Which Seems More Plausible..... ?

[Meriweather]

For me, the story itself is the fib - not the source of the voice in Abraham's head. I don't start from "belief" and go from there - I start from skepticism and seek. There's not enough rational evidence to conclude that Abraham, if he even existed, faced such a dilemma.

Jews retain stories of Abraham that are not Canon. Tradition has it that Abraham's family were makers/sellers of Totems, that is statuary of images that were believed to also contain the powers of the animal/image from which it was modeled. Each family/person had a Totem (or god) who protected and watched over them.

Abraham's experience of God was very different, unique at that time. His experience of God led him to believe that there were not many gods watching over a single individual or family; rather there was one God, watching over all.

At the time, there were also child sacrifices to the gods. Abraham's experience was that God desired so such sacrifice.

It appears that Abraham grew up with the belief of spirits protecting humans, and through his own experiences convinced many that there was one Spirit watching over all. Keep in mind this change in belief did not happen overnight. Notice how, "The God of Abraham" still carried the idea that this was Abraham's god, while others had their own.

I would argue that starting with skepticism turns into self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, starting with being skeptical that one cannot swim, one cannot understand math, humans cannot fly to the moon often ends up with a person not being able to swim, failing at math, or not even trying to reach the moon.

Why not start with possibility? It is possible I can swim, that I can understand math, that humans can reach the moon. I began with the possibility that everyone (myself included) can seek and find an experience with God, that He is also seeking an experience with us.

 

[norwegen]

THE Creator of Life and The Universe singling out an individual male from The Middle East as "The Apple of HIS Eye",

or


Arab ego?


Hows about we stop squabbling over the past and which ancient Arab story is the true and correct pathway to The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Qur'an, instead celebrate The God of (insert your name here), and start looking forward to our species working together to explore the stars?


Just a thought....

Who's squabbling over the past? The Torah is timeless. Ask-a-Jew.

 

[Meriweather]

Who's squabbling over the past? The Torah is timeless. Ask-a-Jew.

The Torah is timeless in the same way that math is timeless.

 

[norwegen]

Who's squabbling over the past? The Torah is timeless. Ask-a-Jew.

The Torah is timeless in the same way that math is timeless.

Calculators are better for cipherin' new math than slide rules are.

 

[G.T.]

For me, the story itself is the fib - not the source of the voice in Abraham's head. I don't start from "belief" and go from there - I start from skepticism and seek. There's not enough rational evidence to conclude that Abraham, if he even existed, faced such a dilemma.

Jews retain stories of Abraham that are not Canon. Tradition has it that Abraham's family were makers/sellers of Totems, that is statuary of images that were believed to also contain the powers of the animal/image from which it was modeled. Each family/person had a Totem (or god) who protected and watched over them.

Abraham's experience of God was very different, unique at that time. His experience of God led him to believe that there were not many gods watching over a single individual or family; rather there was one God, watching over all.

At the time, there were also child sacrifices to the gods. Abraham's experience was that God desired so such sacrifice.

It appears that Abraham grew up with the belief of spirits protecting humans, and through his own experiences convinced many that there was one Spirit watching over all. Keep in mind this change in belief did not happen overnight. Notice how, "The God of Abraham" still carried the idea that this was Abraham's god, while others had their own.

I would argue that starting with skepticism turns into self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, starting with being skeptical that one cannot swim, one cannot understand math, humans cannot fly to the moon often ends up with a person not being able to swim, failing at math, or not even trying to reach the moon.

Why not start with possibility? It is possible I can swim, that I can understand math, that humans can reach the moon. I began with the possibility that everyone (myself included) can seek and find an experience with God, that He is also seeking an experience with us.

Starting with skepticism is a self fulfilling prophecy if the skeptic is irrational.

(proper)Skepticism is starting with possibility, otherwise it's not skepticism but a conclusion. This was a misapprehension of terms.

Believing in stories just because is irrational.....the skeptic wins there because they're not laboring under the false pretenses that word of mouth is simply "good enough," which we all know through our human experience has been a repeatable failure. That's why eye-witness testimony is the least accurate, because of the literal functioning of the brain and its mechanisms which deceive our cognition.

 

[Meriweather]

Believing in stories just because is irrational.....the skeptic wins there because they're not laboring under the false pretenses that word of mouth is simply "good enough," which we all know through our human experience has been a repeatable failure. That's why eye-witness testimony is the least accurate, because of the literal functioning of the brain and its mechanisms which deceive our cognition.

