Why do you believe what you believe

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Well, that particular point I was pretty done with. Remember, it depends on how large of a scale of a "universe" you're referring to. Assuming that a divine being exists, do they exist in the universe that we know of, or are they merely part of a larger, even grander universe?

I concede that the universe as we know it (beginning with the Big Bang and expanding outwards) must have had a beginning, and even the larger plane of existence probably has a beginning. However, going back to our universe, it may or may not have been deliberately willed into existence, because it's probably not the entire plane of existence.

Do you see how complicated it becomes, trying to decide what came irrevocably first?  

[souloe]

((meh, I just lost my post... sad ))

Actually, its rather interesting that you would bring up the question of "defining the universe" because I have already defined it very specifically as:

Quote:

First keep in mind that the universe is space and time and essentially the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space.

-//One//-
Now keeping in mind the previous logic, can you refute that the universe - by this definition - is not deliberately willed into existance? If you can not, then this statement remains valid does it not? Then if indeed this logic remains valid, will you, who takes to logic, simply brush it off or put your faith in this logic?

-//Two//-
Now the second question I have for you is this: Suppose there Was a larger plane of existance of this universe. How does it invalidate the logic for this universe being willed into existance? You have stated that there could be a larger plane of existance but I do not recall you explaining how this existance - if we assume it exists - can invalidate this statement. Please, do explain your thoughts that I may understand.  

[MonkofMajere]

I believe what I believe because of the way my parents raised me. They taught me basic morals and values, and, as I grew older, I researched and found what made the most sense.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

souloe

((meh, I just lost my post... sad ))

Actually, its rather interesting that you would bring up the question of "defining the universe" because I have already defined it very specifically as:

Quote:

First keep in mind that the universe is space and time and essentially the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space.

-//One//-
Now keeping in mind the previous logic, can you refute that the universe - by this definition - is not deliberately willed into existance? If you can not, then this statement remains valid does it not? Then if indeed this logic remains valid, will you, who takes to logic, simply brush it off or put your faith in this logic?

-//Two//-
Now the second question I have for you is this: Suppose there Was a larger plane of existance of this universe. How does it invalidate the logic for this universe being willed into existance? You have stated that there could be a larger plane of existance but I do not recall you explaining how this existance - if we assume it exists - can invalidate this statement. Please, do explain your thoughts that I may understand.

Well, if the universe is larger than the universe that we are familiar with (in this case, the one begun by the Big Bang), then whether or not the universe that we're familiar with (Big Banged Universe, or BBU for short) isn't the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena. This means that the Even Larger Universe (ELU) should be the one we're worrying about, not the BBU. It may be that a larger and infinitely more powerful being created the BBU by existing in the ELU, but that doesn't exempt them from being part of the ELU, and therefore did not create ALL of existence.

My point, put simply, is that there may always be a bigger universe. Even if you assert that the ELU was willed into existence by an Even Higher Being, that being may yet exist in a Still Larger Universe. It's cyclic, don't you see? Universes within universes within universes, and no way to tell whether the SLU, the ELU, or the BBU were willed into existence by a higher being or occurred through natural causes, and whether the exceptionally distant Totality of All Possible Existence (TAPE, a hypothetical case of being the largest possible abstraction, where it ends this ridiculous cycle of universes within universes) exists or was created by the highest being possible. Maybe it even is the highest being possible, and that continues to raise the question of where did THOSE come from.

It may be that we're stuck at a dead end because of such inconsistencies of language and usage. I've acknowledged that it's possible that the BBU was created by a Higher Being that exists in the ELU, but to me the definition of a true "Creator" would have to be the "Creator of All Things," which would mean somehow existing outside of the TAPE, which defies the logic of what the TAPE is supposed to represent, which I guess would mean that the TAPE is supposed to be infinite, which defies the ability for it to be created at all? I apologize, so much abstraction inevitably leads to this kind of paradox. Regardless, if you assume the TAPE exists, where would you put the Creator of All Things? If the TAPE does not exist, where is the Creator of All Things then? These questions may help us reach some level ground.

