What follows is my response to Richard Bushey's post from http://thereforegodexists.com/2012/06/can-one-disconfirm-a-universal-negative/#comment-480
Richard,
You can't ask a person to prove a position that he doesn't hold. If you're talking about people who actually say "no gods of any kind exist", you can ask them to prove it. Let me try to explain this.
There are really three classes of people who call themselves atheists. Note that I'm using my own labels (though not only my own) but it's not the labels that matter; it's the positions.
1. "Weak agnostic atheists" - those who simply lack belief that a god exists. They need to prove nothing. You have the burden when it comes to them.
2. "Strong agnostic atheists" - those who say that it's unlikely that a god exists but who don't claim to be certain. You can ask them to prove their position. You can't ask them to EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY that a god exists because that's not their position. But you can certainly ask them to prove that a god probably doesn't exist. I'm one of these people. You can certainly ask me to prove that it's unlikely that a god exists. And I'll try to prove it to you. You can find my proof here: http://tnij.org/provenogod
3. "Strong gnostic atheists" - these are the people (there's very, very, very few of these) who will categorically claim that they know that there's no god. You can, by all means, ask them to prove their position. What's more, they have to disprove any version of a god, and they have to disprove them beyond any doubt.
Now, let me move on to proving a negative. Just tell me what type of evidence you could expect to see if there's no god. Let's stick to it in the deistic sense in this case. How could anyone ever prove that the Universe wasn't created by some intelligent entity who then moved on to other things and does nothing to show its existence? You claim that such a proof is possible (and I disagree with you on this). Please show how, in principle, that could be done.
Regards
Marty
@Allocutus
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Naureen's Questions (@NaureenK16)
During a brief encounter with Naureen (a theist of unspecified species), I was asked the following two questions:
1. Name something that does not exist and its attributes don't exist in our reality; and
2. Name something in our human experience that ever came out of nothing.
I'll address these questions now and wait for Naureen to respond via comments.
1. Name something that does not exist and its attributes don't exist in our reality
I. What I exclude
a) Logical impossibilities
There are some things that (subject to assuming that logic is universal) I can say don't exist in our reality because they are logically impossible.
A square circle - in other words, an object which is a square and a circle at the same time. This object is logically impossible. the attributes of a square are such that they exclude the attributes of a circle. A thing can't be a square and a circle at the same time because it would breach the First Principles of Logic. In other words, it would be something while being something that it's not (the Law of No Contradiction). This is because a circle does not, by definition (it can't), have any straight lines. A square, on the other hand, has four straight lines that it uses for its sides. A square circle is a circle that's not a circle. It's a logical contradition. It can't exist in our reality or in any other reality in which logic applies.
I would agree with Narueen (we've had some twitter discussions after she posed the question) that the concept of a square circle can exist in our reality. While we can't conceive of the actual object, we can (if we really stretch it) imagine that there may exist some reality in which logic does not apply and in which an object that is both a square and a circle is possible. The concept then (although impossible for us to imagine) exists in our reality.
Some versions of gods are similar to a square circle. They are logically impossible. For example a truly (absolutely) omnipotent God is a logical contradiction: the good old stone paradox (can God create a stone that's so heavy that He is unable to lift it?) Of course, this is a sideline comment and I don't intend to go into a lengthy debate about this paradox (I've seen, and discussed at length, various proposed solutions).
Is it possible that, in our reality, there exist objects that logic doesn't apply to? Perhaps. I can't prove that logic is universal, even within our reality. Perhaps they are and we can't perceive them because they contradict our way of seeing the world. Perhaps some things that we see as circles are actually square circles? I can't say for sure. But assuming that logic is indeed universal within our reality, a square circle is my answer.
b) Empirically exluded things - theistic God
Another example, and closer to the topic of the discussion, of a thing that doesn't exist in our reality is a theistic God. In this case, I define theistic God as a god who intervenes in human affairs.
I can say that such a god almost certainly doesn't exist. We have solid experience of human affairs and we know from this experience that there's no evidence of the existence of a god who intervenes in human affairs. Everything that happens in our world, everything that we observe, appears to act according to laws that we call "laws of nature". There are no documented (ie, observed and established to exist, beyond fraud or hallucination) instances of things breaching laws of nature. There are, of course, some things we don't fully understand. One of these is ball lightening. But lack of understanding of a phenomenon doesn't entitle us to assume that it breaches the laws of nature.
