You can prove a negative

[Interbane]

I'm happy that there is an excerpt from his book online. This is from Steven Hales, a professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

What you can or cannot prove depends on the claim. If you claim there is a god that did "X", and "X" is shown not to have been done, then that definition of god is disproven. This does not mean all possible definitions of god are disproven.

I think that the god as defined by the Christian Bible has been disproven by science. This definition is altered by interpretation, seeing the bible as metaphor rather than being literal. Oddly, on this point I agree with the fundamentalists, the literalists. The bible says what it does, and doesn't say it is speaking in metaphor.

[ant]

I'm happy that there is an excerpt from his book online. This is from Steven Hales, a professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

What you can or cannot prove depends on the claim. If you claim there is a god that did "X", and "X" is shown not to have been done, then that definition of god is disproven. This does not mean all possible definitions of god are disproven.

I think that the god as defined by the Christian Bible has been disproven by science. This definition is altered by interpretation, seeing the bible as metaphor rather than being literal. Oddly, on this point I agree with the fundamentalists, the literalists. The bible says what it does, and doesn't say it is speaking in metaphor.

You are reposting what I previously had provided in a post of my own. (the link)

This proves what I said about you not bothering to read what people offer you to consider.

[Interbane]

You are reposting what I previously had provided in a post of my own. (the link)

This proves what I said about you not bothering to read what people offer you to consider.

Non-sequitur logic. I don't read every post you make. Did you offer it to me directly? If so, it would explain why it looked familiar when I read it in the book.

After you preen your ruffled feathers, what do you think about the rest of the post? No comment?

If the bible is the word of god, then by it's infallible nature it would have foreseen the need to disclose that it is metaphorical. Since it doesn't do that, we can conclude that it isn't metaphorical. Which means it's literal, which means the claims it proposes are proven false by science.

[ant]

Did you offer it to me directly?

you were a participant in the post.
it was offered to everyone in that post.
there were no restrictions set in place.

I did not know you may have needed a special invitation to click on the link I provided.
It's quite possible you were feeling needy at the time because I didn't give you special attention.

But then again, your behavior did not clue me in.
You were your usual self in that post - anxious to let opponents and dissenters of logic know what you were thinking and why your opponents are wrong for thinking what they do.

It looked familiar??
Okay.



I poo-pooed in that foxhole before you did.

You seemed so happy to have found this gem.
I couldn't resist telling you I found it first and that you obviously had no honest interested in it because of who provided it.

Congratulations!
Great find!

feel better now?

[Interbane]

feel better now?

No, though I'm sure you do after that wall of r/ant.

Anything to add to my previous posts? Do you think it's possible to disprove a god? Even, perhaps, the most popular version?

[Flann 5]

If the bible is the word of god, then by it's infallible nature it would have foreseen the need to disclose that it is metaphorical. Since it doesn't do that, we can conclude that it isn't metaphorical. Which means it's literal, which means the claims it proposes are proven false by science.

Hi Interbane.
It is universally acknowledged by bible scholars of all stripes that the bible does not consist of one uniform genre and it includes many literary forms including metaphor,parables,poetry,history and whether something is interpreted literally,metaphorically or some other way requires using hermeneutical tools. I'm no expert but I think it is often clear what is parable,metaphor or narrative even to an ordinary reader.
I think a common weakness of atheist critics is assuming that they know what God should or would do according to their finite understanding of what an infinite being might think or do.
Richard Carrier does this based on what he thinks Jesus should have done if he really was God incarnate.The argument goes that if I Richard Carrier would have done what I think is this very good thing, why did Jesus in the gospel account not do this?Therefore Jesus could not have been God incarnate.
If God exists and really did inspire the bible,how can a finite human say how this God might or should do things.
Christians do interpret the bible differently in many areas including the Genesis account. Some like Lennox and Collins accommodate commonly accepted scientific views and believe that Genesis can be interpreted to harmonise with this.
I think there are theological problems with this which it's hard to fit in the overall theological framework.
The creationist view harmonises better but crashes head on into currently accepted ideas of proven science. Their "science" is dismissed as crackpot and maybe it is.There does seem to be some evidence of a young earth but I grant that it's not in the mainstream of science.
So you can say,based on mainstream science and assuming it is correct that a Y.E.C. literal interpretation of Genesis (if correct)disproves God as it's author.
I think those who don't interpret literally can make a reasonable case for their interpretation also.
Just to give an example of why if God exists he is ultimately the only one who has full understanding of what he intends to communicate.
We are told that Jesus in speaking in parables had a judicial element in mind, i.e. "that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not hear."
We have an explanation given here of a reason for this form of communication. I don't think we can presume to automatically know how he should communicate and what his intent was in a particular case if it is not made clear what that might be.

