Ever hear of ALLEGORY?? No serious religious scholar suggests Genesis was intended to be read literally. Some fundamentalists might choose to still expound that point, but they sound as looney as Gordon when he goes off on one his fanatical tirades expousing his irrational hatred for religion and his desire to shove his own personal belief system down everyone else's throats.
I think the allegorical interpretations became popular mainly after scientific discoveries/ideas showed that a literal reading was impossible.
Arch: >No serious religious scholar suggests Genesis was >intended to be read literally. ROFLAO...and I suppose YOU decide who is "serious" and who isn't. There are countless respected scholars who take Genesis to be absolutely literal. Roberk: >I think the allegorical interpretations became popular mainly >after scientific discoveries/ideas showed that a literal >reading was impossible. The story of Noah's ark being touched on in a neighboring thread is a perfect example of the conflicts of reality and bible stories crashing head on. The story of Noah is one that really sealed the deal for me when it came to considering the bible an inspired or even accurate historical document. It can't be avoided that if the flood occurred as written, either: A: Noah managed to include tens of thousands of pairs of species in a space impossibly small and impossibly staffed for maintenance. B: rampant cross species evolution occured in a relatively short time since then. I find both options beyond unlikely. JB
The Theist claim that man was created from dirt is news to you? Genesis 2:7 " then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. " The above is King James, but I highly doubt you'll find any version without this fairy tale in Genesis 2:7.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You think that's a conclusion with no possible refutation? My God, Gekko - surely you are not that dumb. Then again.... -[M]
I am left speechless at the high quality of argument set forth here. Especially when you go on to solidify it with "fishtank theory". (snicker).... Dawkins should have consulted you, sage Gekko, before he took up writing books. If he had, he could have demolished 2000 years of rigid, dogmatic christindom with this gem of insight: "'although i don't like to say i KNOW there is no god, there really just is not!!" Truly faith shattering. -[M]
As a christian, I fully admit that the existence of God can't be proven. It's impossible. But that's not because God doesn't exist, but because the vantage point that logic and science afford us isn't broad enough to encompass all the available data. And that is where the atheist philosophy cheats itself: in its attempt to use a system by which truth can be established, it only establishes that the truth remains hidden due to the limitations in that system. Then, atheists claim this limitation (lack of evidence) actually constitutes a proof. It's like a man with tunnel vision running around telling the rest of the world that peripheral vision is a delusion. Like I said, I am a christian. But I'm also a man of reason and logic. So I see the futility in expecting my 'testimony' to have any significant impact on a skeptic. I might as well be trying to convince him that Vanilla icecream is better than chocolate just because that's been my personal experiance. Therefore, I use reason and inference in discussing these matters. With that being said, I find a number of flaws in the atheist system that render it illogical at best.
Many if not most christians would disagree with you. Jesus is supposed to have proven God's existence. Bearing witness (whatever that is supposed to mean) to jesus is usually absolute proof - to those who call themselves genuinely christian - that God exists. Many christians would say you are not a christian when you say God can't be proven. What else is then? God exists because she cannot be proven to exist? It does no such thing. Your description of an 'atheist philosophy' is misconceived. You first state there is a system by which truth can be established, then you go on to say that this system, due to limitations, lacks the ability to find truth. From that you conclude atheists claim proof due to lack of evidence ?? As far as I am aware the atheists claim (if there is one) is simply of a severe lack of any evidence, therefore there is no reason to believe God exists. Such a severe lack of evidence strongly suggests no God, but I have not seen the 'atheist philosophy' go on to say it 'actually constitutes a proof' of no God, any more than such lack of evidence 'actually constitutes a proof' of no Tooth Fairies. However , what this does if anything, is to put God in the same realm of truth as Tooth Fairies. But I am apprehensive to accept your definition of 'atheist philosophy' when your concept of christian philosophy does not concur with the majority of christians. Then lack of evidence is proof. So then elves exist. Tooth fairies exist. Santa Claus exists. My Invisible Friend Gilbert exists. Lack of evidence suggests no proof. Lack of evidence in tooth Fairies suggests no proof of Tooth Fairies. Not proof that Tooth Fairies don't exist. Lack of evidence in God suggests no proof of God. Not proof that God doesn't exist. Lack of evidence of My Invisible Friend Gilbert suggests Gilbert exists. Period. My fourth statement therefore constitutes a proof, true due to the 'theist philosophy' does it? I would say that is a very good description.... Of religion! It might if your 'testimony' was ever reasonable or logical. So far the 'christian testimony' or any other for that matter appear to lack both a worthy reason and logic itself. Why shouldn't a skeptic assume a notion of God is nothing more than a personal notion of God.? That is all christianity does.... try to convince just because some people say they had a personal experience. A personal thing. Not a thing that would be better than a notion of no God. Any more than a notion of vanilla is better than strawberry. At least the skeptic can use more of his senses with ice cream to establish preference, than he can simply by a personal idea of a thing. More useful and meaningful is the overwhelming evidence of ice cream. With respect, so far I see only inference and little reasoning.
Your basic and essential premise is this: If God exists, there must be evidence of His existence that can be known via the senses and relativistic logic. You are defining what existence is first, then making a condition upon which to have proof of that existence. That is your right, your choice, your belief system. However, it begins with an assumption that cannot be proven without the use of the senses and relativistic logic, and as such is an assumption without a means to falsify that assumption. Prove your first premise.