What type of events would class as breaching laws of nature? For example a man who lost a limb, prayed, and the limb just suddenly reappeared. Or an car that's about to crash into another car but inexplicably is raised into the air, suspended in the air until the other car passes by, and then gently put on the ground.
Things like these do not happen. Instead, what we observe is that everything around us is acting consistently in accordance with natural laws. What we observe, in other words, is exactly what we would expect to observe if there was no God who intervenes in human affairs.
Insofar as this type of god goes, I'm a strong atheist. I deny (with almost complete certainty) that such a god exists.
That's not to say that I'm dogmatic about this. If someone presents me with credible evidence (or argument) that such a god exists, I'll accept that and become a theist.
II. What I don't exclude
What I don't (and can't) exclude, however, is the existence of some intelligent entity who created the Universe and went into hiding (or disappeared or just takes no active role in the Universe, or at least in human affairs).
While I can't exclude that such a god may exist, I don't start from an assumption that such a god does exist. Quite simply, there's no evidence (not even a sound philosophical or logical argument) that would allow me to conclude that such a god exists.
Insofar, as this type of god goes, I'm a strong agnostic atheist. I don't exclude that such a god may exist but I believe that this type of god is very unlikely to exist. That's because the more conditions a proposition contains, the more unlikely it is to be true. You can see me demonstrate it mathematically HERE.
That's not to say that I'm dogmatic about this. Not at all.
If someone successfully rebuts my mathematical proof, I'll be a weak agnostic atheist about this type of god (I'll simply lack belief, without saying that this god is very improbable).
Furthermore, if someone provides me with credible evidence that such a god exists, I'll accept that and become a deist. So far, no good.
2. Name something in our human experience that ever came out of nothing.
I now turn to the second question.
I don't know of anything that humans have experienced (or, in other words, observed) and which comes out of nothing. And yet, I don't propose that anything did come from nothing.
Insofar as I'm concerned, it's theists who propose that their chosen god (be it Yhwh, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) created all matter out of nothing. In my books, it's them that Naureen should be asking this question. As an atheist, I make an honest statement: I don't know where the Universe came from, I'm excited about the question, I think it's a fascinating topic to ponder and I think we should keep looking for the answer (which, coincidentally, we may never actually be able to find).
Theists claim to have some knowledge about matters that they have had absolutely no experience of (nobody has experienced/observed something being created of out of nothing, Naureen, even with the agency of an entity such as a god) while atheists don't.
There are some atheists, in particular some physicists (such as Krauss) who propose that the Universe came from nothing. But what they're proposing is just a hypothesis. They're not claiming that their model is verified by any observation. I have no problems with that. Equally, I have no problems with someone proposing a god (except for a theistic god; see above) who created the Universe out of nothing. I'm fine with that, so long as the proponent makes it clear that they're merely putting forward a hypothesis, that they have no evidence to support it and that they're not claiming that this is what in fact happened.
And again, as above, if I'm presented with solid evidence or a sound argument that such a god exists, I'll accept it and become a deist.
I can also add (as I've indicated on twitter during my brief exchange with Naureen) that the question is unusal for this topic. Naureen asks me to demonstrate something in our human experience that comes from nothing. But we both know (well, I know, and I hope she does too) that the generation of our Universe is very much unlike anything that we've ever experienced/observed. No matter how the Universe came to exist, that event will necessarily be something that's completely inconsistent with anything we've experienced/observed. If an invisible and powerful God created our Universe from nothing, it will be something completely out of the ordinary for us (no human has experienced or observed this type of event). If another form of matter/energy changed into our Universe, that will also be something that we've never experienced/observed. And finally, if the Universe (without a god) came from nothing, we also have no experience/observation of things like that happening.
Creations of Universes are not things that we have experience of. They are necessarily things very much beyond the scope of our experience and, one way or another (no matter how they happen), they will involve things that we've never observed.
I hope that answers Naureen's questions. I tried my best.
Comments are welcome
Marty
@Allocutus
1. Name something that does not exist and its attributes don't exist in our reality; and
2. Name something in our human experience that ever came out of nothing.
I'll address these questions now and wait for Naureen to respond via comments.
1. Name something that does not exist and its attributes don't exist in our reality
I. What I exclude
a) Logical impossibilities
There are some things that (subject to assuming that logic is universal) I can say don't exist in our reality because they are logically impossible.
