What are the main contradictions in the bible?

Great Debates
61

I suspect you’ve misunderstood me, Kaje. I didn’t say that a believer could not suspect God possesses the traditional omni attributes, I said they have no reason to suspect such, or even to suspect that a God may actually exist.

And I must say I’m puzzled by what appears in your comments to be an odd kind of metaphysical reversal. For one example, you write:

The attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are essential elements of the traditional view of God. The attributes come first, the consequences follow; that is, omniscience doesn’t follow from anything, things follow from omniscience.

These omni elements are inextricable from the Judeo-Christian view of God. They have formed the basis of the concept of the deity at least since the early theologians. Certainly by the time of Aquinas they were absolute givens.

Omnibenevolence has nothing to do with God bestowing us with morality. It is a logical limitation on the actions of the Almighty. God is – and must eternally remain – without sin. Since it would be a sin to commit or permit an action that is not the purest, most moral option available, God has no free will but to always exercise the single most moral alternative.

Ergo, God has no free will. He cannot choose to sin, and he must always select the single most moral option.

62

Jeez, Tracer, are you sure that wouldn’t be more appropriate for Ask Marilyn?

Actually it’s not that complicated, it’s just that the Bible is so poorly written it’s sometimes hard to follow. God may have been the author of the Bible, but apparently there wasn’t an editor.

Here’s how I figure it. There are two time lines here, one for kings of Israel and one for the kings of Judah. For Israel it goes like this: Jehoash dies and is succeeded by Jeroboam II (16). For Judah, Amaziah dies and is succeeded by Uzziah (17 & 21).

Amaziah began his reign 15 years before Jehoash died (23) and lived another 15 years after Jehoash died (17). So we can plot it like this with each dot representing a year:

0…15…30

0 - Amaziah becomes king of Judah
15 - Jehoash dies and Jeroboam II becomes king of Israel
30 - Amaziah dies and Uzziah becomes king of Judah

Hmmm… did that help at all?

Anyway, 2 Kings 15:1 says that Uzziah became king in the 27th year of Jeroboam II’s reign, not the 15th year.

To most of us that’s no big deal, but if God’s supposed to be so perfect, why can’t he do math?

63

I realize these are, in traditional Western religion, givens upon which all else is based. However, I’m trying to get out of this framework and show that its possible for these to exist independently of what western religions may think or say. As an agnostic, I’m willing to say that I have no idea if there is a God, and if there is, I have no way of knowing anything about him or understanding him. From this I won’t say I believe that a God would certainly have these characteristics, merely that if there were a God which created the universe, it could seem likely that he would be able to do whatever he wanted with it and know everything about about it. This is not to say that he would therefore do everything in his power to line himself up with our perception of “Good” or “benevolence” or “morality”. It is also possible that this God would have created our universe, set everything in motion, and then not bothered with it after that.

What you say about God and “the most moral option” obviously applies in a Judeo-Christian framework, but if you’re going to remove yourself from this and contemplate the possibility of God without this man-made limitation, there is no reason to think that a creator *must[i/] do anything at all, let alone only what WE call “moral”. Its quite possible, and probable at that, that sin was solely a human invention which has no relation to any creator of the universe.

64

I’m afraid I must disagree, Kaje. It doesn’t take much investigation of the universe to realize that it is replete with serious flaws. Hell, even our own bodies show the Rube Goldberg nature of evolution and natural selection.

If there ever was a creator or designer, it was clearly a bit of a bungler. Thus, either omnipotence never existed, or it was wielded by a slacker or a mean-spirited jerk with a lousy sense of humor.

65

Who says humans are the last stage? Of course we aren’t perfect and of course we have extra evolutionary baggage, but so what? I never said God sat down and formed the perfect being out of clay or any such thing. I highly doubt a God had anything special in mind for humans if he ever foresaw us coming. Of course WE think we’re hot shit, but so what? In another few million years there’ll be a bigger, better, badass much more sophisticated than us, and even today its not absurd to say there’s such a species existing on another planet somewhere out in the vast cosmos.

