God, a Nothing Special Author

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Claire » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:25 pm

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Christians often say that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. If it was, it should have inspiring, wonderful information only a deity could dictate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following quote by Sam Harris sums this up nicely:
Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.

So, if electricity, DNA, infectious diseases, and the principals of infectious diseases was referenced in the Bible that'd mean God exists?

Lol.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Lol! No of course not!
Sam Harris is saying the opposite. Apparently, you didn't understand the words spoken by your own source.
You have comprehension problems, he said nothing of the sort. He is saying that God didn't say anything special in the Bible and a real omniscient and powerful god would give us helpful scientific knowledge.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:His entire point was to say that those specific subjects being covered in the Bible, e.g., DNA, electricity, principals of infectious diseases, etc, would offer evidence for God. That's why it's phrased as if to say "If God Really existed, He would have taught us these things". In other words, if those things were in there it would've been proof of God's existence.

If you agree with him then that's laughable, because you've criticized modern day believers who knew information that wasn't yet discovered, and later proven to be true after their death. So, it's doubtful you would accept any biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God.
You are getting confused between what is evidence and what is proof for God. Information about electricity in the Bible (for example) might be very convincing evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of his existence and Harris isn't saying that.
To say "God would do such-and-such" IS to argue that God's existence is "proven" by the things he states should be in the Bible. To argue "evidence" and "proof" are not the same is mostly semantic in this instance because Harris's example is based on his subjective expectation of God, and since this expectation isn't met, he thinks it's reason enough not to believe. But, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:You are missing the point, Harris is merely pointing out that the scriptures were written by men with all their human frailties and if it was truly inspired by a ghost, god or spirit, you would expect to find scientific knowledge way beyond what was known at that time.
Harris is telling us what knowledge he expects a "real" God to impart on humanity. He's using the absence of these scientific principles to say the Bible wasn't divinely inspired, but also if he were to believe in God he expects certain things as evidence. It doesn't matter if he says it as such, when what he describes is exactly that: evidence. You can try to pair it down, and make his statement as narrow as possible, or choose Harris's favorite tactic, and just say he's being "misinterpreted" by anyone who disagrees, but the simple fact is what he describes is his expectation for God, which is also evidence.
Correct, it's about evidence that's missing which we would would expect to be there if there really was an omniscient god.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I know I've been correct, glad you've caught up. And so, back to what Harris provides and the example of proof of God's existence. Neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
That's the problem, all the evidence of God's existence is deficient.
And, regarding biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof" of God's existence either.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:No, but something like that would make him thousands of times more plausible.
Harris was indicating such references would be proof of God's existence. Now you're admitting you wouldn't accept them as proof, so why did you quote him to begin with then?
You have a big problem of putting untrue words into other's mouths.
What's untrue?
Last edited by Claire on Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2028
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by SEG » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:43 pm

Harris was indicating such references would be proof of God's existence.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Claire » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:53 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Christians often say that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. If it was, it should have inspiring, wonderful information only a deity could dictate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following quote by Sam Harris sums this up nicely:
Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.

So, if electricity, DNA, infectious diseases, and the principals of infectious diseases was referenced in the Bible that'd mean God exists?

Lol.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Lol! No of course not!
Sam Harris is saying the opposite. Apparently, you didn't understand the words spoken by your own source.
You have comprehension problems, he said nothing of the sort. He is saying that God didn't say anything special in the Bible and a real omniscient and powerful god would give us helpful scientific knowledge.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:His entire point was to say that those specific subjects being covered in the Bible, e.g., DNA, electricity, principals of infectious diseases, etc, would offer evidence for God. That's why it's phrased as if to say "If God Really existed, He would have taught us these things". In other words, if those things were in there it would've been proof of God's existence.