A square circle - in other words, an object which is a square and a circle at the same time. This object is logically impossible. the attributes of a square are such that they exclude the attributes of a circle. A thing can't be a square and a circle at the same time because it would breach the First Principles of Logic. In other words, it would be something while being something that it's not (the Law of No Contradiction). This is because a circle does not, by definition (it can't), have any straight lines. A square, on the other hand, has four straight lines that it uses for its sides. A square circle is a circle that's not a circle. It's a logical contradition. It can't exist in our reality or in any other reality in which logic applies.
I would agree with Narueen (we've had some twitter discussions after she posed the question) that the concept of a square circle can exist in our reality. While we can't conceive of the actual object, we can (if we really stretch it) imagine that there may exist some reality in which logic does not apply and in which an object that is both a square and a circle is possible. The concept then (although impossible for us to imagine) exists in our reality.
Some versions of gods are similar to a square circle. They are logically impossible. For example a truly (absolutely) omnipotent God is a logical contradiction: the good old stone paradox (can God create a stone that's so heavy that He is unable to lift it?) Of course, this is a sideline comment and I don't intend to go into a lengthy debate about this paradox (I've seen, and discussed at length, various proposed solutions).
Is it possible that, in our reality, there exist objects that logic doesn't apply to? Perhaps. I can't prove that logic is universal, even within our reality. Perhaps they are and we can't perceive them because they contradict our way of seeing the world. Perhaps some things that we see as circles are actually square circles? I can't say for sure. But assuming that logic is indeed universal within our reality, a square circle is my answer.
b) Empirically exluded things - theistic God
Another example, and closer to the topic of the discussion, of a thing that doesn't exist in our reality is a theistic God. In this case, I define theistic God as a god who intervenes in human affairs.
I can say that such a god almost certainly doesn't exist. We have solid experience of human affairs and we know from this experience that there's no evidence of the existence of a god who intervenes in human affairs. Everything that happens in our world, everything that we observe, appears to act according to laws that we call "laws of nature". There are no documented (ie, observed and established to exist, beyond fraud or hallucination) instances of things breaching laws of nature. There are, of course, some things we don't fully understand. One of these is ball lightening. But lack of understanding of a phenomenon doesn't entitle us to assume that it breaches the laws of nature.
What type of events would class as breaching laws of nature? For example a man who lost a limb, prayed, and the limb just suddenly reappeared. Or an car that's about to crash into another car but inexplicably is raised into the air, suspended in the air until the other car passes by, and then gently put on the ground.
Things like these do not happen. Instead, what we observe is that everything around us is acting consistently in accordance with natural laws. What we observe, in other words, is exactly what we would expect to observe if there was no God who intervenes in human affairs.
Insofar as this type of god goes, I'm a strong atheist. I deny (with almost complete certainty) that such a god exists.
That's not to say that I'm dogmatic about this. If someone presents me with credible evidence (or argument) that such a god exists, I'll accept that and become a theist.
II. What I don't exclude
What I don't (and can't) exclude, however, is the existence of some intelligent entity who created the Universe and went into hiding (or disappeared or just takes no active role in the Universe, or at least in human affairs).
While I can't exclude that such a god may exist, I don't start from an assumption that such a god does exist. Quite simply, there's no evidence (not even a sound philosophical or logical argument) that would allow me to conclude that such a god exists.
Insofar, as this type of god goes, I'm a strong agnostic atheist. I don't exclude that such a god may exist but I believe that this type of god is very unlikely to exist. That's because the more conditions a proposition contains, the more unlikely it is to be true. You can see me demonstrate it mathematically HERE.
That's not to say that I'm dogmatic about this. Not at all.
If someone successfully rebuts my mathematical proof, I'll be a weak agnostic atheist about this type of god (I'll simply lack belief, without saying that this god is very improbable).
Furthermore, if someone provides me with credible evidence that such a god exists, I'll accept that and become a deist. So far, no good.
2. Name something in our human experience that ever came out of nothing.
I now turn to the second question.
I don't know of anything that humans have experienced (or, in other words, observed) and which comes out of nothing. And yet, I don't propose that anything did come from nothing.
Insofar as I'm concerned, it's theists who propose that their chosen god (be it Yhwh, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) created all matter out of nothing. In my books, it's them that Naureen should be asking this question. As an atheist, I make an honest statement: I don't know where the Universe came from, I'm excited about the question, I think it's a fascinating topic to ponder and I think we should keep looking for the answer (which, coincidentally, we may never actually be able to find).
Theists claim to have some knowledge about matters that they have had absolutely no experience of (nobody has experienced/observed something being created of out of nothing, Naureen, even with the agency of an entity such as a god) while atheists don't.
