The Tower of Babel -- History or Myth? Put your thinking caps on, guys and gals

Started by eyeshaveit, July 22, 2022, 10:40:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shnozzola

QuoteFirst vaccines here were from china. All those people who got those had to get a whole new course because of low antibodies. So they had to get 3 more on top of the first 2...

China has a big hole to climb out of if they stick to their weak @ss meds.

Yeah 8, the world and its political nationalistic power hunger warmongering and hatred is so sickening and tiring.  We have impossibly long to go until everyone stops the nonsense and shares what works with everyone.  Dream on socialistic shnoz. 
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

Quote from: Shnozzola on July 31, 2022, 01:12:11 AM
QuoteFirst vaccines here were from china. All those people who got those had to get a whole new course because of low antibodies. So they had to get 3 more on top of the first 2...

China has a big hole to climb out of if they stick to their weak @ss meds.

Yeah 8, the world and its political nationalistic power hunger warmongering and hatred is so sickening and tiring.  We have impossibly long to go until everyone stops the nonsense and shares what works with everyone.  Dream on socialistic shnoz.

Right

It's been so tough for so many people who haven't gotten on with their lives for 2 freakin years. 

The numbers are there already. It shouldn't be about politics or pride anymore...

I can't imagine how it is for the chinese people who not only were fed poor meds, they're also being made to pay for their govts mistake with the toughest lockdown policy on earth. 

kevin

china has always had a totalitarian government.

for 3000 years.

its nothing new.
dare to know.

8livesleft

Quote from: kevin on July 31, 2022, 01:51:02 AMchina has always had a totalitarian government.

for 3000 years.

its nothing new.

Yeah. This is just the latest in a long list of bs their people have to put up with. All 1.4 billion of them. 

eyeshaveit

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

Tis often said that truth is stranger than fiction.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

8livesleft

Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 31, 2022, 07:54:23 AM
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

Tis often said that truth is stranger than fiction.

Well it's different if we can observe the weirdness today vs something people wrote about that happened at just one certain point in time. 

maritime

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

For instance...?
North Star Polaris Sept 26, 2021 photo by JE

Kiahanie

Quote from: maritime on July 31, 2022, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

For instance...?

Quote from: wikipedisMethuselah 969
Jared 962
Noah 950
Adam 930
Seth 912
Kenan 910
Enos 905
Mahalalel 895
Lamech 777
Shem 600
Eber 464
Cainan 460
Arpachshad 438
Salah 433
Enoch 365
Peleg 239
Reu 239
Serug 230
Job 210?
Terah 205
Isaac 180
Abraham 175
Nahor 148

And the list goes on.....
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Francis

Genesis was not written in 21st century English, so logic and the discipline of translation studies, suggests that we should be asking what do the words mean in the language and culture in which they were written?  Sounds fair and reasonable, doesn't it?

Indeed, we've had discussions in here about how words and languages in Hebrew don't always translate into the same meaning in English words. Here is just a short list.  (a) FAITH was one word we've discussed.  (b) SLAVERY was another word.  (c) YOM or day was another word.  (d) God's jealousy is another words  (e) The slaughter of all the Canaanites was obviously a common hyperbole military language used even in the ancient near Eastern cultures surrounding Israel, to mean winning a war and was not literal.  Even the Jews didn't take it as being literal.

And that's just a short list. 

Here are just a couple of more things to consider, out of many other considerations... when we read Genesis:

1)... I cited in my other post, the fact that "a literalist reading of the Book of Genesis is rare in Judaism".  So why should we take 8livesleft statement seriously when he said: "They have rulers living hundreds of years for example"?


2)... Other cultures did the same thing for their own kings.  For example, we have the "Sumerian King List", which is not Jewish or Hebrew... but an entirely different culture (as I understand)... about their own kings reigning for impossible number of years... like Alulim who ruled for 28,000 years. 

This seems to be obvious hyperbole language, as we've seen being used in ancient near Eastern cultures at that time.


3)... The documents of the different versions of Genesis that are still in existence today (extant)... have huge differences in time spans between Adam's creation and Noah's flood... like between the Masoretic versions and the Greek or Septuagint versions for example.

4)... How do we know that the names listed in Kiahanie's list are literal individuals? I think it is more reasonable and plausible that the names are referring to entire families, races, or tribes. Why can't for example, some of the names be simply no more than names of an exceptional individual within that group... that are then given to represent certain families or races or tribes, etc?