On a wholly different note, and I apologize for missing this earlier, yes, I am very interested in events that cannot possibly be self-fulfilling prophecies, although I must warn you that "supernatural" occurrences I do not believe in. At some level, everything is a natural occurrence, it just may be a case of us as humans (or us on the personal level) not understanding the phenomena. Still, I've seen quite a bit, including people bend iron bars with their eyeballs, people who fly up buildings, and people who even have the ability to read minds. This doesn't give credibility to divine power, merely examples of what human society and science has yet to explain.  

[R i o k u]

The thing I really don't understand is faith. To me faith isn't logical. You could be putting your life in the hands of something you aren't 100% sure exists.

It sounds like fairy tales to me, if you stop and think about religion for a long period of time, it sounds like we have taken what comforts us into a diety. What we fear turns into sin, What we praise turns into scripture.

And it isn't even you have to deny the existance of a higher power, because you don't know, you can never know, if one exists.

So, doesn't it make sense to keep that in mind while living life to the best of your ability? Morals are fine for life, but guidelines? Laws? Those are created by humans from what we determine as bad and wrong.

Religion as a whole is a way people are telling you how you should live your life. Catholicism says in order to get married, we HAVE to want to have children. If you aren't having kids, you aren't getting married. Wow, what a FANTASTIC way to live your life, in chains. Bearing rules we have only made because 500 years ago we had a different thought pattern, we certainly didn't have the same intelligence we do today.

How dare a religion MADE by humans tell me how I should live my life? This was given to me and only me, and I am the only one who gets to determine what I do, what I believe and how I go about living in general. If there was some sort of moral way I am 'supposed' to behave to go someplace 'good' I wouldn't have the logic to look around this in the first place.

I think it is pathetic that people think their 'gods' would love us for what we are. Even the good humans do in their life is fueled by greed, power, glory. We put love in the form of a deity because we feel secure that way. If no one on the planet loves you are least your God does (: . Hello comfort zone, I have just battled pain (: .

I think that is the biggest piece of foolishness a religion could have. We are Human Beings, we are always going to do something wrong. That is how religion gets people, when you sin, it gives us what is so extremely different from the animal world. Hate, greed, lust, rage, pain; animals feel that out of INSTINCT but only humans know what it is. It is human NATURE to fear sin, therefore, we look for the 'ray of hope.'

By asking for forgiveness, we are doing what makes most humans weak. We are selfishly hoping that our deeds will be forgiven because it is comfort. We hope we go to a better place after this because we fear the unknown.

We have created better things because our emotions, our feelings, our reason, our choices, our logic, the data sheet that runs through our veins tells us to do so. The things that make ONLY humans different from anything else we are aware of (and we are aware of a good chunk of things) we have put restrictions on. And very few people see it for what it is.

When you hold onto the hope that it might be true, it weakens you, it brainwashes you, and put you into a make believe world.

Pain is the price for what we know.

When you accept that possibility with the acceptance that the loop holes in reality are what they are, you can attain ultimate freedom.

And it is great. (:

 

[twofish twilight]

I'm agnostic with bits of pagan and dharmic influence scattered about.

Why? I simply am too stubborn, or any other what-have-yous to fully, 100% believe that there is nothing beyond science in the world. I am a spiritual person, and I am a philosophical person. I respect all matters of nature, I try to unravel the myth of the 'soul'. All that. I think it might psychologically stem from the fact that I was a very imaginative child.
I don't believe in something I call God, I just believe in some form of divinity. As a wise friend once said, "Even if there is a God, I should see no reason as to why he would have to be directly involved in the happenings of humanity."

My takes on the subject exceed that simplicity, but hey, it's Gaia.

As far as I see it, religion is essentially a way to attach relative morality to something divine.

Anyway, honestly? As long as they do not hurt another being, as long as they do not try to impress their beliefs upon you, as long as they are not adamant that their answer is the only answer, if it helps them get through their lives, why try to rationalize it? Why strip people of hope? Even if it is a form of a crutch, who am I, or who is anyone to tell someone that they can't have an idea? As long as it is harmless, singing words of wisdom, let it be.