However that’s not my main point. I’m not arguing that a creator is involved at every instant or CARES what happens. If perhaps this creator cannot decipher the complex sub-atmomic actions and predict the future, its quite possible that it had no ultimate design in mind and just created the universe to BE and do shit for his amusement.

66

Note that I said the universe is irreparably flawed, not just humans.

As I said, your purported creator must be a slacker, inept, or mean-spirited. If such an entity as you describe created the universe, it clearly didn’t want us to think, believe or care that it ever existed.

But in any case, that has nothing to do with your original argument, which with respect I must point out is even more flawed than the universe. Your argument was that omnipotence, omniscience, etc., might exist or might have existed. The Rube Goldberg universe is compelling evidence that such a thing never existed. The poor “engineering” so plainly evident in the universe, which parallels the obvious happenstance evident in all living things, speaks clearly of random, thoughtless, capricious Nature, and certainly not any kind of creator.

67

If I might borrow some words from a man much more intelligent and observant than either of us:

I think there is definately a lack of randomness or thoughtlessness in this universe. Without sounding too cutesy, look at the little patterns in nature. The fibonacci arrangement of sunflower seeds on the flower. The majestic and enormous spirals of distant galaxies (and our own, I think). I mean shit, didn’t you watch PI? I’m not saying this couldn’t have come about by chance, but you have to at least be open to the possibility that it didn’t.

68

This same man also said

when confronted with the Uncertainty Principle. As it says on this page:

Einstein later admitted he was wrong:

69

So I was right! You are a deist or crypto-deist, and not an agnostic as you said earlier after all!

Einstein did NOT believe in any sort of God as most people think of the word. Einstein, like Hawking, uses the word “God” as another word for the completely naturalistic universe, almost akin to the pantheistic “God”, which to everyone else is just another synonym for atheism.

Want to play dueling quotes?

From http://www.korrnet.org/reality/rc/1998_summer/einstein.htm

*The son of irreligious (Jewish) parents, Albert Einstein came to a deep religiosity that ended abruptly at the age of 12. Through reading of popular scientific books, he concluded that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was an orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived. Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude “which has never left me.”

In his writings, there are well-known references to God and frequent discussions of religion. Although Einstein stated that he was religious and that he believed in God, it was in his own specialized sense that he used these terms. Many are aware that Einstein was not religious in the conventional sense, but it will come as a surprise to some to learn that he clearly identified himself as an atheist and as an agnostic

… Einstein wrote a letter stating his position as an atheist, in response to Ensign Guy H. Raner’s letter inquiring about his religious views. Four years later, Raner asked Einstein for further clarification (perhaps, he wondered, Einstein had meant, by “atheist,” a non-Catholic; e.g., an orthodox Jew, or a Deist). Einstein’s answer is given in a 2nd letter to Raner. He stated, “You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist.”*

The reason I point this out is only to reveal that your original quotation of Einstein is highly misleading, in that, as I said, Einstein uses the word “God” in his own peculiar naturalistic sense, and not in any mystical or supernatural sense.

But by far, the biggest flaw in your post is your resorting to the fallacious argument by authority. Einstein wasn’t omniscient, you know. His opinions on the unknowable are as valid – or invalid – as any other educated person’s.

With respect, Kaje, it appears to me that you are confusing a number of different issues. Random forces ROUTINELY produce amazing patterns, especially considering that patterns are in the eye of the beholder. Consider, just off the top of my head, the silly “face on Mars” flap a while back. Random processes shaped a rock formation into the appearance of a human face. But look how many people thought – and still think – that it was carved by Martians or other paranormal force. People just can’t help finding what they think are apparent patterns in random images.

Admittedly, beyond this there are more concrete patterns in nature. These are due to purely naturalistic random forces channeled through the non-random forces of physics, chemistry, and natural selection. Do you remember the old series Cosmos by Carl Sagan? Do you recall the story about the Japanese(?) crabs that were artificially selected by fishermen to the point where a great many of them wore the face of a samurai warrior on their backs? Natural selection can do the same kinds of things. No deist “creator” required!

