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.

Ah, the fallacy of the straw man. One of your favourites I think.

Of course "atheists" don't say, "God never answers prayer". What they/we actually say is that there's no good reason to think that a god does answer prayer. They're very different statements, but hey if tilting at a windmill of your own invention works for you then knock yourself out.

[Gordon]

Except in a kind of way you can Steve H. You can demonstrate that an opposite condition is true. So e.g. if I said to someone 'Prove that Theresa May is not the President of the United States', they could show either that Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK, or that Donald Trump is the President of the USA.

You continue to get dafter each time you post: the correct response to a clearly contrived nonsensical proposition is 'utter bollocks'.   

So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.

This is in 'not even wrong' territory: if you want to indulge in 'philosophical' discussions you really do need to get yourself an education old son if you want to stop looking silly.

Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.

Kindly list these properties.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

How can I provide evidence for a negative? If an atheist said that God never answers prayers, and I asked them to provide evidence, I'd be laughed at to the echo.

No you wouldn't because that would be a reasonable response to a positive assertion of fact, just as it would be if someone had said, "all swans are white" before black ones were found.

As it's not something atheists say (or to be precise, that atheism entails) though it's irrelevant.

[ekim]

If god is around, why does it hide away from humanity?

In some Christian circles it is said the God is Love.  So  your question could be put like this : If Love is around, why does it hide from humanity?

[Nearly Sane]

In some Christian circles it is said the God is Love.  So  your question could be put like this : If Love is around, why does it hide from humanity?

Especially if you can feel it in your fingers, and feel it in your toes.

[floo]

In some Christian circles it is said the God is Love.  So  your question could be put like this : If Love is around, why does it hide from humanity?

Very strange indeed.

[Enki]

Except in a kind of way you can Steve H. You can demonstrate that an opposite condition is true. So e.g. if I said to someone 'Prove that Theresa May is not the President of the United States', they could show either that Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK, or that Donald Trump is the President of the USA.

So, if an atheist claims that God never answers prayer (i.e. not as a belief, but as a statement of fact), they need to be able to say how their proposition is falsifiable, namely what would count as an answer to prayer by God, or they can e.g .demonstrate that God does not exist. Negative as well as positive claims can be unfalsifiable, but what happens here is that some like to claim the proverbial 'moral high ground' and claim that their position is true by default.

Atheist arguments here always fall down on properties of truth.

But I don't claim that God never answers prayers, I can only say that any evidence I see seems indistinguishable from the natural workings of the universe so far. If you have any way of assessing how to distinguish the times when God answers prayers as distinct from the natural workings of the universe, then I would be pleased to hear it. If you haven't, then surely you must be in a similar position to myself, unless, of course, it is simply a matter of your belief that God answers prayers, at least, sometimes.

[Spud]

Surly that is the point of asking? I don't know of anybody posting here who claims to know, with 100% certainty, that there is no god.

So, your god apparently doesn't know that 10 isn't a digit...

Well, if your god wasn't so effectivly hidden in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem. Why does your god hide?

So what you're basically saying is that when you pray, whatever happens will be interpreted by you as the answer. So, for example, if you pray for somebody to get better, even if they get worse and end up dying, you will still assume that that is the answer and is 'the right' thing to happen - just not the answer you expected or wanted.

It's staggering, deeply sad, self-deceptive nonsense.

I can only tell you that in my experience he does speak and work in a way that is clearly supernatural. No it's not "whatever happens is him answering". It's probably better described as me breaking into reality, where I stop functioning just as an animal and become aware of his presence. In reality, he is present all the time, but we go about our lives as though he doesn't exist. When I talk about him breaking into our space and time what I really mean is that I momentarily break into the reality of his presence. His answer to a prayer is just him reaffirming to me that he is there. As for him being hidden, no-one can see God's face and live. But we can see his arm, for example, when he "works salvation" for us, in other words, he speaks or acts in a way that helps me but glorifies not me but him. (Someone gave a good example of a child hiding from its parent behind a lamp post. He/she thinks he is hidden but his Mum can see his arms poking out. Likewise, God is hidden, but he's hidden in such a way that we can know he's there because he's at work in the world)

[Maeght]

I can only tell you that in my experience he does speak and work in a way that is clearly supernatural. No it's not "whatever happens is him answering". It's probably better described as me breaking into reality, where I stop functioning just as an animal and become aware of his presence. In reality, he is present all the time, but we go about our lives as though he doesn't exist. When I talk about him breaking into our space and time what I really mean is that I momentarily break into the reality of his presence. His answer to a prayer is just him reaffirming to me that he is there. As for him being hidden, no-one can see God's face and live. But we can see his arm, for example, when he "works salvation" for us, in other words, he speaks or acts in a way that helps me but glorifies not me but him. (Someone gave a good example of a child hiding from its parent behind a lamp post. He/she thinks he is hidden but his Mum can see his arms poking out. Likewise, some people think God is hidden, but he's hidden in such a way that we can know he's there because he's at work)

That is the sort of religious speak which goes right over my head. No idea what any of that actually means.

[Spud]

That is the sort of religious speak which goes right over my head. No idea what any of that actually means.

Basically it's sayin he's there but we run around without being aware of it. When you pray (and listen for his answer) you're properly in the real world.

[Stranger]

I can only tell you that in my experience he does speak and work in a way that is clearly supernatural. No it's not "whatever happens is him answering". It's probably better described as me breaking into reality, where I stop functioning just as an animal and become aware of his presence. In reality, he is present all the time, but we go about our lives as though he doesn't exist. When I talk about him breaking into our space and time what I really mean is that I momentarily break into the reality of his presence. His answer to a prayer is just him reaffirming to me that he is there.

So - you get nice feelings.

Likewise, God is hidden, but he's hidden in such a way that we can know he's there because he's at work in the world)

I don't see any evidence of any god at work in the world. I don't know any of the many gods are there.

[Maeght]

Basically it's sayin he's there but we run around without being aware of it. When you pray (and listen for his answer) you're properly in the real world.

Thanks. Why would that be the real world?

[jeremyp]

You would know, because it would be like a bolt of lightning.

God electrocutes people?

[jeremyp]

The numbers are wrong, and the rest is just waffle as you knew the numbers would be wrong.

Did you get those numbers from god, or will he not speak to you about this?

I'm quite relieved the numbers were wrong. I'd have Gordon and Nearly Sane on my back asking me to explain how God hacked LR's account.