The only thing more beautiful than reality is surreality.

[[Reading the rest of the discussion, sounds like you guys moved WAY beyond this sort of thing, but I thought I'd get my two bits in, albeit if they're voiced rather simply/unconvincingly.]]

 

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Nonsense, even if this is Gaia, there are a select few of us who advocate intelligent thought and discussion. Two cents is better than nothing, and I'd love to hear any more you have to offer.

This goes out to everyone who reads this, don't be afraid to post your thoughts in this forum! It's what it's here for!  

[souloe]

((@dboyzero: nice new avatar biggrin biggrin , and sorry for the delay, irl really bogged me down lately.))

ah, good good. Now I understand why you would even bring up such as statement as the higher plane. But regarding that I have a few things I would like to comment on as well.

-//1. You have redirected the focus onto the possibility of a higher plane of existance//-
This, in no way, disprove the argument that was used to prove the creation of this universe that has been defined. Thus, since you have not refuted it, we can say that the statement remains valid.

"This universe, as previously defined, has a beginning and this beginning was willed deliberately into existance."

IF assuming there Is a bigger universe, if it falls under the definition of the previously defined universe then it also falls within this statement. If it does not then that is not our concern at the moment - I will address it later. Being that this universe, that we have defined, was deliberately willed into existance, there must be some conscious being to do it. Thus, by definition we call that being "God". God of this universe at least.

-//2. This "God" of our universe//-
now if the begining of the universe includes time then whatever created the universe must be outside of time. Thus we can conclude that this being that created it is outside of time. And if this being is outside of time then he has no beginning. And I say that because the term beginning means "the point of time or space at which anything begins". Thus if this being had no beginning He is essentially - if we put it in words that we understand - infinite. And if something is infinite, then logically He needs not and Can Not be created because He always was, always is and always will be.

-//3. a higher plane of existance//-
Now if I remember correctly, you were the one who told me that you must, roughly speaking, "experience God to believe Him". In the same logic, have you experienced this higher plane? I highly doubt it. Though you present it as a possibility you gave no proof nor support that it IS in existance. And in essence, by stating that something must have created the being that, by definition we call "God", means that you have neglected and misunderstood the definition of "this universe". According to point 2 - refer to above - whatever created this universe must be outside of time and therefore infinite. Thus if that being was created then that being is within time and within this universe and thus not the originator of this universe. So essentially, this possibility of an eternal loop of higher existance creating the lower is invalid unless you can prove otherwise.

-//4. self fulfilling prophecies//-
Alright, since you asked I'll give you some examples. In my own life there were two recently that was quite astonishing.

one was an emergency meeting that was called for the afternoon. They told me just 1.5 hours before and I knew that I was not good becuase I had something else to do at that exact time. In addition, traveling to the meeting itself would take maybe another hour. So essentially, there was no way i could make it on time. But, as things turned out, I did make it on time. How is that possible you ask? By looking at the time difference and all its not possible, or rather, highly improbable. Therefore, either you can call it cooincidence or you can say it is the hand of God.

Another example is the speech/script that I had to do for/with my team. late at night I still havn't finished my script - cause it was banned a few time here and there if not all and I needed to rethink and rewrite. But the point is, the speech was due the next day and I'm not ready. Then someone who is not on my team phoned me up and went "Hey I have some ideas...". And essentially he gave me the ideas that I needed for my entire script. Now, is that self fulfilling prophecy? I'd say its the work of God.

Or perhaps an example that is not from my own life. A missionary once came and told us about himself and his work in Africa. The church he was working in made a specific point never to talk about finance problems and rather, Let God handle it. And each time they needed money. Somehow, someway, money would find its way to them from different sources and totally unexpectedly. (unless you count expecting God to provide). Now you could say that since its a missinary group there should be many Christians that would support. If you don't know the actual details, you definately could say that. But for them, they did not receive money constantly, in fact, they Lacked money. That means that it was neither a constant supply nor was it enough if there was any money. In addition they made a point never to talk about finance so that it is not a well known fact to the other churches that they need money. Now I ask you, they're receiving money - from different sources - just at the right time. Is that self fulfilling prophecy? Or even cooincidence?