And though there are clearly non-random patterns that have arrived through evolution, my original points about their NOT being any kind of intelligent “designer” stand. The universe is clearly too flawed for such a naive superstition!

I have no idea at all what PI is supposed to be. Could you clue me in? You’re not referring to that silly cult film Pi, are you??? There were so many mathematical, scientific, and theological flaws in that film it astounds me anyone could see it as anything more than a mildly interesting diversion, not to be taken seriously for a second.

For one thing, it misrepresents the cabalists. For another, there is no mathematics in nature; mathematics is an extremely useful analogy that helps we humans describe and predict nature, but mathematics simply has no existence whatsoever in the real world. It is a formal system with formal rules. It is purely the product of human minds. It is an a priori, analytic system. To imagine that mathematics can influence reality is the most ridiculous sort of tripe!

Finally, I never said the universe HAD to have come about purely by chance. What I said (for the third time?) is that if there were a creator, it was a bungler, a slacker, or a mean-spirited jerk.
And in any case, the universe as we see it is indistinguishable from one that evolved purely by random chance.

70

One more quote from Einstein which harks back to my original post:

71

Ah, but notice – Einstein didn’t capitalize “he” when referring to God! That must mean he’s a polytheist!!

(What with all the unintended layers of meaning that are getting read into Einstein’s theology, I might as well add one more, right?)

72

Ah, but my dear tracer, I thought you knew that Einstein was one of the “Invisible Superiors” of the Templars! Consequently, he kept the truth a secret, and thus whatever he said, we know it was a lie! All except for the cosmological constant, which he let slip out accidentally, only to desperately try later to unring the bell by claiming that it was his “greatest blunder”!

73

First off I still hold to my agnostic claim. Anything I presented was not as truth but as possibility. I quoted Einstein not as proof of of divine creation, but as an eloquent statement of the beauty of nature. I’ve argued in other threads that the only reason we see beauty in such things is because it is the only thing we know. If our minds have a longing for the aesthetic, we will come to accept at least something as such. Whether this aesthetic item is created by a God in any sense of the word or merely by randomness is not a question that anyone, and certainly no agnostic, could answer.

No.

Again, as an agnostic, I make no claim to be able to understand any act of any God that may or may not exist.

That was what I was referring to, but it wasn’t intended as a serious question.

Who said anything about influence? Reflect perhaps, but I’m not a math major so I don’t know. I do think there is more to the patterns we observe than we currently recognize. Does this mean that it’s all going to turn out to work by some perfect mathematical model? Again, I have no clue, but I think at some point we’ll at least go beneath the surface and find something.

I never said the universe HAD to have come about purely by intelligent design, but that there is that possibility. Just because that “designer” may or may not give a fuck about humans or our perception of nature or perfection doesn’t mean it couldn’t have existed.

I noticed you labelled yourself an agnostic in another threads (or was it this one?), and yet your argument hinges on humans somehow being able to comprehend the intentions or plans any creator might have had. But agnosticism, by definition, denies this.

And finally,

Says who?

74

Since when were we discussing the beauty of nature?

Perhaps. But there are purely scientific theories of human aesthetics that are quite compelling. No God required. You might want to look into evolutionary psychology to see for yourself.

I see. Surely you’re not suggesting that only your quotations are valid, are you? You portray Einstein as a believer, but I’m not allowed to make it clear that he was not? Besides, you are being disingenuous. You quoted Einstein, in your own words, “as a man much more intelligent and observant than either of us”. That is the classic argument from authority.

That’s also disingenuous, since you did pretty much just that in your earlier posts! Previously, you wrote: "I think there is definately a lack of randomness or thoughtlessness in this universe. " You also wrote, “I highly doubt a God had anything special in mind for humans if he ever foresaw us coming.” And in your most recent post, you write: “I do think there is more to the patterns we observe than we currently recognize.”

On what basis could you possibly think this if not some metaphysical or supernatural claim of special mystical insight? Now, that’s fine with me, but I think perhaps you should acknowledge the transcendental leanings that come through in your posts.