Anyway, I just offer the above partial list of things to consider when we read 8livesleft's ridicule: Something goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.'

Before we poke fun at and/or ridicule how another person or society or country speaks, I invite you to read https://expresswriters.com/34-craziest-words-english/

Take care

kevin

Quote from: Francis on July 31, 2022, 12:22:14 AM
Quote from: kevin on July 31, 2022, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: kevin on July 31, 2022, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: Francis on July 30, 2022, 11:16:24 PMTHIS IS IN REPLY TO POST #106 FROM KEVIN.

Kevin, how are you?


sick with covid, but recovering. thank you.

my blood oxygen has gone from 94 to 98, so im on the mend.

stay away from covid.


Glad you are  recovering!!! 

I had covid once, and I was not immunized at the time.  My doctor told me later, (he wouldn't tell me at time of my diagnosis).. after I had finally  recovered... that he didn't think I was going to live through it because I had so much going against me... my age, being a male, and because of my prior health conditions, etc.

I was so sick.  Incredible.  But luckily I didn't have to go to the hospital and be put on oxygen, etc.  As for my blood oxygen at the time, it was down to 92.

I lost some good friends... people who were healthier than me at the time they got covid.  Still can't figure it all out.

After I  recovered, the doctor said my getting covid acted as an immunization shot so I didn't need to get a shot.  But enough time has elapsed, and so I think I will get the shot.  Which one do you  recommend?

As for the rest of your post, I will respond later, Have to get back home.

Take care

people here still dont believe it. my boss doesnt think its anything more than a cold, in spite of his wife getting t twice. when i told one of our drivers to stay back because i was infectious, he just shook his head and ignred what i said. go figure.

get any shot you can, of ny kind. moderna's is the one that has been most trouble-free that i knopw o, but merely getting inoculated is the key. whatever is available, then get boosted after a while. dont wait for some promised better variety later one. do what you can now.
dare to know.

8livesleft

Quote4)... How do we know that the names listed in Kiahanie's list are literal individuals? I think it is more reasonable and plausible that the names are referring to entire families, races, or tribes. Why can't for example, some of the names be simply no more than names of an exceptional individual within that group... that are then given to represent certain families or races or tribes, etc?


This is reasonable or something  like how royal families or even popes take on their predecessor's names, except they probably didn't do the numbers thing like the modern families: Henry VIII etc...

So it could be multiple generations of people taking on the name.

It's also possible that instead of leaving that time gap blank, they simply put it under the rulership of the predecessor. I can imagine record keeping wasn'tvery good and simply improved over time since the lifespans seemingly decreased gradually.

kevin

Quote from: Francis on August 01, 2022, 12:11:49 AM3)... The documents of the different versions of Genesis that are still in existence today (extant)... have huge differences in time spans between Adam's creation and Noah's flood... like between the Masoretic versions and the Greek or Septuagint versions for example.


i didnt knw this. do you have any references?
dare to know.

Francis

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 12:50:55 AM
Quote from: Francis on August 01, 2022, 12:11:49 AM3)... The documents of the different versions of Genesis that are still in existence today (extant)... have huge differences in time spans between Adam's creation and Noah's flood... like between the Masoretic versions and the Greek or Septuagint versions for example.


i didnt knw this. do you have any references?

It's from a book: "John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1962)".   But I will see if I can find the equivalent material online for you.

maritime

Quote from: maritime on July 31, 2022, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

For instance...?

8livesleft referred to rulers - to my mind that would be kings.
Kiahanie's list is part of an account of a family line.
Is it goofy? 8livesleft thinks so.
North Star Polaris Sept 26, 2021 photo by JE

8livesleft

Quote from: maritime on August 01, 2022, 04:31:43 AM
Quote from: maritime on July 31, 2022, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

For instance...?

8livesleft referred to rulers - to my mind that would be kings.
Kiahanie's list is part of an account of a family line.
Is it goofy? 8livesleft thinks so.

Rulers or leaders or just people. Doesn't matter. It's their age that I find goofy.

Even the sumerian account is goofy. 20,000 years really?

maritime

QuoteI can imagine record keeping wasn't very good and simply improved over time since the lifespans seemingly decreased gradually.