I guess if you push it you could say its just by chance that all these things happened. But then, of course, you would also have to say we are very very lucky people.  

[souloe]

@Rioku: say, this is off topic but...were you in a guild at ffa at one point? But anyways, here's my own perspective on what you said.

1. faith
I am not believing blindly. I am, in fact, 100% sure God exists. I'm sure you don't want huge explainations as to why but in case you want to see the logic that proves God 100% real, you can always challenge me to prove it to you.

2. your life
That is a point that I agree with you on. You are fully capable of choosing what to do with your life. That is free will. Of course, choosing to walk off a cliff will lead to bad result and making other choices will also be followed by corresponding effects. I can tell you that walking off the cliff is bad, but it is still your free will, your choice to listen or not. Personally, I believe I have no right in forcing anyone to do anything. But, I can try to be very persuasive, which is essentially what I am doing here by presenting the logic that has been given to me.

3. God love us = comfort zone?
Perhaps or perhaps not. You have made an assumption that there is no God and must less to say one that loves us. But suppose, let us suppose that it is true that there is God that loves us. Would you want that love?

4. human nature to fear sin.
If you say that I would have to ask. Is this nature found in all humans? Where did this nature come from?  

[souloe]

@The Dark Moo Alas: do feel free to post your ideas. As dboyzero said, this is a place to present/discuss your thoughts. After all, philosophers generally like to share and discuss their ideas. Like to be criticized and like to criticize to find the truth.

"Even if there is a God, I should see no reason as to why he would have to be directly involved in the happenings of humanity."

hmmm, suppose there Is a God. By definition he must have been the one that created us. But why would he create us in the first place? If we could know that reason, then could that same reason not be the answer to why he might be interested in humanity?  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Just in regards to the last post

Quote:

hmmm, suppose there Is a God. By definition he must have been the one that created us. But why would he create us in the first place? If we could know that reason, then could that same reason not be the answer to why he might be interested in humanity?

Why do you know that there was a "why" in creating us? Without going into discussions of the nature of causality, he could have just as easily been an infant being of his kind, playing in a cosmic sandbox that yielded our universe and everything in it. He also could have just as easily left us alone after creating us, and has never returned to his creation since. As we cannot understand the nature of his kind or his culture, we cannot even begin to understand his motives for creating or whether he maintains this place.

Back to the subject of the origin.

You're playing around with the definition of time. Like a higher plane of existence, the only time we know is that which we know began with the BBU. As I've said before, the statement about the BBU being willed deliberately into existence is not invalid, but it is not proven. My position is, and has always been, that we do not have sufficient evidence to prove HOW the universe was created, much less any possible WHY. Now, assuming that the god of this universe is outside of BBU's time, that would certainly make him infinite by our standards. However, simply because he is outside of OUR time doesn't make him outside of ALL time. Like the TAPE, I'll be referring to a scale of "absolute time" (once again, I reaffirm that this is all speculation, and I have no proof nor will anyone ever, by nature of their existence).

You dismiss the possibility of a larger universe as not relevant to our discussion, and then you state that we can define a being who deliberately willed the BBU into existence can be called the god of this universe. This implies that there does exist a higher plane, and therefore must also imply that there is a higher level of time. Like the Kalam argument states that an actual infinite cannot exist, doesn't this contradict the concept of an infinite god? He must operate in some kind of time, defining time as a series of events, since there existed a point at which there was no universe, and then following that point there was.

Like I do not believe in the existence of deities, I do not believe in the existence of higher planes. I speculate on the existence of both, but as I have never firsthand seen indisputable evidence confirming the existence of either, I have no reason to make the assumption that they exist.

About self-fulfilling prophecies.