If you agree with him then that's laughable, because you've criticized modern day believers who knew information that wasn't yet discovered, and later proven to be true after their death. So, it's doubtful you would accept any biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God.
You are getting confused between what is evidence and what is proof for God. Information about electricity in the Bible (for example) might be very convincing evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of his existence and Harris isn't saying that.
To say "God would do such-and-such" IS to argue that God's existence is "proven" by the things he states should be in the Bible. To argue "evidence" and "proof" are not the same is mostly semantic in this instance because Harris's example is based on his subjective expectation of God, and since this expectation isn't met, he thinks it's reason enough not to believe. But, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:You are missing the point, Harris is merely pointing out that the scriptures were written by men with all their human frailties and if it was truly inspired by a ghost, god or spirit, you would expect to find scientific knowledge way beyond what was known at that time.
Harris is telling us what knowledge he expects a "real" God to impart on humanity. He's using the absence of these scientific principles to say the Bible wasn't divinely inspired, but also if he were to believe in God he expects certain things as evidence. It doesn't matter if he says it as such, when what he describes is exactly that: evidence. You can try to pair it down, and make his statement as narrow as possible, or choose Harris's favorite tactic, and just say he's being "misinterpreted" by anyone who disagrees, but the simple fact is what he describes is his expectation for God, which is also evidence.
Correct, it's about evidence that's missing which we would would expect to be there if there really was an omniscient god.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I know I've been correct, glad you've caught up. And so, back to what Harris provides and the example of proof of God's existence. Neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
That's the problem, all the evidence of God's existence is deficient.
And, regarding biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof" of God's existence either.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:No, but something like that would make him thousands of times more plausible.
Harris was indicating such references would be proof of God's existence. Now you're admitting you wouldn't accept them as proof, so why did you quote him to begin with then?
You have a big problem of putting untrue words into other's mouths.
Earlier you agreed with my explanation of what Harris was saying. And, since you admitted you wouldn't accept his examples of proof for God's existence, your quoting him to begin with was pointless.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2028
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by SEG » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:19 pm

Claire wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:53 am
Earlier you agreed with my explanation of what Harris was saying. And, since you admitted you wouldn't accept his examples of proof for God's existence, your quoting him to begin with was pointless.
No, here you go again misquoting me. We are done here Claire.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Claire » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Christians often say that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. If it was, it should have inspiring, wonderful information only a deity could dictate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following quote by Sam Harris sums this up nicely:
Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.
So, if electricity, DNA, infectious diseases, and the principals of infectious diseases was referenced in the Bible that'd mean God exists?

Lol.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Lol! No of course not!
Sam Harris is saying the opposite. Apparently, you didn't understand the words spoken by your own source.
You have comprehension problems, he said nothing of the sort. He is saying that God didn't say anything special in the Bible and a real omniscient and powerful god would give us helpful scientific knowledge.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:His entire point was to say that those specific subjects being covered in the Bible, e.g., DNA, electricity, principals of infectious diseases, etc, would offer evidence for God. That's why it's phrased as if to say "If God Really existed, He would have taught us these things". In other words, if those things were in there it would've been proof of God's existence.

If you agree with him then that's laughable, because you've criticized modern day believers who knew information that wasn't yet discovered, and later proven to be true after their death. So, it's doubtful you would accept any biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God.
You are getting confused between what is evidence and what is proof for God. Information about electricity in the Bible (for example) might be very convincing evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of his existence and Harris isn't saying that.
To say "God would do such-and-such" IS to argue that God's existence is "proven" by the things he states should be in the Bible. To argue "evidence" and "proof" are not the same is mostly semantic in this instance because Harris's example is based on his subjective expectation of God, and since this expectation isn't met, he thinks it's reason enough not to believe. But, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:You are missing the point, Harris is merely pointing out that the scriptures were written by men with all their human frailties and if it was truly inspired by a ghost, god or spirit, you would expect to find scientific knowledge way beyond what was known at that time.
Harris is telling us what knowledge he expects a "real" God to impart on humanity. He's using the absence of these scientific principles to say the Bible wasn't divinely inspired, but also if he were to believe in God he expects certain things as evidence. It doesn't matter if he says it as such, when what he describes is exactly that: evidence. You can try to pair it down, and make his statement as narrow as possible, or choose Harris's favorite tactic, and just say he's being "misinterpreted" by anyone who disagrees, but the simple fact is what he describes is his expectation for God, which is also evidence.
Correct, it's about evidence that's missing which we would would expect to be there if there really was an omniscient god.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I know I've been correct, glad you've caught up. And so, back to what Harris provides and the example of proof of God's existence. Neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
That's the problem, all the evidence of God's existence is deficient.
And, regarding biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof" of God's existence either.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:No, but something like that would make him thousands of times more plausible.
Harris was indicating such references would be proof of God's existence. Now you're admitting you wouldn't accept them as proof, so why did you quote him to begin with then?
You have a big problem of putting untrue words into other's mouths.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Earlier you agreed with my explanation of what Harris was saying.
No, here you go again misquoting me. We are done here Claire.
See your post calling my explanation of what Harris was saying correct. And, since you admitted you wouldn't accept his examples of proof for God's existence, your quoting him to begin with was pointless.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2028
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by SEG » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:51 pm

Christians often say that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. If it was, it should have inspiring, wonderful information only a deity could dictate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following quote by Sam Harris sums this up nicely:
Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.
The OP stands. He is saying that an actual deity would be a lot more convincing and I agree. He said nothing about how it would be proof for a god if those things were actually revealed. He is pointing out how your holy book contains no special knowledge that an ignorant sheep herder two thousand years ago would not know. I agree with him, and so would you if you were intellectually honest and stopped grasping for silly semantic points.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Claire » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:40 pm

Image
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Christians often say that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. If it was, it should have inspiring, wonderful information only a deity could dictate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following quote by Sam Harris sums this up nicely:
Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.
So, if electricity, DNA, infectious diseases, and the principals of infectious diseases was referenced in the Bible that'd mean God exists?