I think you're wrong to imagine intellectual weakness.
North Star Polaris Sept 26, 2021 photo by JE

8livesleft

Quote from: maritime on August 01, 2022, 04:39:23 AM
QuoteI can imagine record keeping wasn't very good and simply improved over time since the lifespans seemingly decreased gradually.

I think you're wrong to imagine intellectual weakness.

Where in that statement did I mention anything about "intellectual weakness?"

maritime

"Record keeping wasn't very good."
Goofy was how you put it also.
Intellectually weak, I gather, from your statement here and other references you make to knowledge from the past that is not up to today's (read, your) standards. As if true understanding is a now thing and not a then thing.

QuoteSynonyms & Antonyms for goofy
Synonyms
birdbrained, ditzy (or ditsy), dizzy, featherbrained, flighty, frivolous, frothy, futile, giddy, harebrained, light-headed, light-minded, puerile, scatterbrained, silly, yeasty

Antonyms
earnest, serious, serious-minded, sober, unfrivolous
North Star Polaris Sept 26, 2021 photo by JE

8livesleft

Quote from: maritime on August 01, 2022, 05:24:35 AM"Record keeping wasn't very good."
Goofy was how you put it also.
Intellectually weak, I gather, from your statement here and other references you make to knowledge from the past that is not up to today's (read, your) standards. As if true understanding is a now thing and not a then thing.

QuoteSynonyms & Antonyms for goofy
Synonyms
birdbrained, ditzy (or ditsy), dizzy, featherbrained, flighty, frivolous, frothy, futile, giddy, harebrained, light-headed, light-minded, puerile, scatterbrained, silly, yeasty

Antonyms
earnest, serious, serious-minded, sober, unfrivolous

So, again, not necessarily meaning "intellectually weak."

Poor records keeping could be due to any non mentally related issue like losing records because of war like what happened here, for example...

Anyway, on the dating or time ranges. On the one hand you have everything being made in 6 days, or some sorta interpretation for 6000 years, then add near centuries old humans, the whole 40 days, 40 years thing etc... with no real basis for any of those things.

Seems like a literary device to come up with a vague system for the passage of time. Anything goes = goofy.

eyeshaveit

#139
Quote from: 8livesleft on August 01, 2022, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: maritime on August 01, 2022, 05:24:35 AM"Record keeping wasn't very good."
Goofy was how you put it also.
Intellectually weak, I gather, from your statement here and other references you make to knowledge from the past that is not up to today's (read, your) standards. As if true understanding is a now thing and not a then thing.

QuoteSynonyms & Antonyms for goofy
Synonyms
birdbrained, ditzy (or ditsy), dizzy, featherbrained, flighty, frivolous, frothy, futile, giddy, harebrained, light-headed, light-minded, puerile, scatterbrained, silly, yeasty

Antonyms
earnest, serious, serious-minded, sober, unfrivolous

So, again, not necessarily meaning "intellectually weak."

Poor records keeping could be due to any non mentally related issue like losing records because of war like what happened here, for example...

Anyway, on the dating or time ranges. On the one hand you have everything being made in 6 days, or some sorta interpretation for 6000 years, then add near centuries old humans, the whole 40 days, 40 years thing etc... with no real basis for any of those things.

Either the God of the Bible created the Heavens and Earth or he didn't. If he did so astronomers tell us that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (and counting) out there. All those stars and the utter vastness of space and things like dark matter and yet we would quibble with God and demand to know how he created space, time, matter and life in just six 24-hour days? And the how and why of the Garden of Eden account of perfection and degradation resulting in gradually lower life spans -- with God finally setting a cutoff limit -- this too is quibble bait?. 

Puny man! Frail as his breath! - Isaiah 2.

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. - Genesis 6.

And if there is another creator or creation process how are these more the things of settled science than the biblical 6 days of creation, etc.? Of course they are no such thing -- in reality they are propaganda devices constructed to repudiate God. 

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

8livesleft

Quote from: eyeshaveit on August 01, 2022, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: 8livesleft on August 01, 2022, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: maritime on August 01, 2022, 05:24:35 AM"Record keeping wasn't very good."
Goofy was how you put it also.
Intellectually weak, I gather, from your statement here and other references you make to knowledge from the past that is not up to today's (read, your) standards. As if true understanding is a now thing and not a then thing.