Like you said, any of those could easily be luck or chance, so I won't push it. Remember that people see what they wish to see, so what one may see as a divine intervention, another may see as coincidence, and another may see as the result of several causes that are yet unknown, assuming that there is a perfectly logical and physical explanation for the situation. For example, I applied to one of the most selective schools in the country, and yet I was accepted. On one hand it could be because a higher being saw that I was a good person and tipped the scales in my favor, gently nudging the minds of those reviewing my application. On the other, it could be completely random, that I was overlooked and somehow wound up in the pile of "accepted" instead of in the pile of "rejected." And lastly, it could have been a combination of a low number of qualified applicants, four years in band, two years as Science Bowl captain, high GPA and standardized test scores, and talent for writing that was demonstrated in the essay portion. Is there any way to definitively prove which of these is the case? Going further, it could be chance that led to all the points that led them to accept me, or it could have been a higher being guiding me the whole time. It could have been a higher being that made sure my application got "accidentally" dropped in the accepted stack.

In essence, it really depends on how you look at things. So far, you've focused on the positives, which is a fine and healthy thing to do, and is probably why you and the missionary made out all right. If you were to focus on every single bad thing that's ever happened to you, you would have a very different outlook on life. Instead of remembering that you somehow made it on time to the meeting, you would remember only that it was a ridiculously busy day, and that you had to rush and stress in order to barely get through. Instead of focusing on the friend who called you to give you ideas, you may concentrate on how the deadline is looming and that you have nothing prepared, or that you had to come up with something at the last second of terrible quality.

Also remember that our window to the world is very narrow, as the world itself is incredibly vast. For every missionary church that somehow miraculously is able to scrape by, a dozen others may have already been shut down or abandoned. However, the only ones you would ever hear about are those that are successful, as the unsuccessful ones would never cross paths with you. Even if they did, you would probably see them as an isolated incident, cause by a lack of faith, or as a test of their faith. On one hand, you may inspire them to return to their cause, confident in themselves and of their survival, or they may dismiss you and wind up unsuccessful and bitter. It all depends on the people themselves. Human willpower is remarkably strong, and I have seen several examples of this in my own life, as have you. Sometimes it's helped by faith in a higher being, sometimes it isn't. As long as you're focusing on the positives and have confidence in yourself, the results will generally be the same.

Tangent:
People that do amazing stuff, thanks to will, focus, and confidence. I'm not sure if any of them thank deities for their talents, but I just think it's interesting to see what humans are capable of.

What is the limit of human strength?
[link][[link] [link]

What is the limit of the human eye?
[link]

What is the limit of the human mind?
[link]  

[souloe]

definately interesting what a human can do. Now i want to try those stuff lol

1. why do you know "why" God created us.
That is a very good question. I know because He told me through the Bible. Which, of course, will now lead us back whether or not the Bible is true. I will actually address your other stuff first and then this topic last. By the way, what do you think of the moral argument I posted most recently?

2. playing around the definition of time
Time, by definition in the dictinoary, is: "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another."

Now remember, by definition time is a part of this universe. And when I say that, I mean "all time" - by definition. And I have done so to find out the root of the beginning of time and space or in other words - the universe. Thus as we are talking about the beginning of the universe we are also talking about the beginning of time itself.

3. proving
now, you say that we do not have proof that this universe is willed into existance yet you agree that the logical deduction leading to it is valid. So my question then, is, isnt' the logical deduction a valid proof that this universe has to be willed into existance?

I mean, you need to have sufficient proof to believe in something - whether it be God or the higher plane. And you believe in the big bang and you have firmly stated it many times. But did you see it happening? Can you prove it happened? The only "proof" for the big bang is that by observing the colors of the moving stars, we can deduce that they are moving away from each other (dopler effect essentially, won't go into details though unless you really want me to). Then by logical deduction, if they are moving away from each other then at one point in time - assuming there was no interruptions or any other factors - the matters must have been at one single point. Thus all that theory about the big bang. Now if we look at the argument, we have also used a logical deduction to come up with the valid statement that this universe was willed into existance. So if you think about it, how is that you believe so firmly in the big bang - I actually made a post earlier mentioning its flaws if you want to comment/look at it- but question this valid statement saying that there's no way of proving it?