That wasn’t the issue! You argued that omnipotence could well have existed, to which I responded (now for the fourth time) that if there were a creator, it either wasn’t omnipotent or it was a blunderer, lazy, or malevolent. If you contend otherwise, you must solve the Problem of Evil.

Tell me exactly how the universe as we see it is distinguishable from a universe evolved from random chance. If you offer even one single potential example, you cannot be an agnostic, since by definition an agnostic holds that there is no evidence possible for God or the transcendent, the supernatural, or the metaphysical! By definition, an agnostic must hold that there is no possible way to distinguish the universe we experience from one that evolved from purely random chance.

75

I’ve indeed read on the subject and found it compelling. However just because it happens scientifically does not preclude some kind of intelligent original design. You seem to be stuck on the fact that in many of my posts I defend a theistic stance. I personally am not in the habit of posting when its only to agree (the classic “AMEN BROTHER” is not my style), instead I find Great Debates are more beneficial when both sides are presented.

See most of above comment.

As far as the pattern thing goes. What I was suggesting was not that we would surely find God under these patterns, but that we would find that there are deeper patterns lying beneath. This is not to say (for the second time now!) that the entire universe will end up being directed by a single mathematical model, but that perhaps there is more consistency than what we see on a superficial level.

I would only have to solve the “Problem of Evil” if I claimed that OUR morality was in any way related to any morality a God might have. In those same evolutionary psychology books you said I should read, it is quite easily explained (scientifically and without God!) how we could have come to our own conceptions of what is good and what is evil through evolution and natural selection alone. From a slightly less recent perspective, Nietzsche wrote extensively on the subject of where we could have gotten our current ideas of Good and Evil. He wrote entire books entitled “Beyond Good and Evil” and “Genealogy of Morals” solely devoted to this subject. So if a God didn’t have anything to do with man acquiring perspectives on good and evil, why would you expect that God to take a side? If God is completely removed from our “moral dilemma” (that is, WE invented it), then there is no reason to claim that he shouldn’t put things in this world which WE would see as evil. There is no reason why this creator could not be, as Nietzsche put it, “the supreme artist, amoral, recklessly creating and destroying, realizing himself indifferently in whatever he does or undoes” (italics mine). Does this prove my point? No. Does it offer one alternative to a God having anything to do with Good or Evil? Yes.

I can’t offer an example. However, how could anyone be expected to? This is the ONLY universe we know. If somebody grew up in a world where everything around him was black, would you ask him to give you an example of something that’s white? Similiarly, if somebody grew up on an island covered in nothing but sand, you couldn’t ask him to describe an island with trees and plants. However, you also couldn’t ask him to describe an island covered in nothing but purple cagthorps. This time it’s not because he hasn’t experiences the alternative, but because the alternative doesn’t exist. So the fact that I can’t describe a universe which is completely random and distinguishable from ours could be because one does not exist, but it could also be simply because we have only experienced one possibility.

76

Human beings have the ability to recognize patterns. This is what allows us to recognize faces, to notice the sequence of the seasons, to follow the trails of animals when hunting and so on. It’s a very useful trait. No one knows when we evolved this trait, but it’s reasonable to conclude that it gave our ancestors an advantage over those species that did not have this talent.

However, it’s not foolproof. It sometimes causes us to “see” patterns that don’t really exist, such as “faces” in rocks and clouds. Or constellations in the stars. There may not be any patterns at all. A snapshot of complex, randomly-acting forces may be just the illusion of a pattern.

77

That’s an interesting point. However, that’s not to say, for instance, that there is no pattern in the clouds. Somewhere beneath those fluffy poofs is an orderly demonstration of physics principles right? I mean we have CGI now that mimics clouds pretty well, so they must have figured out rudimentarily how to model such a structure that appears to not have mathematical consistency just on first glance, but still it does. The same for things like fire.

So now, given that we sometimes “misdiagnose” patterns, could there still be MORE to certain macroscopic occurances that we currently consider unpredictable? Obvious at the quantum level this breaks down, but given enough time, observations, and computing power, could we come up with mathematical models for at least more than we have now? I would think the answer is yes. This particular point doesn’t deal with theosophical issues, but its indeed intriguing (at least to me).