QuoteSynonyms & Antonyms for goofy
Synonyms
birdbrained, ditzy (or ditsy), dizzy, featherbrained, flighty, frivolous, frothy, futile, giddy, harebrained, light-headed, light-minded, puerile, scatterbrained, silly, yeasty

Antonyms
earnest, serious, serious-minded, sober, unfrivolous

So, again, not necessarily meaning "intellectually weak."

Poor records keeping could be due to any non mentally related issue like losing records because of war like what happened here, for example...

Anyway, on the dating or time ranges. On the one hand you have everything being made in 6 days, or some sorta interpretation for 6000 years, then add near centuries old humans, the whole 40 days, 40 years thing etc... with no real basis for any of those things.

Either the God of the Bible created the Heavens and Earth or he didn't. If he did so astronomers tell us that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 billion stars (and counting) out there. All those stars and the utter vastness of space and things like dark matter and yet we would quibble with God and demand to know how he created space, time, matter and life in just six 24-hour days? And the how and why of the Garden of Eden account of perfection and degradation resulting in gradually lower life spans -- with God finally setting a cutoff limit -- this too is quibble bait?. 

Puny man! Frail as his breath! - Isaiah 2.

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. - Genesis 6.

And if there is another creator or creation process how are these more the things of settled science than the biblical 6 days of creation, etc.? Of course they are no such thing -- in reality they are propaganda devices constructed to repudiate God. 



God didn't write the bible. People did. It's clear that, being supernatural and supposedly beyond objective/verifiable reality, that god cannot be experienced by conventional means and so I question the writers who allege all manner of things that have never been experienced today.




Francis

Quote from: 8livesleft on August 01, 2022, 04:35:11 AM
Quote from: maritime on August 01, 2022, 04:31:43 AM
Quote from: maritime on July 31, 2022, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 30, 2022, 11:49:30 PMSomething goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example.

For instance...?

8livesleft referred to rulers - to my mind that would be kings.
Kiahanie's list is part of an account of a family line.
Is it goofy? 8livesleft thinks so.

Rulers or leaders or just people. Doesn't matter. It's their age that I find goofy.

Even the sumerian account is goofy. 20,000 years really?

Only if the text are to be taken literally.  But there is no intellectual reason to think that it should be taken literally. None.  Prove that Genesis and the list is talking about real individuals that lived that long.  If you can't, then you have no reason to think that the list is to be taken literally as representing real individuals living that long.

Francis

Quote from: 8livesleft on August 01, 2022, 08:36:10 AMAnyway, on the dating or time ranges. On the one hand you have everything being made in 6 days, or some sorta interpretation for 6000 years, then add near centuries old humans, the whole 40 days, 40 years thing etc... with no real basis for any of those things.

Exactly, there is no basis for thinking that time lengths in the Genesis text is to taken literally... and that is why must Jews and most Christians are not young earthers.  The polls shows that only 1 in 10 Christians and Americans are young earthers.

So when you call into question theism... specifically Christianity... and the Genesis text... based on a small minority subset of a large group of people that do not represent the majority, you do yourself great disservice.

Should I call into question the veracity of atheism/atheists as a whole... based on a small minority segment of atheists who do great harm to humanity?  Of course not.

kevin

thats a slippery slope, francis.

if theres no need to accept that genesis is talking about literal historical figures and dates, then theres no need to accept anything else in scripture as literal, including the existence of yaweh, jesus christ, or the fundamenal tenents of either judaism or christianity.

if one decides to reject some but not all of jewish and christian scripture as historically factual, then one is faced with the problem of establishing a way to tell which parts are factual and which are not.

thats a difficult and complicated procedure. how would you address it?
dare to know.

Francis


No one claims that God is beyond objective/verifiable reality.  Even Kevin admits this.  The issue is  that what can be objectively verified for one individual, may not always be repeated for another person.  But that doesn't make an experience less real or not based in reality.

Science itself is beyond objective/verifiable reality if science itself is the only way to objectively verify reality.  It can't prove or verify itself without arguing in circles.  The same with objective morals and beauty and math and abstract symbols and logic, etc.... as well as most of history ... since history itself is based on events that can't be repeated and are based on sources that can't be independently verified because no one can interview the sources.

You can't even objectively verify that you have any free will, nor that you are a real person and not an avatar on the laptop belonging to space alien... nor that you are nothing more than a brain in a vat.