There are some atheists, in particular some physicists (such as Krauss) who propose that the Universe came from nothing. But what they're proposing is just a hypothesis. They're not claiming that their model is verified by any observation. I have no problems with that. Equally, I have no problems with someone proposing a god (except for a theistic god; see above) who created the Universe out of nothing. I'm fine with that, so long as the proponent makes it clear that they're merely putting forward a hypothesis, that they have no evidence to support it and that they're not claiming that this is what in fact happened.
And again, as above, if I'm presented with solid evidence or a sound argument that such a god exists, I'll accept it and become a deist.
I can also add (as I've indicated on twitter during my brief exchange with Naureen) that the question is unusal for this topic. Naureen asks me to demonstrate something in our human experience that comes from nothing. But we both know (well, I know, and I hope she does too) that the generation of our Universe is very much unlike anything that we've ever experienced/observed. No matter how the Universe came to exist, that event will necessarily be something that's completely inconsistent with anything we've experienced/observed. If an invisible and powerful God created our Universe from nothing, it will be something completely out of the ordinary for us (no human has experienced or observed this type of event). If another form of matter/energy changed into our Universe, that will also be something that we've never experienced/observed. And finally, if the Universe (without a god) came from nothing, we also have no experience/observation of things like that happening.
Creations of Universes are not things that we have experience of. They are necessarily things very much beyond the scope of our experience and, one way or another (no matter how they happen), they will involve things that we've never observed.
I hope that answers Naureen's questions. I tried my best.
Comments are welcome
Marty
@Allocutus
Saturday, 20 April 2013
The Bible - Science or Mythology - second and third rounds
Note: This post contains the second AND THIRD round (scroll down to see third)
This post contains the continuation of my debate with Richard Bushey (@AChristianWord) about the Bible and apologist claims that it contains evidence of miraculously gained scientific truth.
To see the original post (the first "Round"), as well as background info on the debate, go here.
What follows is Richard's response to my comment, followed by my counter.
Enjoy,
@Allocutus
Richard's response:
Third round:
Also, note that there's nothing about "running" water in Leviticus. Your source (blue table) claims that the contemporary science was to use STILL water while Leviticus recommended RUNNING water. But you quote sources (in your last post) that claim that washing hands with water wasn't a part of contemporary (to Moses, but nevermind that) "science" AT ALL. It seems that you yourself are going against the blue table. This is not an attack on you, by the way. I'm simply pointing out that it becomes increasingly evident that the blue table can't be relied on.
This post contains the continuation of my debate with Richard Bushey (@AChristianWord) about the Bible and apologist claims that it contains evidence of miraculously gained scientific truth.
To see the original post (the first "Round"), as well as background info on the debate, go here.
What follows is Richard's response to my comment, followed by my counter.
Enjoy,
@Allocutus
Richard's response:
Third round:
Richard (@AChristianWord) responds:
I apologize for my accusation earlier. I think I was
overtired and overwhelmed by the long message. My mistake.
What you need to understand about poetry is that it is not a
context. It is a genre. You cannot just throw a statement away because it is
poetic, you need analyze it and see what the text is saying. Given the
repetition of this statement and the fact that the three verb forms were used,
it is very clear that this is an actual teaching.
I also see a lot of statement about what the Bible could
have said. I agree, the Bible could say a lot more than it does to validate
itself. However, these statements are not meant to validate the texts for the
readers. They are meant to tell a particular story, sometimes poetically, with
a certain fundamental backdrop given to them by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
We can pick bits of what they believed out of what they were saying. But nobody
here was outrightly teaching any profound scientific statement. If they were,
you are right, we could expect a lot more.
Also, could you show me which of the Vedas teaches that the
universe is in a continuous state of expansion?
The Expanding Universe:
I do agree that merely one statement that is true does not
demonstrate that the entire document is true. In fact Christians often
acknowledge that there are several elements of truth in other religions, but
that obviously does nothing to say that the central teaching of the religion is
true. The difference between this and my biblical argument is that I am not
putting forth one discreet passage. There is array of biblical prediction about
the nature of reality which have been confirmed by modern science. Now as I
said in my concluding statement, it may be the case that this is a coincidence.
However, I think it is difficult to ignore. Now onto this business about the
expanding universe and the others.
The Circle Of The Earth:
The reason that I do not think that Isaiah literally means
that God is sitting above the world is that God is not thought to be sitting
above the world. This is phenomenal language; the angle that God is looking at
the world is not from above. It is like when the earth is referred to as “God’s
footstool.” So I do not think this is supposed to be taken as though God were
literally hovering over the earth. As Luke 24 and Philippians 4 tell us, God is
conceived of in Christian theology as having no bones; he literally transcends
the material world.