Believing Abraham had an experience of God because it is a story handed down through time is not irrational. It tells us people can have such experiences. Going forward with the belief that if we seek we shall find, is a much different mindset from, "Doubt if I'll find anything...." Or, "If I do, it's just my brain deceiving me."

 

[G.T.]

Believing in stories just because is irrational.....the skeptic wins there because they're not laboring under the false pretenses that word of mouth is simply "good enough," which we all know through our human experience has been a repeatable failure. That's why eye-witness testimony is the least accurate, because of the literal functioning of the brain and its mechanisms which deceive our cognition.

Believing Abraham had an experience of God because it is a story handed down through time is not irrational. It tells us people can have such experiences. Going forward with the belief that if we seek we shall find, is a much different mindset from, "Doubt if I'll find anything...." Or, "If I do, it's just my brain deceiving me."

It doesn't tell us that people can have this experience.....it tells us that people have told us....that people can have this experience.

Proper skepticism is not "doubt that I'll find anything," that's another misapprehension of terms.

Believing word of mouth testimony is an act of faith, it's not empirical evidence.

 

[Meriweather]

It doesn't tell us that people can have this experience.....it tells us that people have told us....that people can have this experience.

Proper skepticism is not "doubt that I'll find anything," that's another misapprehension of terms.

Believing word of mouth testimony is an act of faith, it's not empirical evidence.

Dictionary definitions of skepticism: 2. doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, especially Christianity. 1. a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.

Contrast this with: Trust, but verify. "Let's go verify what we have been told" is a different attitude than skepticism, wouldn't you agree?

Where we may be more in agreement is that there are possibly some people of faith who read scripture, nod, and move on without ever verifying and acting upon what they have read. Jews have a saying: Scripture is to be studied, not read. Part of study (in my opinion) is finding for oneself what others have said is out there, not doubting that it is there.

 

[konradv]

THE Creator of Life and The Universe singling out an individual male from The Middle East as "The Apple of HIS Eye" or Arab ego? Hows about we stop squabbling over the past and which ancient Arab story is the true and correct pathway to The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Qur'an, instead celebrate The God of (insert your name here), and start looking forward to our species working together to explore the stars?

Or it could be that the Jews were chosen because of their tradition of passing down their history orally. The reality is that anyone who has spent any time at all earnestly studying nature and the evolution of space and time cannot help but see purpose in creation.

Do people see purpose because there is purpose or because one needs to see purpose?

 

[G.T.]

It doesn't tell us that people can have this experience.....it tells us that people have told us....that people can have this experience.

Proper skepticism is not "doubt that I'll find anything," that's another misapprehension of terms.

Believing word of mouth testimony is an act of faith, it's not empirical evidence.

Dictionary definitions of skepticism: 2. doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, especially Christianity. 1. a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.

Contrast this with: Trust, but verify. "Let's go verify what we have been told" is a different attitude than skepticism, wouldn't you agree?

Where we may be more in agreement is that there are possibly some people of faith who read scripture, nod, and move on without ever verifying and acting upon what they have read. Jews have a saying: Scripture is to be studied, not read. Part of study (in my opinion) is finding for oneself what others have said is out there, not doubting that it is there.

I always watch my words in intellectual discussions, fair Meriweather. It's respectful and wastes less of the other person's time. When I engaged the word "proper," what I meant was to doubt in the absence of empirical evidence, BUT with an open mind. A person unwilling to absorb knowledge which may contradict his or her own is not engaging in proper skepticism, they're just a douchebag

 

[konradv]

Hows about we stop squabbling over the past and which ancient Arab story is the true and correct pathway to The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Qur'an, instead celebrate The God of (insert your name here), and start looking forward to our species working together to explore the stars?

Not just the Abrahamic religions. If there's only one God, aren't the polytheistic religions of chief god and sub-gods just another version of God and the angels?

 

[Meriweather]

I always watch my words in intellectual discussions, fair Meriweather. It's respectful and wastes less of the other person's time. When I engaged the word "proper," what I meant was to doubt in the absence of empirical evidence, BUT with an open mind. A person unwilling to absorb knowledge which may contradict his or her own is not engaging in proper skepticism, they're just a douchebag

Here is the situation: We cannot present physical evidence that Abraham ever lived, that he had a son, that he had an experience with God that revealed God did not want child sacrifice, God desires life, not death. Here is where Jews stand out in ancient times, a tradition that is still documented during Roman times, but not followed by Jews. Non-Jews were of the mind that the father held ownership of his wife, children, and property until he passed on. That means adult children were still under his ownership. The father could put children to death (offer them as sacrifice).

