Evidence for God from Science

Phix wrote:Everyone needs to make note of this because it is irrefutable proof that the Bible does not contain the word of God but, instead the words of man. Words that were, over time, translated through various languages.

First I see no proof at all - I don't even see reasonable persuasion. Can you provide a specific example?

Second, while I agree that the Bible is written in human language, I do not agree that the Bible is not the word of God. It's obviously not God's native language, but it remains His words. You are confusing the two. If you are French and I happen to know some French, I can speak my own words to you in your language, regardless of my own native tongue.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that God imbued us with languages capabilities to begin with, as well as an original language, and yet more of them at the Tower of Babel. So God may be much more in control of our own language than you think - but that's an aside.

So then, would you assert that God left us a book that claims to be His Word but actually isn't? To what end? What would that say about the nature of God?

I do not agree that the Bible is not the word of God. It's obviously not God's native language, but it remains His words.

I believe the disagreement here is semantics. I agree that the Bible contains principles of God but a language is made up of specific words that distinguish it from another. The language and words of the Bible were invented by men which I suggest is the cause for confusion. Through translation, certain principles become unclear for the reader of another language.

I believe the disagreement here is semantics. I agree that the Bible contains principles of God but a language is made up of specific words that distinguish it from another. The language and words of the Bible were invented by men which I suggest is the cause for confusion. Through translation, certain principles become unclear for the reader of another language.

So you don't believe that the finite human language can meaningfully express the nature and will of the infinite God? Or what exactly do you mean with "the principles of God"? How do you know which part is "principles of God", and which parts are those that are "cause for confusion"?

So you don't believe that the finite human language can meaningfully express the nature and will of the infinite God? Or what exactly do you mean with "the principles of God"? How do you know which part is "principles of God", and which parts are those that are "cause for confusion"?

Language allows one to conceive mental images in the mind that are alleged to be reality.

• Sometimes there is a misconception or misunderstanding in creating the image.

Sometimes information is translated wrong accidentally or deliberately.

• Because of this we need to compare scripture with reality to get a good and accurate understanding of principle. It takes work but it is well worth it.

Maybe I'm missing your point again, and are confusing issues. You did not answer my questions directly, and i did not quite get the answers in your message below.

Language allows one to conceive mental images in the mind that are alleged to be reality. Sometimes there is a misconception or misunderstanding in creating the image. Sometimes information is translated wrong accidentally or deliberately.

Can you please explain how that happens in your mind? How are those "images" formed? How do you know when you are having a "misconception" about scripture?

Because of this we need to compare scripture with reality to get a good and accurate understanding of principle. It takes work but it is well worth it.

Maybe it would help me if you gave an example. You are saying that we form a conception or mental image about scripture when we read or hear it, and that that can constitute reality, which may be wrong because of translation. Then we need to compare that reality to scripture to see if it's good and accurate? It looks a little circular to me. Why would the image or conception be different the second time round?

Can you please explain how that happens in your mind? How are those "images" formed? How do you know when you are having a "misconception" about scripture?

Relax, and focus. Since we can't speak directly we both have to put forth a bit more effort but, we can do it. Work with me _

Can you please explain how that happens in your mind? How are those "images" formed? How do you know when you are having a "misconception" about scripture?

O.K.

• As we interact with reality we form images through our perception and this gives us our experience.

• When we read text we assume that it comes from someone else's experience with reality.

Sometimes it does but sometimes it doesn't. Therefore, with any text, if it is possible, we should go and test it ourselves for verification. if we don't do this we can unknowingly form a belief that is based on a lie. This will affect our own judgement in a negative way as we interact with reality in the future. Understand?

Relax, and focus. Since we can't speak directly we both have to put forth a bit more effort but, we can do it. Work with me

Don't patronize me. Telling me to relax and focus won't get us anywhere, and I have been working with you. Maybe if you answered my questions directly we could move forward.

As we interact with reality we form images through our perception and this gives us our experience.