But to think that there is no evidence for God's existence... is in my view... the height of hubris.

Hope you are doing well

Francis

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMthats a slippery slope, francis. if theres no need to accept that genesis is talking about literal historical figures and dates, then theres no need to accept anything else in scripture as literal, including the existence of yaweh, jesus christ, or the fundamenal tenents of either judaism or christianity.

I disagree... I think you are committing a non sequitur. 

I chose a VERY SPECIFIC portion of text... and confined myself to that portion... and challenged anyone in here to show how that  VERY SPECIFIC portion of text was to be taken literally.   We must not commit the logical fallacy of making hasty sweeping generalizations by painting with a broad stroke.
   
We must use our brains and do what scholars and thinkers do... and that is to use logic and facts and objective criteria and common sense discernment, etc... to determine what is to be taken literal or not because the bible is filled with different types of writing and literary styles:  poetry and proverbs and wisdom sayings and historical narratives and personal correspondences and prophecy and legends and hyperbole language and law/statutory language and Genealogies, etc. etc

For example, does anyone seriously think the Bible is being literal when it describes God has having wings or Jesus as being a door?

And so as impartial thinkers,  we need to recognize that fact and judge each case on it's own evidentiary logical and historical merits.

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMif theres no need to accept that genesis is talking about literal historical figures and dates, then theres no need to accept anything else in scripture as literal, including the existence of yaweh, jesus christ, or the fundamenal tenents of either judaism or christianity.

I think you are creating a strawman. I confined myself to a very specific part of Genesis... and so I never made a sweeping general language about all of Genesis or about all the historical figures and dates.


Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMif one decides to reject some but not all of jewish and christian scripture as historically factual, then one is faced with the problem of establishing a way to tell which parts are factual and which are not.

??? Historians do this all the time!  You can't be unaware that there is lot of legendary stuff and "miracles" and other stuff written about many other famous ancient figures that historians weed through and reject as historical.

We should do what historians and scientists do.



Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMthats a difficult and complicated procedure. how would you address it?

Yes it is... all the more reason not to make sweeping hasty generalizations and not paint with a broad stroke and to at the very least... if this bothers you... do what historians and scientists already do.

God Bless you sir


kevin

i dont "admit" that god is within objective/verifiable reality, francis.

that god should be verifiable is something i have actively asserted for many years. then i notice that people cannot do it.

what i then notice is that there is a great deal of assertion  that the existence of god has been proven or is obvious without a great deal of proof or obviousness  being around to support it.

theres as much evidence for the existence of god as there is for the existence of the loch ness monster.

its tbe proof derived from the evidence that is always lacking.

dare to know.

kevin

Quote from: Francis on August 01, 2022, 02:58:35 PM
Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMthats a slippery slope, francis.

if theres no need to accept that genesis is talking about literal historical figures and dates, then theres no need to accept anything else in scripture as literal, including the existence of yaweh, jesus christ, or the fundamenal tenents of either judaism or christianity.

if one decides to reject some but not all of jewish and christian scripture as historically factual, then one is faced with the problem of establishing a way to tell which parts are factual and which are not.

thats a difficult and complicated procedure. how would you address it?


I disagree... I think you are committing a non sequitur. 

I chose a VERY SPECIFIC portion of text... and confined myself to that portion... and challenged anyone in here to show how that  VERY SPECIFIC portion of text was to be taken literally.   We must not commit the logical fallacy of making hasty sweeping generalizations by painting with a broad stroke.
   
We must use our brains and do what scholars and thinkers do... and that is to use logic and facts and objective criteria and common sense discernment, etc... to determine what is to be taken literal or not because the bible is filled with different types of writing and literary styles:  poetry and proverbs and wisdom sayings and historical narratives and personal correspondences and prophecy and legends and hyperbole language and law/statutory language and Genealogies, etc. etc

And so as impartial thinkers,  we need to recognize that fact and judge each case on it's own evidentiary logical and historical merits.

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PM
if theres no need to accept that genesis is talking about literal historical figures and dates, then theres no need to accept anything else in scripture as literal, including the existence of yaweh, jesus christ, or the fundamenal tenents of either judaism or christianity.

I think you are creating a strawman. I confined myself to a very specific part of Genesis... and so I never made a sweeping general language about all of Genesis or about all the historical figures and dates.




Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMif one decides to reject some but not all of jewish and christian scripture as historically factual, then one is faced with the problem of establishing a way to tell which parts are factual and which are not.

??? Historians do this all the time!  You can't be unaware that there is lot of legendary stuff and "miracles" and other stuff written about many other famous ancient figures that historians weed through and reject as historical.[/font][/size][/color]

We should do what historians and scientists do.



Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 02:28:06 PMthats a difficult and complicated procedure. how would you address it?

Yes it is... all the more reason not to make sweeping hasty generalizations and not paint with a broad stroke.

God Bless you sir




I apologize for the capitalizations  not sure what happened and how to fix it


sure, francis.

which parts of scripture prove tbat yaweh is not mythology?

dont worry abiut firmat. if yiu can put up with my typoes i can put up with your capitalization.
dare to know.

maritime

Well, in looking, perhaps I had it backwards, turned around.
To dismiss, to disparage, without really knowing, that would be intellectual weakness. To look and assume, to imagine record keeping was not very good, without batting an eyelash (?), in a blink of an eye (?).
North Star Polaris Sept 26, 2021 photo by JE

Francis

Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 03:03:35 PMi dont "admit" that god is within objective/verifiable reality, francis.

I was pointing to the fact that you've experienced things which you were sure was something from God or something spiritual. you even keep mentioning a friend you have which experienced something that you believe him when he narrates it as being from God.  You may have changed your opinion about what the experiences  you've had, meant to you personally, but you don't reject that the experience you had was real. 

Well... there are many people... in the bible... and today (I'm one of millions) that has had experiences that the best explanation for it, was that it came from God.  It's called a born again experience.  You may not have experienced that, but it is real nonetheless... and VERY LOGICAL AND REASONABLE and which is why such spiritual experiences are called properly basic beliefs.

But to try and verify a spiritual experience... or even God... by using "measurements" and "criteria" and science... which only apply to material objects, is simply a category fallacy.  Nothing more, nothing less.


Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 03:03:35 PMthat god should be verifiable is something i have actively asserted for many years. then i notice that people cannot do it.

Because you are committing a category fallacy.  You keep wanting to use the WRONG tools for the job.  You don't use a microscope or a physical yardstick to determine beauty or morals or history or logic or spiritual experiences, etc.

You can't even verify that science is scientific, nor can you verify the very principles that science relies on and is founded on.  And you can't verify that George Washington or Socrates or Alexander the Great are real people, by using science.  You have to rely on and trust the testimony of people you can't even interview... and none of history can be repeated.

Does that history or Washington or science or 1st principles (which by definition can't be proven objectively true) or less true or less part of reality?  No.



Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 03:03:35 PMwhat i then notice is that there is a great deal of assertion  that the existence of god has been proven or is obvious without a great deal of proof or obviousness  being around to support it.

You can't even prove that you exist, so why would anyone say that the existence of God is proven?

And I don't of anyone (among the many people I know and associate with and read) who says that God is obvious without a great deal of proof to support it.

You might have a different threshold as to what you will PERSONALLY  accept as evidence and proof for the existence of God, but  that only  reveals your PERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY and tells us nothing about whether the case for God's existence itself is a better and more reasonable inference from the facts and evidences that is available to all of us.

God can show up to a person and show that He is just as real as a rock, and yet that person can still reject God's existence.  You are talking about personal psychology and nothing more.



Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 03:03:35 PMtheres as much evidence for the existence of god as there is for the existence of the loch ness monster.


I respectfully submit that you don't know what the case for the loch ness monster is, nor what the case for God's existence is.  You are just revealing your personal psychology and bias.



Quote from: kevin on August 01, 2022, 03:03:35 PMits tbe proof derived from the evidence that is always lacking.

Proof is whatever a person will BELIEVE is the best conclusion from the evidence they are presented with.  Evidence is a matter of objective truth whereas proof is in the mind of the evaluator.

You don't have to go far to notice that many people will resist a truth (if they don't like the truth) in spite of the evidence.  We've all met people like that.

So along that fact... I never tell anyone that I can prove that God exists (no one can prove or disprove that God exists) or prove the reliability of the NT... instead I tell them I will be glad to to share the evidence that convinced me that God exists and that the Bible is reliable.

God Bless you sir