With Abraham, Jews learned not only did God desire life, not death, no child belongs to anyone but God. No child is the property of his/her father. Therefore, Jewish children were not sacrificed by a parent in honor of an ancestor. That child did not belong to any ancestor, only to God.

We see the difference in cultures here, cultures that spanned thousands of years. The Jews trace their deviation from the original culture of patriarchal ownership and child sacrifice back to Abraham and his experience of God.

Jewish belief in God resulted in more experiences of God being recorded, the belief that God is with us. Since God is with us, in our midst, then we who live today, are able to encounter him. Have you searched for modern day encounters with God? More importantly, have you sought God for yourself? How much does the skeptic throw himself into seeking God?

 

[Taz]

The reality is that anyone who has spent any time at all earnestly studying nature and the evolution of space and time cannot help but see purpose in creation.

Sp what's the purpose?

 

[ding]

THE Creator of Life and The Universe singling out an individual male from The Middle East as "The Apple of HIS Eye" or Arab ego? Hows about we stop squabbling over the past and which ancient Arab story is the true and correct pathway to The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Qur'an, instead celebrate The God of (insert your name here), and start looking forward to our species working together to explore the stars?

Or it could be that the Jews were chosen because of their tradition of passing down their history orally. The reality is that anyone who has spent any time at all earnestly studying nature and the evolution of space and time cannot help but see purpose in creation.

Do people see purpose because there is purpose or because one needs to see purpose?

It depends on how objective they are.

 

[G.T.]

I always watch my words in intellectual discussions, fair Meriweather. It's respectful and wastes less of the other person's time. When I engaged the word "proper," what I meant was to doubt in the absence of empirical evidence, BUT with an open mind. A person unwilling to absorb knowledge which may contradict his or her own is not engaging in proper skepticism, they're just a douchebag

Here is the situation: We cannot present physical evidence that Abraham ever lived, that he had a son, that he had an experience with God that revealed God did not want child sacrifice, God desires life, not death. Here is where Jews stand out in ancient times, a tradition that is still documented during Roman times, but not followed by Jews. Non-Jews were of the mind that the father held ownership of his wife, children, and property until he passed on. That means adult children were still under his ownership. The father could put children to death (offer them as sacrifice).

With Abraham, Jews learned not only did God desire life, not death, no child belongs to anyone but God. No child is the property of his/her father. Therefore, Jewish children were not sacrificed by a parent in honor of an ancestor. That child did not belong to any ancestor, only to God.

We see the difference in cultures here, cultures that spanned thousands of years. The Jews trace their deviation from the original culture of patriarchal ownership and child sacrifice back to Abraham and his experience of God.

Jewish belief in God resulted in more experiences of God being recorded, the belief that God is with us. Since God is with us, in our midst, then we who live today, are able to encounter him. Have you searched for modern day encounters with God? More importantly, have you sought God for yourself? How much does the skeptic throw himself into seeking God?

I've looked for good, rational reasons to believe in such a thing and have yet to find one. "huff puff" doesn't work on me, and that's all that's been presented to me after much due diligence. There's also a difference between correlation and causation, hypothesis and fact, evidence and empirical evidence. To date, the religions of man are inadequate proof of anything other than man. When you follow up posts dismissing hearsay because it's statistically inaccurate, both in a court of law and in science......

and your response is more hearsay.....that's not a rational reason to believe in such a thing.

The contradictions in these scriptures are vast, and that's even in Hebrew. An all powerful God who's PROFESSED wish is to be believe in and followed, heard, understood, who chooses the weakest possible way to convey its message is flawed from the onset. His proposed "way" leads to translation errors, interpretative disagreements, contradictions, vagueries and subsequent barbaric acts as a result of such a poor method of communication.

We could blame the receiver of said communication for an ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING being's lack of communicative abilities? But then....he also created the flaws in the would-be message recipients.

 

[ding]

The reality is that anyone who has spent any time at all earnestly studying nature and the evolution of space and time cannot help but see purpose in creation.

Sp what's the purpose?

For intelligence to evolve in consciousness which requires it to evolve in conscience.