In addition, after proving that this universe was willed into existance we do not actualy need to prove "how" for it to be valid. You would have to convince me otherwise.

lol, you didnt' read the kalam argument properly did you? It specifically addressed that question of how God can be infinite and how there's no actual conflict. Now also remember, suppose we don't look into the Kalam argument but rather just the logical deduction that I posted, there's nothing against the possibility that God is infinite. so...I dont' see any problem here.

4. higher plane of existance
Now, when I said:

"IF assuming there Is a bigger universe, if it falls under the definition of the previously defined universe then it also falls within this statement. If it does not then that is not our concern at the moment"

I meant that it has no relavence to the point that "this universe, by definition, is willed into existance". In no way did I claim or not claim that there can or can not be a higher plane of existance.

Now, I would also have to ask, how does saying that God created this universe imply that there is a higher plane of existance? And suppose it does, how does it imply a higher level of time? Are you not assuming that there must be time in this higher plane that you spoke about? Now you also mentioned that the universe coming into being is a support that God must operate in some sort of time. There are two flaws in that statement.

One: By definition of "this universe" it includes time and space. Thus by saying that God is in time means He is not God.
Two: since time is a part of this universe the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time. And thus in essence, you have only pinpointed the beginning of time rather than that there was time before the beginning.

5. self fulfilling prophecies
Yes, indeed you could look at it as chance or luck. However, my examples differ from yours in that they are highly improbable to begin with but yet happened. Thus we can say it is either 1. extremely lucky or 2. supernatural intervention. where as, in your example, if you are good enough you could very well be accepted. Thus if indeed you are good enough, you would actually expect to be accepted.

Now when the probability/chance of something happening is low enough we also call that impossible - scientists have defined a number that if it is any smaller than that to be "impossible" due to the low probability. Now when things are impossible and yet happened, you can call it supernatural. If you would look back at the one argument that you have neglected to comment on at all - Jesus Christ and his resurrection - you would realize that what happened was indeed supernatural.

6. alternative point of view
Regardless of the problems that first occured, the improbable solution did also occur to solve those problems. thus no matter which point of view you take, these problems was indeed solved dispite the improbability of it happening.

now, human power is not incredibly strong but rather, can be incredibly strong depending on how you define strong. Yet regardless of human will power, when something outside the human himself causes a solution, it is no longer just a matter of will. When that something is improbable enough that you can consider it impossible and when it just keeps happening, you can conclude that either 1. you are a very very lucky guy or 2. there is a deliberate will to make it happen.

and I guess I'll make the bible responce in my next post since this one seems rather full already as it is  

[souloe]

1. mistakes in the bible?
You have made a claim that there were many mistakes by people who are not as dedicated. However, I do ask, if it is not too much trouble that you give support for the mistakes. I can, however, prove to you otherwise. Know this, there is a discovery of parchments/manuscripts for the old testiment that we today call "The dead sea scrolls" They have been tested and dated back to 200BC-100AD. Now comparing with the manuscripts we used for translation, there is less than one percent mistake in actual wording and zero percent mistake in meaning. 200BC-100AD in comparison to the 900AD manuscripts that re most commonly used. After 800 years you would expect there to be more mistakes. Please, by all means, do go and do some research on it yourself if you don't believe what I am saying.

2. validity of the Bible
There is debate, yes, and I suspect there will always be debate. You yourself have confirmed that there are only confirmation of archeological finds or uncertainties but no archeological find to disprove the Bible. Thus by comparison, there is more support than refusal at least.

You question the validity of the source. For the old testiment, you could very well check with the history of Israel to test the historical portions of the OT. And for the new testiment, the manuscripts that we have found - though it is not the original - was much too close to the actual event to be false. If they were false, anyone - especially those against Christianity - could simply stand up and crush the text by saying "I was there, that did not happen".