78

Kaje wrote:

This should not, however, be taken to mean that a cloud which looks like a bunny actually has a bunny in it.

79

Preclude? No. Reveal that any notion of “intelligent original design” on this issue is entirely irrelevant and meaningless? Yes! Putting aside the other semantic problems in your statement, science – by definition – assumes purely naturalistic causes. If there is a purely naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon that fits all the facts, then suggesting that it might have been intelligently designed adds NOTHING to the explanation! To do so is mystical and absurd, and violates Occam’s Razor.

This is just one more area where the universe we see is, as I said earlier, indistinguishable from one that evolved from pure, unthinking, unintelligent, random natural causes. What that means, Kaje, is that you cannot point to anything in the entire universe and say, “See? THAT couldn’t be the result of unthinking natural causes!” There is nothing at all for which you could make that claim without recourse to mystical, supernatural, metaphysical, or transcendent beliefs.

It is akin to the situation with pantheism. For pantheists to say that God and the Universe are identical tells us NOTHING about God -OR- the Universe! It is an empty, meaningless concept. Just like intelligent design is an empty, meaningless concept without compelling evidence of something that exists in the universe that cannot be explained by random (i.e., unguided) naturalistic causes.

Those Christians (and others) who have recently been taking up the banner of Intelligent Design know this very well. You should consider their example, for they have thought the matter through more carefully than you appear to have. They point to physical phenomena that they insist cannot be explained by purely naturalistic causes, and they point out that an intelligent designer is the only other explanation. If – and only if – they can actually identify something in the universe that cannot be explained as the result of purely unthinking, unplanned, mindlessly random natural forces, then an intelligent designer has been proved!

It thus follows logically and inevitably that if you think that there’s anything in the universe that cannot be explained as the result of purely unthinking, mindless, natural forces, you are NOT an agnostic! To call oneself an agnostic does NOT mean that one is not SURE if there is a God or not. It means that one acknowledges that there’s absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY to guess, or suspect, tell, or know if there’s any such thing as God, the supernatural, or the transcendent, since these concepts represent notions that are beyond all empirical tests. An agnostic says that, if there is a God, it has left us no possible way to even guess that from the empirical universe.

Thank you for finally coming clean with us! But IF, as you somewhat disingenuously suggest later, you’re claiming that you went to such lengths to defend a position you don’t hold, permit me to express my extreme skepticism…

How can you expect us to believe such a thing when you wrote, “I think there is definately a lack of randomness or thoughtlessness in this universe,” and “I highly doubt a God had anything special in mind for humans if he ever foresaw us coming,” and “I do think there is more to the patterns we observe than we currently recognize”??

If it is your honest desire to defend someone else’s viewpoint, may I suggest using forms such as: “Some people think that…”?

I well realized this. But it is no answer to my objection. To suggest that there is anything “deeper” that lay behind such patterns is to propose a mystical, transcendent realm. It is an act of faith. What is, is. To propose that deeper meaning lies behind the empirical universe is incompatible with agnosticism.

Second time? Never mind… Again, your response is besides the point. If what you mean is that science may one day establish that Nature is more subtle than we today imagine, that is entirely obvious. Take string theory, for example. If instead you are suggesting (as you did previously) that a “deeper” realm lies behind the blind, unthinking, unreasoning Universe, you are talking as a mystic and NOT as an agnostic.

Nonsense. The Problem of Evil isn’t about God’s morality, it is about why phenomena like arbitrary pain and suffering exist in a universe purportedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient being. Clearly, the only possible answers are that this creator was either inept, lazy, or malevolent (or any combination thereof)!

By the way, I am familiar with Nietzsche’s works. Your paragraph was made mostly moot by the fact he was an atheist. Morality was of central importance to him only because of the non-existence of God or any other mystical, metaphysical, transcendent source of moral knowledge. If he were of a mystical predisposition like the view you are representing, he wouldn’t have had to struggle with the issue to find what he thought was a purely naturalistic ethic!