Lol.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Lol! No of course not!
Sam Harris is saying the opposite. Apparently, you didn't understand the words spoken by your own source.
You have comprehension problems, he said nothing of the sort. He is saying that God didn't say anything special in the Bible and a real omniscient and powerful god would give us helpful scientific knowledge.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:His entire point was to say that those specific subjects being covered in the Bible, e.g., DNA, electricity, principals of infectious diseases, etc, would offer evidence for God. That's why it's phrased as if to say "If God Really existed, He would have taught us these things". In other words, if those things were in there it would've been proof of God's existence.

If you agree with him then that's laughable, because you've criticized modern day believers who knew information that wasn't yet discovered, and later proven to be true after their death. So, it's doubtful you would accept any biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God.
You are getting confused between what is evidence and what is proof for God. Information about electricity in the Bible (for example) might be very convincing evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of his existence and Harris isn't saying that.
To say "God would do such-and-such" IS to argue that God's existence is "proven" by the things he states should be in the Bible. To argue "evidence" and "proof" are not the same is mostly semantic in this instance because Harris's example is based on his subjective expectation of God, and since this expectation isn't met, he thinks it's reason enough not to believe. But, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:You are missing the point, Harris is merely pointing out that the scriptures were written by men with all their human frailties and if it was truly inspired by a ghost, god or spirit, you would expect to find scientific knowledge way beyond what was known at that time.
Harris is telling us what knowledge he expects a "real" God to impart on humanity. He's using the absence of these scientific principles to say the Bible wasn't divinely inspired, but also if he were to believe in God he expects certain things as evidence. It doesn't matter if he says it as such, when what he describes is exactly that: evidence. You can try to pair it down, and make his statement as narrow as possible, or choose Harris's favorite tactic, and just say he's being "misinterpreted" by anyone who disagrees, but the simple fact is what he describes is his expectation for God, which is also evidence.
Correct, it's about evidence that's missing which we would would expect to be there if there really was an omniscient god.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I know I've been correct, glad you've caught up. And so, back to what Harris provides and the example of proof of God's existence. Neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
That's the problem, all the evidence of God's existence is deficient.
And, regarding biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof" of God's existence either.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:No, but something like that would make him thousands of times more plausible.
Harris was indicating such references would be proof of God's existence. Now you're admitting you wouldn't accept them as proof, so why did you quote him to begin with then?
You have a big problem of putting untrue words into other's mouths.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Earlier you agreed with my explanation of what Harris was saying.
No, here you go again misquoting me. We are done here Claire.
See your post calling my explanation of what Harris was saying correct. And, since you admitted you wouldn't accept his examples of proof for God's existence, your quoting him to begin with was pointless.
SEG wrote:The OP stands. He is saying that an actual deity would be a lot more convincing and I agree. He said nothing about how it would be proof for a god if those things were actually revealed. He is pointing out how your holy book contains no special knowledge that an ignorant sheep herder two thousand years ago would not know. I agree with him, and so would you if you were intellectually honest and stopped grasping for silly semantic points.
You said if the Bible was God-inspired it'd contain "inspiring, wonderful information" only God could dictate (translation: If God exists the Bible would contain certain information), and that Harris sums this up nicely. So, you provided a quote of his where he lists information he believes would've been in the Bible if God exists, e.g., electricity, DNA, principles of infectious disease, etc.

This means Harris wasn't only pointing out such information isn't in the Bible, but also indicating had it been it would've been proof of God's existence. If you didn't agree that's what he was saying, then why did you call my explanation of his quote correct?

Then, you admitted you wouldn't accept biblical accounts of the information mentioned by Harris as proof of God's existence. Therefore, your referencing that quote of his to begin with was pointless.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2028
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by SEG » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pm

Proof doesn't equal evidence and vica versa.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Claire » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:38 am

Image
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Christians often say that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. If it was, it should have inspiring, wonderful information only a deity could dictate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following quote by Sam Harris sums this up nicely:
Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.
So, if electricity, DNA, infectious diseases, and the principals of infectious diseases was referenced in the Bible that'd mean God exists?