In addition, if you look at the prophecies in the Bible, you could see that there are many that has been fulfilled. Christianity is unique among world religions in that it is unequalled in the area of fulfilled prophecy. The destruction of Tyre is one, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem is another. There is also the destruction and restoration of Israel. If I have not been mistaken, these are historically proven to have been fulfilled. Now I ask you, the old testiment was written how long ago? How could it be that they have information about the future of what will happen? Take the country of Israel for example. It was destroyed(hosea 9:17) and now it is restored(Jer 31) in 1948. Other prophecies are fulfilled as well, say... the destruction of Tyre(Ezekial 26). So I ask you, is this not highly improbable to the point that it is imposible? Now you might say it is self fulfilling prophecies or just probabilities but if you were to search out all the prophecies that have been fulfilled, you would realize that it is rather extreme on the probability for all of them to be fulfilled.

Now if you can refute the Bible, I do challenge you to do it. Many scholars and philosophers have tried and many have failed. I don't claim to know all there is to the Bible but I do know that if anyone can find one thing false with it, they can crush the entire thing.

3. evolution
This one, actually, tweeks my interest the most. You claim that evolution is true and that there are thousands of different examples, experiments, and researchers reinforcing the validity of evolution. So I challenge you. Bring those proofs up and prove to me that evolution is true.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Even assuming that the Bible is a indeed the divine word, that alone is not proof that he speaks truth. Even assuming there is truth in the historical or prophetic statements, saying that he is true in his designated purpose for us commits the logical fallacy of truth by association. As I stated before, there's really no way of knowing what his real motives were, if any.

Translations are a funny thing, as the direct meaning of ancient Hebrew has been pretty much lost, and converting into English is always at the discretion of the translator. For instance, in the Robert Alter translation of Genesis, it reads:

Quote:

When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said, "Let there be light."

The new Oxford translation, however, reads:

Quote:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light."

The differences are subtle, but the message is not. In the Alter translation, like so many others, the divine act of creation is the main subject of the verse. In the Oxford translation, this is not so. The subject is the earth itself, and even the description (in Hebrew, tohu wabohu) is still contested as to its true meaning. This takes the focus off of creation, and instead puts it on the existence before.

The validity of the Bible is contested, like aforementioned, but while some parts of it hold true, others are not necessarily true by that fact alone. Many ancient documents make mention of proven historical events, and some have even prophesied events (depending on the interpretation of the prophecy). Yet we don't find ourselves debating the validity of the existence of Heracles, Anansi, or the Sun WuKong because they aren't as socially accepted as Christianity in the West, which has the time and money to send people to research and find examples of "proof."

The Bible as we know it most scholars agree was written in pieces and assembled by editors. The evidence lies in the portrayal of god and divinity, as well as chronological dating of religious texts. For example, the first chapter of Genesis we can date back to after 722 BCE because it uses a later form of Hebrew, whereas the second chapter (which includes a wholly different creation story from the first, enforcing the idea of multiple sources) dates much earlier, to the time of the northern kingdom.

[link][link][link]

Now, of course no one will ever "prove the Bible wrong." That alone is such a difficult statement, let alone the conservative views that will always hold true to their own religious beliefs, regardless of evidence. Furthermore, the proof required to tangibly and definitively prove the existence of the various sources or redactors has probably already been lost to history, either on accident or by decision.

Evolution itself is a completely different topic, and there is a whole debate thread already devoted to it. Please permit me to not post needlessly here. If you insist on me posting my views here, I will do my best to be concise. In brief, there is a logical validity that those organisms more suited to survive in their current environment will survive to reproduce more often than their competitors, therefore passing on their genes, which, over accumulation and long periods of time, will lead to the development of organisms incapable of producing offspring with the organisms from which they descended. This, while not "proven" in the scientific sense, has been reinforced time and again with viral and bacterial tolerance to overused medications, moths developing camouflage in urban settings, and various other instances where the premise of evolution is apparent.

I must warn you about the topic however, as I wrote it more than half a year ago, and my writing tends to fluctuate wildly as time progresses. I suppose I could use the practice of defending evolution again, as no one in the thread really countered me. Fault me not for the ramblings of a younger self! wink
http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=2936987