[ant]

feel better now?

No, though I'm sure you do after that wall of r/ant.

Anything to add to my previous posts? Do you think it's possible to disprove a god? Even, perhaps, the most popular version?

I was unaware that science had formally attempted to disprove God.
If it's been hypothesized formally, I'd like to see the publication.

If not, then I'm certain I can find a book in which somebody has opined that God has been disproved by scientific method.

the most "popular version"?
you mean the version that has an impact on your personal life, right?

I've never conceived God as being like a rock star.

I don't like Justin Beiber so I don't go to any of his concerts or listen to his music.
I do what I can to not live with him in my face.

But I can't get him out of circulation except to pray that one day he will be out of the public eye.

What aspect of your life has this "popular God" had the most impact and what can you do to effectuate change so you wont have to see him or listen to his music?

[Interbane]

Just to give an example of why if God exists he is ultimately the only one who has full understanding of what he intends to communicate.

So that we're clear, this means that any and every interpretation across history is justified. Due to the precise wording and knowing how each and every human to exist in the future would interpret each and every word. The wording was therefore intentional when it inspired the inquisition, the crusades, slavery, modern bigotry and hatred, etc.

The wording of the bible, without a doubt, could have excluded many things to prevent such interpretations. We have to question what sort of god would have inspired a book to contain words that are able to be interpreted in such ways. Don't we?

It's not true that it can be interpreted any way we want. A phrase can easily be worded in a way that expressly forbids certain interpretations. A book can be written(not easily) in a way that expressly forbids certain interpretations. Not only that, but an omnipotent god(if one existed) could inspire a book that did not allow for the inspiration of evil deeds. Appealing to both sin and free will does not undue this argument.

Evil men, if you think of men this way(being fallen) would have to look elsewhere for their inspiration. Would a rewritten bible have prevented their atrocities? I could make the argument that it would have. But that argument isn't necessary. If we can trace inspiration of an evil deed to the bible, and even understand how the "misinterpretation" is possible, then it is a fault of the wording every bit as much as it is a fault of the man.

[Interbane]

I was unaware that science had formally attempted to disprove God.

Science the person, or particular scientists? God, or a specifically defined god?

I'm speaking philosophically of specific definitions of god. I do believe they are proven false.

the most "popular version"?
you mean the version that has an impact on your personal life, right?

Why would I think of the popular version as the one that has the most impact on my life? The popular version refers to the definition of god most widely believed. Stop being daft. Rock star god... you have to really try to misunderstand me this badly.

Why post if you only do it to dodge?

[Flann 5]

So that we're clear, this means that any and every interpretation across history is justified. Due to the precise wording and knowing how each and every human to exist in the future would interpret each and every word. The wording was therefore intentional when it inspired the inquisition, the crusades, slavery, modern bigotry and hatred, etc.

The wording of the bible, without a doubt, could have excluded many things to prevent such interpretations. We have to question what sort of god would have inspired a book to contain words that are able to be interpreted in such ways. Don't we?

Some things are clearer than others. What is clear and Robert would agree with this is what the central message is. So commands to love your enemy,turn the other cheek, and forgiveness are abundant.So these very clear injunctions have to be rejected to launch Crusades,inquisitions etc.
Even good things can be used for evil and the proper location of evil is the hearts of perpetrators and not those things they use or abuse.
You would exculpate Darwin for eugenics and Nazi atrocities.But the teaching of Christ is contrary to murder and hatred.
I think you are correct to say that certain interpretations are viable or not viable and in most cases that is true.The differences amongst Christians show that this is not universally the case, and there are areas of legitimate differences in possible interpretation.
Just on your argument about science disproving divine authorship here's a debate between a creationist and a theistic evolutionist on interpreting Genesis.It's an intelligent debate.
Probably of little interest to most people as the Harris/Dennett debate on free will might be.
It might be dangerous to turn you into a theologian Interbane. I've heard the devil is an accomplished theologian too!
http://www.calvary-brighton.org.uk/2010 ... to-choose/