Can you please define perception, just to be clear? Is it the same as sensation? Is our experience based only on previous and current perception?

When we read text we assume that it comes from someone else's experience with reality. Sometimes it does but sometimes it doesn't. Therefore, with any text, if it is possible, we should go and test it ourselves for verification.

I follow that. Can you please highlight in which cases texts are not from someone elses reality? What would you test against? It's easy if it's something physical and observable, but harder in the case of history, for example. If you test through observation and sensation, you are merely substituting your reality for the writers reality, and possibly brings you no closer to the truth. Are all things then relative?

if we don't do this we can unknowingly form a belief that is based on a lie. This will affect our own judgement in a negative way as we interact with reality in the future.

But how do you know what is a lie in the first place? Where do you get that reality from, if not from other people's reality, and what makes their reality a lie, and yours not? What is your source of objectivity that overrides multiple personal realities, and constitutes truth?

How does all of this relate to Scripture?

Understand?

I understand what it is you are trying to say, but I can't quite follow your logic. That's why I'm asking questions.

Don't patronize me. Telling me to relax and focus won't get us anywhere, and I have been working with you. Maybe if you answered my questions

I wasn't attempting to patronize you. I said that for your benefit and mine. If you get offended by something like that, this will never work. I only want to help, peacefully. Alright?

Is it the same as sensation? Is our experience based only on previous and current perception?

Sensation is the beginning of perception and It ends with the creation of the mental image. Our experience is based on current perception but our belief is based on previous or recorded perception.

Can you please highlight in which cases texts are not from someone elses reality?

Careful here, what you mean is someone else's experience. Experience is determined by one's perception of reality. There may be an error in perception, or a deliberate fabrication about the experience as one attempts to control reality by altering the text or narration to suit his desire. This misleads the reader who is under the assumption that the information is true.

What would you test against? It's easy if it's something physical and observable, but harder in the case of history, for example. If you test through observation and sensation, you are merely substituting your reality for the writers reality, and possibly brings you no closer to the truth. Are all things then relative?

What you are looking for is overall consistency.

But how do you know what is a lie in the first place? Where do you get that reality from, if not from other people's reality, and what makes their reality a lie, and yours not? What is your source of objectivity that overrides multiple personal realities, and constitutes truth?

See, you keep using reality in the wrong sense, which I never said. This is why I made the statement which you called patronizing. This subject is difficult enough and this forum doesn't make it much easier.

• But how do you know what is a lie in the first place?

Through an examination of cause and effect.

I understand what it is you are trying to say, but I can't quite follow your logic. That's why I'm asking questions.

Well I would think not if you substitute the wrong words for what I say. If you are really serious about this again, we both have a responsibility to each other. Are we on the same page?

I wasn't attempting to patronize you.

So your assumption that I'm stressed and unfocused is not patronizing?

If you get offended by something like that, this will never work.

So your statement is not offensive? You still not answering the very first question I asked you, and many subsequent, will be the cause of this not working.

If we can agree to stick to the topic, and lay off the personal comments, I will gladly proceed.

Sensation is the beginning of perception and It ends with the creation of the mental image. Our experience is based on current perception but our belief is based on previous or recorded perception.

Can you maybe just clarify the first sentence again? What exactly ends with the forming of a mental image? Is it sensation or perception? We also clearly have different interpretations of experience here, I meant the noun, and you possibly mean the verb? When you say that our belief "is based on" previous perception, is that the only thing that creates/influences belief?

Careful here, what you mean is someone else's experience. Experience is determined by one's perception of reality.

You are right.

There may be an error in perception, or a deliberate fabrication about the experience as one attempts to control reality by altering the text or narration to suit his desire. This misleads the reader who is under the assumption that the information is true.

I follow that. Makes sense.

What you are looking for is overall consistency.

Who or what is the judge of that consistency? When is something consistent? I have a problem with this, and before I go off on a tangent, do I understand correctly that you equate truth with consistency?

See, you keep using reality in the wrong sense, which I never said.