The Innumerable Stars:
I think we pretty much agree about the interpretation of
Jeremiah 33 and Genesis 15. God is not telling Abraham and Jeremiah that they
will literally have an infinite amount of descendants. He is expressing that
they will have so many descendants that it will be beyond counting, and likens
that to the number of stars in the sky.
As for what the ancient world thought about this issue,
according it “Ptolemy’s Almagest” Ian Ridpath’s Star Tales, the Roman Egyptian
astronomer Ptolemy wrote that there were 1,022 stars in the sky, and this work
was based on the work of the astronomer Hipparchus who lived between 190 – 120
BC.
Suspension Of The Earth:
I was mistaken when I said that it did not have anything
holding it in the “air,” because obviously there is no air in space. I was not
thinking of that. I just meant that it is teaching that there is not anything
holding it in space. Now I think there is an issue with the English translation
of Job 26. It does not say “northern skies” in Hebrew. It just says north,
which basically means the visible heaven that we can see. So the heaven that we
can see is stretched out in front of us, and the earth hangs upon nothing
(which as John Wesley pointed out, means no pillars).
As for Job 9:6 and the word “pillar,” I think we should look
at the concordance to see how pillar is consistently used. In Job 20:11,
phrases such as the pillar of heaven is used, in Exodus 20, the pillar of smoke
and fire and clouds are used. Given the context of how it is used a number of
times, theologians think that a pillar means the foundation or The deep and
inward parts of it, which like pillars supported those parts that appear to our
view.
The same book a few chapters later is the one that said that
the earth is suspended atop nothing.
Visible/Invisible Elements:
It could also be taken to mean that there is a realm of
angels and demons, and not necessarily that which is unseen.
The majority of church history has regarded Paul as the
author of Hebrews. I am not familiar with the arguments against that. But it
does have his style of writing, such as multiple quotations from the Old
Testament, a strong emphasis on salvation by faith and an affiliation with
Timothy (something exclusive to Paul). The only difference that I have noticed
is the lack of salutation.
Differing In Glory:
Okay, I checked it out and I do not see anything about
differing in size. I think it is just expressing that the stars are different
in brightness or beauty. But I may be wrong about that.
Running Water:
Doctor William J Cairney in his book Prescience 2 explained
on page 129 that the civilizations surrounding Moses did not commonly practice
washing. In fact even in the 1800s, sanitation was not that big of a deal in
many countries.
God’s Body:
I disagree that ancient Judaism thought that God could
literally be encapsulated into a physical form, in fact even the Torah seem to
contradict that. In Deuteronomy 4:15 God is explained to have no form at all;
Judaism is strictly unitarian, with God having nothing even resembling a form
with mankind. They even think that saying God’s name is beyond what they are
allowed to do, so they will say G-d. In fact that is why the tetragrammaton is
removed from the Bible; over 6000 appearances of the name Yahweh replaced with
Lord or God.
As for those examples of God strolling around, wrestling
with Jacob in Genesis 32, appearing to Joshua in Joshua 5, I believe the Jews
think that these figures were angels. I, and most Christians, would say that
they are the pre-incarnate Christ.
The Law of Decay:
I am not saying that Paul is expressing that there is a
scientific law nor am I saying that Paul was pointing something out that
mankind could not see for themselves. I am saying that Christian theology accurately
reflects the world that we know in this way, because the universe is decaying;
that is a scientific law (not that Paul was teaching it as one though).
Phew, that took forever. I think I covered everything.
I (@Allocutus) respond:
Richard,
Wow, you did take quite a lot of effort there. Much
appreciated :)
1. On Expanding Universe
I agree that you can't throw a statement away merely because
it's poetic. But at the same time, poetic license allows the writer to say
things that he doesn't literally mean. He resorts to various figures of speech.
And in the "expanding Universe" the clear context is that the writers
are speaking about GOD's GLORY. They are NOT trying to teach us facts. This is
demonstrated by the fact that they speak of God treading the waves, blowing
rulers down so that they can dry out and be blown by the wind.
And you and I agree on this. These teachings are not about
the nature of the Universe. They are about something else and they use poetry
to describe God's greatness. At the same time, they do use the phrase "he
stretched out the heavens" and "he stretches out the heavens".