 

[G.T.]

The creationist argument given in the first paragraph contains a gaping flaw, and evolutionist debaters wasted no time in pointing it out: While the classical version of the second law does indeed state that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease, evolving systems are not isolated! One might expect that at this point the issue would be considered settled and everyone would pack up and go home. However, such an expectation would never be entertained by anyone familiar with the peculiar tenacity of creationists.

Let us see how Morris responds after he has been confronted with the clear evidence that evolving systems are open. In 1976, he said: "The second law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system." This statement suggests that he lacks the ability to distinguish between theoretical and practical concepts—an ability which is absolutely essential for the understanding of much of physics. It is certainly true that the second law applies to all thermodynamical systems; it wouldn't be much of a law otherwise. But the particular statement of the second law that Morris has in mind—namely, that the entropy cannot decrease—applies only to isolated systems. It is a purely theoretical statement, and in theory, any desired system can be postulated whether or not it can exist in practice. Let me mention another example: The concept of an ideal gas is utilized throughout thermodynamics and is extremely useful, even though no such substance actually exists. Just as real gases approximate an ideal gas, some better than others, there are real thermodynamical systems that are very nearly isolated. In these systems we do not expect the entropy to decrease. On the other hand, in a wide open system the entropy can either increase, decrease, or remain constant. The second law does not in any way prevent entropy decreases and the generation of entropy deficiencies in local systems so long as there is an equal or larger increase in entropy outside the system. This concept is easily grasped by most college and even high school students of science but not, apparently, by creationists, including those boasting Ph.D.s in the sciences.

Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Avatar4321]

Abraham wanted to know God as the Patriarchs before Him did. He sought after their blessings and received the Everlasting Covenant that was later to be named after Him because it passed on through a branch of his family.

I see no evidence that he though himself the greatest man who ever lived or that God said that of Him. After all His Son was greater than Abraham.

Also Abraham paid tithes to Melchesidek. Even in his own time he paid tithes to one he acknowledged as greater than him

 

[Meriweather]

I've looked for good, rational reasons to believe in such a thing and have yet to find one. "huff puff" doesn't work on me, and that's all that's been presented to me after much due diligence. There's also a difference between correlation and causation, hypothesis and fact, evidence and empirical evidence. To date, the religions of man are inadequate proof of anything other than man. When you follow up posts dismissing hearsay because it's statistically inaccurate, both in a court of law and in science......

and your response is more hearsay.....that's not a rational reason to believe in such a thing.

The contradictions in these scriptures are vast, and that's even in Hebrew. An all powerful God who's PROFESSED wish is to be believe in and followed, heard, understood, who chooses the weakest possible way to convey its message is flawed from the onset. His proposed "way" leads to translation errors, interpretative disagreements, contradictions, vagueries and subsequent barbaric acts as a result of such a poor method of communication.

We could blame the receiver of said communication for an ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING being's lack of communicative abilities? But then....he also created the flaws in the would-be message recipients.

To me, it doesn't appear as though you have investigated anything. It appears as though you have given a cursory study/read of scripture and made up your mind you need to pursue it no further, that it can all be dismissed with a good argument.

 

[G.T.]

I've looked for good, rational reasons to believe in such a thing and have yet to find one. "huff puff" doesn't work on me, and that's all that's been presented to me after much due diligence. There's also a difference between correlation and causation, hypothesis and fact, evidence and empirical evidence. To date, the religions of man are inadequate proof of anything other than man. When you follow up posts dismissing hearsay because it's statistically inaccurate, both in a court of law and in science......

and your response is more hearsay.....that's not a rational reason to believe in such a thing.

The contradictions in these scriptures are vast, and that's even in Hebrew. An all powerful God who's PROFESSED wish is to be believe in and followed, heard, understood, who chooses the weakest possible way to convey its message is flawed from the onset. His proposed "way" leads to translation errors, interpretative disagreements, contradictions, vagueries and subsequent barbaric acts as a result of such a poor method of communication.

We could blame the receiver of said communication for an ALL POWERFUL ALL KNOWING being's lack of communicative abilities? But then....he also created the flaws in the would-be message recipients.

To me, it doesn't appear as though you have investigated anything. It appears as though you have given a cursory study/read of scripture and made up your mind you need to pursue it no further, that it can all be dismissed with a good argument.

That's cool, that's your opinion. It's still lacking an adequate, rational reason to believe any of the man-made religions.