I stand corrected. Please substitute "experience" for "reality" and answer the question.

Through an examination of cause and effect.

Please expand on this. How do you examine cause and effect to arrive at a truth or non-truth? Is it as simple as: If the cause is not true, then the effect won't be either?

Well I would think not if you substitute the wrong words for what I say. If you are really serious about this again, we both have a responsibility to each other. Are we on the same page?

Sure. I hope that that problem is out of the way, and we hopefully have a common understanding of the terms.

So your assumption that I'm stressed and unfocused is not patronizing?

This is not my assumption. With topics of this nature one needs to be extremely relaxed and focused, otherwise, they may miss a crucial point.

Can you maybe just clarify the first sentence again? What exactly ends with the forming of a mental image?

Sensation is the beginning of perception, the mental image is the end of perception.

When you say that our belief "is based on" previous perception, is that the only thing that creates/influences belief?

No, but it is the most reliable. The other influence is text or narrative.

Who or what is the judge of that consistency? When is something consistent? I have a problem with this, and before I go off on a tangent, do I understand correctly that you equate truth with consistency?

Both cohesiveness and consistency are attributes of truth. If something is true, it will be consistent with something else that is true because of the cohesiveness of reality as a single whole.

Please expand on this. How do you examine cause and effect to arrive at a truth or non-truth? Is it as simple as: If the cause is not true, then the effect won't be either?

Not quite. It's all about the underlying order and the grand scheme of things. If someone suggest that a certain event has taken place, the cause of this event must be consistent with reality.
If it is not, then it is not true. Some people believe in magic which says that certain things can occur outside of reality or cause and effect. Since reality is a production of G.O.D. or Grand Organizing Design, magic suggest that one can operate outside of God's authority. This is an impossibility because all things in existence have come to be as a direct result of God's authority or will or intent etc. Nothing operates outside of reality. Cause and effect [ God's will ] is the action that produces reality. We study cause and effect through trial and error. Scientist call this experimentation, which is essentially seeking counsel from reality or God.

For every contradiction there is an apologetics site that refutes it, and for every refutation there is an atheist complaint and this keeps dragging on forever. I stopped caring about supposed biblical contradictions a long time ago.

ive taken the same attitude against contradictions. whenever it comes up on a forum, i post that link from tekton that mastermind gave and answer two or three of the contradictions, just to show how silly they really are. Usually the ones i answer are the difference between the Gen 1 & 2 creation accounts, number 33 on from that link in the OP, and Gal 5:2/Gal5:6. thats about it, unless just one or two are being discussed, then i might continue discussion.

Words that were, over time, translated through various languages.

For modern versions of the Bible in major languages, the text has been translated once, from Hebrew/Arimaic/Greek to your language of choice.

bob2010 wrote:

Words that were, over time, translated through various languages.

For modern versions of the Bible in major languages, the text has been translated once, from Hebrew/Arimaic/Greek to your language of choice.

Good point. Our transalations themselves are built from text of the original language - it's not like we've gone through a whole bunch of translation iterations. Further, various early texts are extremely consistent with each other, which points credibility to the fact that any iterations within each language preserved the original text very well also. So the end point is that our current biblical translations are likely extremely accurate.

This is true, I agree. Maybe the problem is individual interpretation by each reader. Something has got to cause the confusion which leads to the division we have today amongst mankind.

Phix wrote:This is true, I agree. Maybe the problem is individual interpretation by each reader. Something has got to cause the confusion which leads to the division we have today amongst mankind.

i give the award for causing the most confusing to the huge culture gap between the western world and the ANE, followed closely by the language gap, and third to people who just cant read.

i give the award for causing the most confusing to the huge culture gap between the western world and the ANE, followed closely by the language gap, and third to people who just cant read.Back to top

Except for those who can't read, why would the culture and language gap matter if the scriptures are translated accurately. If the all come from the original text, they should unify nations by saying the same thing regardless of language, don't you think?