The former would suggest that the action of "stretching" has been
completed. The latter would suggest that it's either continuing or is not meant
in a temporal context at all (sort of like he "holds the heavens",
"he created the heavens and keeps the creation").
Does the fact that they were used mean that "he
stretches the heavnes" denotes that the authors believed that the Universe
is expanding?
We don't know that because there are other explanations.
a) It does sound like poetic metaphor for "God put the
heaven above us" (stretched like a tent; heaven looks like a tent and
tents are stretched)
b) The verses are right next to other verses that are
CLEARLY poetic license (god treading on waters, blowing at rulers etc)
c) Christians have for 2000 years known about the "he
stretches the heavens" passages. Has anyone in fact read it to mean that
the heavens are currently (not to mention in the future) expanding? No. Despite
the fact that Christian dogma has taken a literal interpretation of the
Creation Story in Genesis and of the Flood Story and of many other stories,
NOBODY seems to have taken a literal view of the "expanding heaven".
And MILLIONS of very smart people had read the Bible, INCLUDING those very
passages. From our point of view, this is a pretty good indication that we might
be using hindsight knowledge to read something into a verse that (without that
hindsight knowledge) doesn't actually appear anything more than figurative
language.
But assume that the authors did in fact believe that the
heavens are expanding. What would that mean to them? They clearly had a
geocentric picture of the Universe (spoke of the Sun rising and setting,
traveling through the sky, even stopping, thought the Earth was created before
the Sun - see Gen 1). Is this consistent with our picture of the Expanding
Universe (singularity, Big Bang etc)? No.
So, even if these authors (just like some other mythologies
and speculations) have thought that the heaven is expanding, is this enough to
infer that they were given this idea by divine inspiration? No, it's not. Not
in the least due to the fact that the very same authors give other accounts
that are clearly inconsistent with science and the whole thing is contained in
a religious collection of books that talks about a man being created from mud
and a woman from a rib. The Bible has HUGE numbers of typically mythological
descriptions and a verse like this (even if it did denote some belief in an
expanding heaven) is simply very insufficient to conclude that it was divinely
inspired. Had the verses said "the heaven might look still to you but it's
really expanding, starting off with an explosion", I would give the
argument some credit.
Add to this the fact that we have no evidence of any divine
inspirations that give us correct facts. There's no evidence that an entity
exists that's capable (and willing) of inspiring factual truth into people.
In light of all this, I see this conclusion completely
unwarranted. It's no better than the Muslim claims about the Quran. If they
really did think that in some sense (though, as above, clearly not in the sense
that Big Bang Theory tells us) the heaven was (or even is) expanding, this is
clearly pure coincidence.
2. The Circle of the Earth.
I disagree with you, Richard. God was always thought to be
up in the sky. Jesus (and some prophets too) ascended to the sky. God speaks
from clouds. In the Gomorrah story, God says he wants to "go DOWN" to
check if the cry is true. Burnt offerings consist of smoke going up to the sky.
The Babel Tower is another example. God says "come on let's GO DOWN and
confuse their languages" (Gen 11:7). Yhwh is a typical sky-god. And Isaiah
says it clearly. "He sits above the circle of the Earth".
In fact, let's assume for a second that your argument is
correct and the "circle" is really a sphere (seen from angles etc).
"God sits above the circle of the Earth" would then mean that God is
surrounding the Earth and sits "above it" from all angles. Still a
sky-god, only in 3D.
The Biblical God is without a doubt a sky god.
Moving on, it seems to me that you want to claim that
"God sits above the circle of the Earth" really means to say
"God is everywhere and the Earth is a sphere". I think that's taking
it too far, my friend.
But my position doesn't have to go all that far. It's
sufficient that there are valid interpretations (literal, in fact) that are
consistent with the passage being mythological. That's sufficient to show that
there exists a natural explanation for the passage and therefore there's no
basis to presume a supernatural one.
3. "Innumerable" stars
It seems like we're close to reaching some consensus here.
God says that Abram's descendants will be as the stars in the sky, in that they
cannot be counted (in this case, visible sky - Abram is told to count the stars
"if he can", suggesting that the VISIBLE stars are too many to count
= Innumerable). Jeremiah takes that further and says that David's descendants
will be so many that they cannot be counted, just as the stars in the sky. Note
that the word used by Jeremiah and Genesis isn't really "innumerable"
but "cannot be counted".
Greek and Egyptian astronomers, according to you, believed
that there are 1022 or so stars in the sky. Clearly, they were talking about
the visible sky.