Theists do! Mystics do! Supernaturalists do! More importantly, YOU DID! You wrote, “I think there is definately a lack of randomness or thoughtlessness in this universe,” and “I do think there is more to the patterns we observe than we currently recognize”

The rest of your reply is quite besides the point. I did not ask you to compare theoretical universes! I asked you to point to something in this universe that cannot be the result of purely blind, unthinking, naturalistic causes. As in my earlier example of pantheism, if there is nothing you can point to that cannot be explained by blind natural forces, why posit a creator?

To conclude: an agnostic acknowledges that it is epistemologically impossible to know anything at all about God, gods, mysticism, or any other transcendental notions, since these things leave no evidence at all in the actual empirical universe. Your position – or, if you insist – the position you have been defending is NOT agnosticism, it is some kind of mystical theism.

80

Occam’s razor is a useful tool for making decisions, but not an unbreakable scientific law. There are situations in which the answer involves more “forces” than are necessary.

Only the first statement there could be used as an argument, and even then not an airtight one, if you’re out to “prove” I’m not agnostic. That lack of randomness need not necessarily be only explainable by a deity. My second statement was hypothetical. IF there was a God AND he somehow foresaw humans coming, “I highly doubt” he “had anything special in mind”. Did you misinterpret that to “The God that I know exists does not have anything special in mind for humans”? I certainly hope not. My third statement about the patterns… I’m getting tired of explaining this. I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING MYSTICAL LIES UNDERNEATH THESE PATTERNS. You later ask “If what you mean is that science may one day establish that Nature is more subtle than we today imagine, that is entirely obvious.” This is what I’ve been saying, and I appologize if I did not put in the words you would have preferred.

It humors me how closely your supposition here resembles the classic Christian “trilemma”. And like the trilemma, there are more possibilities than the ones you propose. Perhaps you should read what I say more carefully, because in this respect I am arguing that any God that might exist could very well have nothing to do with what humanity view as good and bad! Arbitrary pain and suffering… assuming that the invidual is important (which is an assumption), who is to say whether pain and suffering are good or bad? Yes, in our ideas of good and bad that stem from natural selection would state that pain is something to avoid. Perhaps the individual doesn’t matter at all. “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, again Nietzsche. What about that which kills us? Perhaps death is desirable, much like the Buddhist nirvana in which one escapes the mortal cycle of karma and reincarnation, perhaps death is what we we want to acheive. Are these all strange suggestions? Of course they are. But my point is that ANYTHING we think is GOOD or BAD is ARBITRARY and HUMAN, nothing more. Is there anything with is not arbitrary and not human? Who knows? But these certainly are, and given that, there is no reason to think any Deity that does or does not exist, clearly tangible or clearly unknown and unknowable, would be on either side of our own human-created “problem of evil”. One of Nietzsche’s major purposes, I think, in writing the Birth of Tragedy, is to suggest an example of a worldview that in no way involves good or evil, or even two items which can be clearly viewed as desirable and undesirable. Again in his later works, he seeks to make us think about what we’ve “accepted” in this world to be true. He asks us to question whether there is a necessary dichotomy between what we desire and what we despise. If there is not, then for what reason would we suspect a God was involved, by direct action or inaction (by failing to stop ‘evil from occuring’)? If a God was not involved, then we cannot state the existence of “evil” or “bad” as proof of a God’s possible intentions, motives, or nonexistence.

Finally, do NOT tell me what my motives are and what my perspective is. You might find that when arguing a point, putting yourself in someone else’s shoes can make a considerable difference. I have argued from the perspective of a “hard atheist”, from that of a denominational believer, from that of a skeptical believer, from that of an agnostic, as well as others. As I’ve stated before, there is no point to two people patting themselves on the back in a discussion. If one can come up with contrasting points, the argument can become interesting. You have a very singular perspective, and as a result my responses to your questions in this and other threads often reflects a very singular opposition. If you don’t desire to see how my arguments might make some sense, that’s fine, I’m not going to force you to be open to possibilities, but don’t attack me and certainly don’t assume you know what I’m thinking or what I believe.