Lol.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Lol! No of course not!
Sam Harris is saying the opposite. Apparently, you didn't understand the words spoken by your own source.
You have comprehension problems, he said nothing of the sort. He is saying that God didn't say anything special in the Bible and a real omniscient and powerful god would give us helpful scientific knowledge.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:His entire point was to say that those specific subjects being covered in the Bible, e.g., DNA, electricity, principals of infectious diseases, etc, would offer evidence for God. That's why it's phrased as if to say "If God Really existed, He would have taught us these things". In other words, if those things were in there it would've been proof of God's existence.

If you agree with him then that's laughable, because you've criticized modern day believers who knew information that wasn't yet discovered, and later proven to be true after their death. So, it's doubtful you would accept any biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God.
You are getting confused between what is evidence and what is proof for God. Information about electricity in the Bible (for example) might be very convincing evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of his existence and Harris isn't saying that.
To say "God would do such-and-such" IS to argue that God's existence is "proven" by the things he states should be in the Bible. To argue "evidence" and "proof" are not the same is mostly semantic in this instance because Harris's example is based on his subjective expectation of God, and since this expectation isn't met, he thinks it's reason enough not to believe. But, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:You are missing the point, Harris is merely pointing out that the scriptures were written by men with all their human frailties and if it was truly inspired by a ghost, god or spirit, you would expect to find scientific knowledge way beyond what was known at that time.
Harris is telling us what knowledge he expects a "real" God to impart on humanity. He's using the absence of these scientific principles to say the Bible wasn't divinely inspired, but also if he were to believe in God he expects certain things as evidence. It doesn't matter if he says it as such, when what he describes is exactly that: evidence. You can try to pair it down, and make his statement as narrow as possible, or choose Harris's favorite tactic, and just say he's being "misinterpreted" by anyone who disagrees, but the simple fact is what he describes is his expectation for God, which is also evidence.
Correct, it's about evidence that's missing which we would would expect to be there if there really was an omniscient god.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I know I've been correct, glad you've caught up. And so, back to what Harris provides and the example of proof of God's existence. Neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept Biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof", so it doesn't matter. You'd find something else that doesn't meet your expectations as deficient "proof" of God's existence.
That's the problem, all the evidence of God's existence is deficient.
And, regarding biblical references in the way mentioned by Harris as coming from God, neither you, nor I'm guessing Harris, would actually accept biblical accounts of electricity, infectious disease, etc, as real "proof" of God's existence either.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:No, but something like that would make him thousands of times more plausible.
Harris was indicating such references would be proof of God's existence. Now you're admitting you wouldn't accept them as proof, so why did you quote him to begin with then?
You have a big problem of putting untrue words into other's mouths.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Earlier you agreed with my explanation of what Harris was saying.
No, here you go again misquoting me. We are done here Claire.
See your post calling my explanation of what Harris was saying correct. And, since you admitted you wouldn't accept his examples of proof for God's existence, your quoting him to begin with was pointless.
Claire wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:The OP stands. He is saying that an actual deity would be a lot more convincing and I agree. He said nothing about how it would be proof for a god if those things were actually revealed. He is pointing out how your holy book contains no special knowledge that an ignorant sheep herder two thousand years ago would not know. I agree with him, and so would you if you were intellectually honest and stopped grasping for silly semantic points.
You said if the Bible was God-inspired it'd contain "inspiring, wonderful information" only God could dictate (translation: If God exists the Bible would contain certain information), and that Harris sums this up nicely. So, you provided a quote of his where he lists information he believes would've been in the Bible if God exists, e.g., electricity, DNA, principles of infectious disease, etc.

This means Harris wasn't only pointing out such information isn't in the Bible, but also indicating had it been it would've been proof of God's existence. If you didn't agree that's what he was saying, then why did you call my explanation of his quote correct?

Then, you admitted you wouldn't accept biblical accounts of the information mentioned by Harris as proof of God's existence. Therefore, your referencing that quote of his to begin with was pointless.
Proof doesn't equal evidence and vica versa.
As I said, to argue "evidence" and "proof" are not the same is mostly semantic in this instance, because Harris's aforementioned examples of information from God are based on his subjective expectation of Him, and since this expectation isn't met, he thinks it's reason enough not to believe. If you didn't agree then why did you call my explanation of his quote correct?

And, after you did that you admitted you wouldn't accept biblical accounts of the information mentioned by Harris as proof of God's existence. Therefore, your referencing that quote of his to begin with was pointless.

Post Reply