To me, all this means is that the ancient Jews thought it
was impossible to count the stars (Genesis makes it clear that it would be very
hard if not impossible). The Greeks and Egyptians tried to do JUST THAT (ie,
count the stars) and counted some 1,000. Currently, it's believed that there
are about 2,000 stars that are visible with the naked eye. The very fact that
this is so difficult suggests that the visible stars pretty much CANNOT BE
COUNTED. There are simply too many to be able to make an accurate count.
Is there anything unusual in a person (who, no doubt, has
seen the night sky) to say that there are COUNTLESS stars out there? Of course
there isn't. Look at the sky, Richard, and the countless stars. That's how many
followers you’ll have on twitter one day, countless, just like the stars or the
sands of the beach.
Finally, the scientists you talk about POST-DATE Jeremiah.
Imagine an opposite scenario. Imagine that in 600BC the scientific view is that
there are 1000 stars in the sky. Then Jeremiah (preferably aware of this view)
says in his book "People think there are 1000 stars but they don't know
that many more can't be seen. The stars are really countless". That MIGHT
lead us somewhere. It probably still wouldn't because this would look as just a
hypothesis about the stars. But it would definitely hold more merit than the
current position. At present, all we have is an ancient story (Jeremiah)
speaking about "countless stars" in the sky and subsequent to that we
have scientists trying to count them (and doing so incorrectly). There's NOT AN
INKLING of evidence that the stars Jeremiah was talking about were those that
are NOT VISIBLE with the naked eye.
4. Suspended Earth
Well, Job DOES say the Earth rests on pillars. Of course,
you can interpret that to mean something a little different, as you have. I
actually take no issue with that. My issue is with it being suspended on
nothing.
And you haven't actually addressed my point on this. But I
can't blame you as I've written quite a lot :)
The point was that there are two possible scenarios to
imagine in a primitive worldview. Either the Earth is sitting on something
(like a turtle's back, for example, or an island in a huge ocean) or it's
hanging from the sky. There is no real third possibility. In a culture that
looks skywards (and the Jews, being a sky-god culture, are excused in looking
skywards), the latter cosmology may be chosen. So you see the sky above you and
that's where your creator resides. That's where that "first realm"
is. And below that is the Earth. It seems to be hanging below the sky. What's
it hanging on? Nothing. We can't see any strings. It must be hanging on
nothing. It's suspended on nothing. This is a very consistent, and yet very
mythological proposition.
Finally, it makes no sense scientifically to speak of the
Earth as being "suspended on nothing". The Earth is NEVER spoken of
as being suspended. It's a body flying through space. You don't talk about
comets and asteroids and stars as being "suspended". This terminology
is very inconsistent with science. "Oh look! There's a meteor! Can you see
it suspended up there? Make a wish!" just doesn't make sense.
So what do we end up with? A sky-god mythology and its
consistent Earth hanging under the sky. Sure, in a sense, it's more correct
than a turtleback cosmology. But is it sufficient to claim divinely inspired
knowledge? Of course not.
5. Visible/Invisible Elements
I agree that "Church history" has regarded Paul as
the author of Hebrews. But I don't put any confidence in "Church
history". Almost no contemporary scholars regard Hebrews as being Pauline.
It's simply written in a distinctly non-Pauline language. And we both know that
many of the epistles currently in the New Testament are very widely believed to
be pseudography.
Anyhow, it seems we agree on this point. It could mean this,
it could mean the other. On top of this, a version of the Atomic Theory was
already known prior to Hebrews being written.
6. Differing brightness
Here we seem to again agree. The stars clearly appear to be
of varying brightness and it doesn't take any special knowledge to make such a
statement. I'm certainly not surprised that Paul has used it. I would have used
it myself.
7. Running water
I agree that perhaps civilisations surrounding Moses did not
practice washing. It might be interesting to note that Leviticus was most
likely written over a long period of time and by a number of authors. In fact,
it's believed that its writing has spanned between the 6th and the 4th century
BCE, a long time after the alleged Moses (who supposedly lived about the 14th
century BCE - note that the historicity of Moses is in itself a big, big
question).
So, at the time of Moses, hands were generally not washed
when dealing with disease. And hundreds of years later, the Jews developed the
tradition of washing hands when dealing with disease. As I've stated before,
it's an impressive achievement. Human history is full of impressive
achievements. We have invented the wheel, build the pyramids, learned to wash
hands and learned to deal with bacterial and viral epidemics. We have developed
the steam engine and we have flown to the Moon.
It's nice that the Jewish culture came up with the idea. And
it's an example of where they have embedded a good cultural/scientific
discovery in their mythology/religion.
Also, note that there's nothing about "running" water in Leviticus. Your source (blue table) claims that the contemporary science was to use STILL water while Leviticus recommended RUNNING water. But you quote sources (in your last post) that claim that washing hands with water wasn't a part of contemporary (to Moses, but nevermind that) "science" AT ALL. It seems that you yourself are going against the blue table. This is not an attack on you, by the way. I'm simply pointing out that it becomes increasingly evident that the blue table can't be relied on.
8. God's body
Richard, I hear you. You disagree. Unfortunately for you,
the Bible is LITTERED with various mentions of God's various bodyparts. Genesis
doesn't speak of an angel strolling around. It speaks about the Lord strolling
around. It's The Lord who tells Moses to sit on a rock to see his (the Lord's)
back. It's the Lord who likes the smell of burnt offering after the Flood (and
burnt offerings with smoke to please the Lord are rife throughout the Jewish
mythology).
There's NOT A DOUBT on any truthful reading of the Old
Testament that the ancient Jewish culture did contain an element of a corporeal
God. A God who isn't corporeal can't "come down to check out
Gomorrah", he can't come down to the Babel construction site, he can't
walk around the garden, he can't show his back to Moses.
Genesis 3:8, Exodus 33:11-23, Exodus 34:5, Deut 23:13-14,
Ezekiel 1:27, Ezekiel 8:2 and numerous other passages.
9. The Law of Decay
I agree with you, Richard, that in this case, Paul has
accurately observed that there is decay in nature.
Conclusion
I stick to my original claim, which was that the Bible
contains much mythology but also has some clever bits and accurate
observations. I think in fact that we both agree on this. You seem to be
admitting, for example, that Paul's words on "decay" are clearly an
example of an observation that's open to humans (a "good bit" based
on solid human observation). I think you'll probably agree that the bit about
washing hands can easily be explained by an evolving culture, discovering (by
trial and error if nothing else; and cultures discovering things are nothing
new to us) that hands should be washed when dealing with disease. So, as far as
claiming that "some messages in the Bible were useful and even
innovative" we have no dispute. Equally, I would consider the
"atoms" issue settled.
I think all that's left in possible contention is your
(apparent) claim of evidence of divine inspiration in reference to the
spreading of the heavens and (possibly) the suspension of the Earth. If I'm
incorrect in my assessment of the scope of the dispute then please let me know.
But if I'm correct then I'll ask you to address my specific arguments about
those two aspects. Do you disagree with them? Do you say that those natural
explanations can be excluded? If so, how?
Thanks
Marty
@Allocutus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Isaiah: The way I see it, the only object that is a circle from every angle is a sphere.
Jeremiah: I do not see how saying “as innumerable as the stars in the sky” is not an indication that the stars are innumberable.
Job: I do not understand your rebuttal. I think it is incredible that the Bible indicates that beyond the northern skies, there is empty space. Secondly, suspended does not indicate that it is still. It indicates that it does not have anything hoisting it into the air.
Hebrews 11: It says very clearly that the visible world is constructed by that which is not visible.
1 Corinthians: Again, it is not saying what you are indicating. It says that they are all different.
Leviticus 17:11 What is remarkable here is that the Bible indicates what nobody on earth knew. The entire known world thought that sick people must be bled. But the Bible did not.
2 Sam 22:16 Your lack of theological understanding is present here. The Bible does not indicate that God literally had a nose that blows breath. Throughout the Bible when it speaks of “the breath,” it is referring to the work of the Holy Spirit. That is why we see phrases like “all scripture is God-breathed,” and so forth.
Leviticus: What is remarkable is that it very clearly says to clean yourself when the rest of the world did not.
I also noticed that you had no response to the passages that I posted. It should also be noted that your attempt to refute these passages suggests how remarkable it is that the Bible is the only book that teaches these things. The Bible is the only book that clearly teaches that the universe is in a continuous state of expansion, the earth is a sphere, the stars are innumberable. In fact, we can also add Jeremiah 33:25 which teaches that the natural laws of the universe are fixed, and Romans 8:20-22 which teaches that one of these laws is the law of decay.
Now at the moment I am not going to bother with your response to WLC’s argument. But I beg you, Martin, when you look at these, try to leave your presuppositions at the door. It really seems as though you are just making things up to avoid the conclusion that these Bible teaches these things.
My (@Allocutus) response:
I've looked at the Hebrew translation and it goes like this: