Depends on where you date the start of the religions you are calling Abrahamic. The Book of Genesis doesn't start with Abraham, it starts with Adam and there are several important leaders before Abraham. Mainstream Christianity barely discusses Adam, Enoch or Noah, but they are important figures in Islam, Middle Judaism, and early Christianity.
After centuries of iffy translations and misinterpretations, the Bible we have today barely resembles the original story. We have no way of knowing how accurate it is to the way the author(s) intended it. Many of the events described in the bible are physically impossible and clearly exaggerated (walking on water, 2 of every animal on one boat, etc.) I think a lot of it was loosely based on real events and people that actually existed, but there was a lot of fiction added.
As far as God himself goes, it's not possible with today's technology to prove or disprove the existence of a higher divine power. The way I see it, there's no point in arguing for or against something that can't be confirmed. It's all just opinion. Im not Christian but that doesn't mean I think Christians are wrong. I personally don't believe in the God specifically referred to in the bible because Christianity doesn't really fit my own personality and morals. But that doesn't mean I'm an atheist. We obviously came from somewhere
We're most likely living in a simulation. Most religions in the world are just in it for the power, money, and sex (look up sex scandals in different religious sects)
Is the Bible real? Well there are physical objects with properties, like individual Bibles. Those are real objects. As objects, they are printed from drafts. There are different versions traced to different drafts. Some drafts are products of scholars, some are products of theologians, some of both. The are generating by comparing manuscripts which are all different one from another, and written in languages that are no longer spoken. As such scholars and theologians use their judgment about which manuscripts and groups of manuscripts to use, sometimes using religious and ideological criteria. Some versions have religious convictions influence translations.
Going further back in time, and further away in geography, not only are the manuscript traditions different, but the very 'books' of the bible varied. This is called canon. Are Maccabees included or not, if so, are they referring to the different book by the same name, like for example Ethiopian Maccabees vs Septuagint version.
There is a great table laying out the differences in canon here:
So that brings us to the question of what was the original canon? It turns out it is nonsensical question. There were different religious communities having different canons, and even same religious communities having different canons and versions circulating internally.
All of this has been ignoring what is actually contained in these collections. And that is literature of different genres, from different time periods. It is actually an anthology of literature. So is the anthology of literature real? Yes, of course. But all of this has been ignoring the central question. That is whether this anthology tells us true things about history, and the natural world. Here it is a mixed bag, with the good majority of the literature being mythical. Once we come to the 'historical books', there is a lot more good information but it is bent to serve the ideological and religious needs of the writers, who were not objective observers. So did the Assyrians attack, sure, did angels destroy the Assyrian army... no, the Assyrians won the war.
So to answer your question, " is the Bible real"? A short answer is, your question is nonsensical.
God is existence, I think your prescribing god as more materialistic. God isn't bound to time, he doesn't exist in the same way we perceive the world because he's eternal.
To be honest, I don't have all the answers, and I doubt that you will find them here. This qUestion is one you should be asking yourself. I use to be just like you, but lately I've had a change of heart(Not reading the bible or any religious text but science related books).
Nah that's all good. Me neither. Just making the point that, does there need to be a god? Matter could just be in existence eternally. The big bang was the beginning of this universe but is this the first universe? It may just be one of eternal big bangs.
There does, because we aren't bound to the material world. There exists a spiritual one too. If we could live forever, then I would say we wouldn't but that will never be the case(Without becoming that guy From JL)
Couldn't the universe or universes be existence and eternal?
No, because they contain matter and energy, which cannot be created or destroyed according to the physical laws of the universe.
By analogy, if you found a human you could not assume they created themself or were eternally existent because creating a human requires a man and a woman.
Similarly, the creation of matter and energy in the universe requires something that is not subject to the laws of physics, or that somehow changes the laws of physics, in order to explain its existence. Aristotle called it the "unmoved mover."
If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, wouldn't that be an argument FOR what I said?
The humans analogy doesn't make sense because the humans arrived extremely recently in the scale of cosmology.
I don't know which theoretical physicists you've been reading but I haven't heard that one. I wouldn't worry too much about what Aristotle said. Those guys were great thinkers but they were among the first in civilization to ask the big questions. We have millennia of knowledge after that to work with.
There is something that sets physical laws without being subject to them. Aristotle called it the unmoved mover.
It sounds like a an internal contradiction because it is violating known natural laws. But that is not an internal inconsistency, it is an external one based on the assumption that the laws of physics are inviolate. Theists believe specifically that there is something that is not subject to the laws of physics that did the creating.
It's really not a paradox, it's a fact that needs to be dealt with in one's worldview if you want to avoid non contradiction (believing false things). It's one thing to say theism is false, but at least it avoids internal contradictions inherent to atheism. Atheism, like all worldviews that don't involve an "unmoved mover," simply can't explain the universe as it exists, so it must be rejected.
All is a paradox I mean we as humans know nothing we just try to interpret our world as best we can so we really have no idea how the universe was created or even if the universe we live in is really a universal for really just inside of some sort of ant farm created by a civilization I mean do you think the fish in the labrador quarium know that they're not in the ocean if they were never in the ocean before they just know their life is what it is.
You're right, but how do you get to 1 without starting at 0. There isn't a jump or loophole.
there is and there isn't.
There's a lot we don't know, and probably will never know. But what we do know is stuff that we perceive and experience and TRY to make sense of it all.
I like to think of the chaos theory when discussing stuff like this.
I also said that I believe there's a god, whatever form he/she/it may be in not that extra stuff that people associate with what comes with it. I also believe in evolution.
We simply don't know. Substituting God for "we don't know" is the same substituting Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or giant invisible space turtle. If you can substitute another deity without issue is it really a satisfying explanation?
I'm ok with a deistic approach as source for the big bang if people take comfort in that. But after the big bang there is no place for God left in our observable universe.
If you want to take the position of atheism, that's fine. But saying there is "no evidence for the existence of a God" is just silly. The world as it exists today cannot be explained through existing natural laws because matter and energy are conserved.
You can't have matter and energy without something outside the system that created the matter and energy ex nihilo. Call it whatever you want God, Allah, Source Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, and so on, but something created matter and energy by violating the laws of physics, or else something modified the laws of physics. Either way, you can't explain things without something existing that is not subject to the laws of physics.
Atheism says "give me a free miracle with the Big Bang and I can explain the rest."
We simply don't know. Substituting God for "we don't know" is the same substituting Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or giant invisible space turtle. If you can substitute another deity without issue is it really a satisfying explanation?
I'm ok with a deistic approach as source for the big bang if people take comfort in that. But after the big bang there is no place for God left in our observable universe.
We simply don't know. Substituting God for "we don't know" is the same substituting Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or giant invisible space turtle. If you can substitute another deity without issue is it really a satisfying explanation?
Yes. Agnostic theism or even deism is vastly preferable to a worldview containing internal contradictions (atheism). You can start to focus your time on the important question: who is the Unmoved Mover?
Why does Atheism have internal contradictions? As an Atheist myself I'm perfectly fine saying "we don't know" to the origin of the universe. It might be eternal itself, it might be created, it might be a simulation within a computer, it might exist due to quantum fluctuations springing a negative and positive universe. We don't know and I'd even argue we might never know due to our limitations of being within the universe.
And if you agree with me that the only interaction of a God would be the creation of the universe wouldn't searching for a "who did it" a moot point? Because what difference would it make to the inhabitants of the universe?
Do you agree with the big bang theory and the theory of evolution through natural selection, or do you believe in divine creation? Honestly asking and not baiting for an easy target.
Sorry but Atheists reject the notion that a god exists. They don't claim absolut knowledge about a gods existence. At least they shouldn't if they are intelectually honest. I don't say that I don't know if god exists, I reject the claim that one does exist or is needed to explain our own existence.
What I do say is I don't know how the universe came into existence. And a god isn't the only possible answer for this. I've listed other possible anwers in my previous post. A creator isn't a necessity.
In addtion we only know the Claim "matter and energy can't be destroyed or created" is true within our universe. We can't say that to be true outside our univers because our laws of physics don't apply there.
Ok thank you for your answer. If I undestand correctly you believe God created the universe and the laws governing it and let it proceed according to those laws but he still guides us and judges us for the entrance into heaven? Do you believe he directly invervenes with our lives?
You can call it whatever you want, but you still need an Unmoved Mover outside of the system. Something that can create energy and matter, or else alter the laws of physics to allow the creation of energy and matter.
If I undestand correctly you believe God created the universe and the laws governing it and let it proceed according to those laws but he still guides us and judges us for the entrance into heaven?
No, I believe he violates the laws of the universe on very rare occasions. Like creating life, creating humanity, coming to Earth as Jesus, and so on.
Do you believe he directly invervenes with our lives?
I believe God intervenes from time to time. Speaking to people, inspiring the writing of books, influencing people to act in certain ways and occasionally directly forcing outcomes.
That doesn't mean he will intervene directly in your life or mine. But that he can be detected and known through his interventions in our world. Even something as simple as observing a sunset or the beauty in nature and realizing there must be a true form that is beautiful behind it.
We don't know if we need an outside source though. Our laws of physics don't apply outside of our universe. Maybe it is possible for energy to simply spring into existence outside of our universe. We simply don't know. The laws of physics we know are limited to the confince of our universe.
Ok, again thank you for your answer. I appreciate your openness even if I don't agree with your worldview.
Yes but it very well might be natural processes and not a sentient being. Again in my opinion the answer to this question is not possible to be given at the moment, without a leap of faith.
They are certainly very real attempts to try and explain our own unknown origins and purpose in life as physical creatures with no identifiable niche or role to play that we can ascertain when compared to all the other living things in the natural world and all their inter-dependent relationships in the ongoing creation and maintenance of that natural world we observe around us.
A world we too are utterly dependent on and yet would continue on and still be what it is or even more of what it is without our presence. Our purpose appears to be to search for and find a worthy purpose and make our lives meaningful.
It's towards that end that all of our philosophical thoughts and efforts are directed including all of our religious philosophies.
Science has also been used to control the masses. That doesn't make science false. Similarly, the misuse of religious ideas and institutions doesn't falsify all claims of the existence of a deity.
In my opinion GOD is everything everywhere. Yes and no, i think the bible is more like a collection of history mixed with truth,exaggerations and lies used to control.
There is a lot of hidden messages in the bible only someone with knowledge of astrology, math, science etc can understand. Some of the things hidden is golden ratios and sacred geometry.
Why is it that you are made to view the Bible as myth? Made fun of if you believe it? Like a true conspiracy researcher said William Cooper, either the Bible is true and prophecy is being fulfilled, or these guys are using the book of Revelation as a blueprint.
Can't really understand this fixation to the bible and god? What about all the other religions that surrounded us and still surround us?
I don't believe in any of these and i only see each religion as a manifestation of beliefs our ancestors had, trying to deal with natural phenomens and creating some kind of basic moral ethics for those societies, nothing else.
One of the oldest figures with an estimated religious connection that was found in europe is the lion-man found in Germany, estimated to be 35-40k years old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-man
This points strongly in the direction that all those religious stories do attempt to deal with the circumstances (natural phenomens, strong/dangerous animals,etc.) those people living in that time had to deal with.
God is real to me. Each person must find him in their own way. Of course we have free will so you can choose to decide that it's completely b.s. and that's ok too. The Bible is a collection of metaphors, some bring the truth, where others were added for control. It's a personal journey for me, I would never try to impose it on anyone else.
The bible is a tangible real object. Like harry potter books are. The stories, myths, legends, and mythology is of controversial validity. For both. As per god? Real in the sense that jedi or christmas are real. The concept is an existing idea/ spirit. But is their a sentient being that is god? I venture only in the same way that the same way math or english are 'real'.
God is existence, I think your prescribing god as more materialistic. God isn't bound to time, he doesn't exist in the same way we perceive the world because he's eternal.
To be honest, I don't have all the answers, and I doubt that you will find them here. This qUestion is one you should be asking yourself. I use to be just like you, but lately I've had a change of heart(Not reading the bible or any religious text but science related books).
Depends on where you date the start of the religions you are calling Abrahamic. The Book of Genesis doesn't start with Abraham, it starts with Adam and there are several important leaders before Abraham. Mainstream Christianity barely discusses Adam, Enoch or Noah, but they are important figures in Islam, Middle Judaism, and early Christianity.
There is something that sets physical laws without being subject to them. Aristotle called it the unmoved mover.
It sounds like a an internal contradiction because it is violating known natural laws. But that is not an internal inconsistency, it is an external one based on the assumption that the laws of physics are inviolate. Theists believe specifically that there is something that is not subject to the laws of physics that did the creating.
Yes but it very well might be natural processes and not a sentient being. Again in my opinion the answer to this question is not possible to be given at the moment, without a leap of faith.
59 comments
1 troy_caster 2017-12-06
Maybe.
1 designer4 2017-12-06
Yes
1 ArcherBond1987 2017-12-06
It's all up to interpretation ;)
1 Balthanos 2017-12-06
Have you ever noticed that Abrahamic religions aren't even in the top ten oldest religions to exist?
1 httr_barbarian 2017-12-06
this isn't a race. being in first doesn't imply authenticity or accuracy.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
Depends on where you date the start of the religions you are calling Abrahamic. The Book of Genesis doesn't start with Abraham, it starts with Adam and there are several important leaders before Abraham. Mainstream Christianity barely discusses Adam, Enoch or Noah, but they are important figures in Islam, Middle Judaism, and early Christianity.
1 Imma_trigger_you 2017-12-06
If there is a God, he's someone I definitely don't want to know.
1 pmichel 2017-12-06
good luck with that when you die and meet him face to face
1 vitisrotundifolia 2017-12-06
Yes
1 Nightwing6486 2017-12-06
After centuries of iffy translations and misinterpretations, the Bible we have today barely resembles the original story. We have no way of knowing how accurate it is to the way the author(s) intended it. Many of the events described in the bible are physically impossible and clearly exaggerated (walking on water, 2 of every animal on one boat, etc.) I think a lot of it was loosely based on real events and people that actually existed, but there was a lot of fiction added.
As far as God himself goes, it's not possible with today's technology to prove or disprove the existence of a higher divine power. The way I see it, there's no point in arguing for or against something that can't be confirmed. It's all just opinion. Im not Christian but that doesn't mean I think Christians are wrong. I personally don't believe in the God specifically referred to in the bible because Christianity doesn't really fit my own personality and morals. But that doesn't mean I'm an atheist. We obviously came from somewhere
1 wololoPriestAoE 2017-12-06
No
1 cortiman420 2017-12-06
I believe it is now..The more you dig into conspiracies and history the more paranormal and occult things you'll find in the present/past
1 3Msleep 2017-12-06
Probably not.
We're most likely living in a simulation. Most religions in the world are just in it for the power, money, and sex (look up sex scandals in different religious sects)
1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-12-06
No. It's and allegory. You are a creator, for the Creator(s) created you. Now, start acting like one....
1 williamsates 2017-12-06
Is the Bible real? Well there are physical objects with properties, like individual Bibles. Those are real objects. As objects, they are printed from drafts. There are different versions traced to different drafts. Some drafts are products of scholars, some are products of theologians, some of both. The are generating by comparing manuscripts which are all different one from another, and written in languages that are no longer spoken. As such scholars and theologians use their judgment about which manuscripts and groups of manuscripts to use, sometimes using religious and ideological criteria. Some versions have religious convictions influence translations.
Going further back in time, and further away in geography, not only are the manuscript traditions different, but the very 'books' of the bible varied. This is called canon. Are Maccabees included or not, if so, are they referring to the different book by the same name, like for example Ethiopian Maccabees vs Septuagint version.
There is a great table laying out the differences in canon here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
So that brings us to the question of what was the original canon? It turns out it is nonsensical question. There were different religious communities having different canons, and even same religious communities having different canons and versions circulating internally.
This is a great work on canon generally:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Debate-Lee-Martin-McDonald/dp/0801047080
With this one being great for both canon and manuscript traditions of the OT:
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Criticism-Hebrew-Bible-English/dp/0800696646/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512549697&sr=1-1&keywords=textual+criticism+of+the+hebrew+bible
All of this has been ignoring what is actually contained in these collections. And that is literature of different genres, from different time periods. It is actually an anthology of literature. So is the anthology of literature real? Yes, of course. But all of this has been ignoring the central question. That is whether this anthology tells us true things about history, and the natural world. Here it is a mixed bag, with the good majority of the literature being mythical. Once we come to the 'historical books', there is a lot more good information but it is bent to serve the ideological and religious needs of the writers, who were not objective observers. So did the Assyrians attack, sure, did angels destroy the Assyrian army... no, the Assyrians won the war.
So to answer your question, " is the Bible real"? A short answer is, your question is nonsensical.
1 dr7simple 2017-12-06
Well presented response. What about the first part of the question; do you believe God is real?
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
God no, bible yes. The bible is used to control people but there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
1 AgentOne3Nine 2017-12-06
God is real, Moreno than the bible. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, how does it exist?
1 Just-my_Opinion 2017-12-06
Then where did God come from? Did it just exist?
1 AgentOne3Nine 2017-12-06
God is existence, I think your prescribing god as more materialistic. God isn't bound to time, he doesn't exist in the same way we perceive the world because he's eternal.
To be honest, I don't have all the answers, and I doubt that you will find them here. This qUestion is one you should be asking yourself. I use to be just like you, but lately I've had a change of heart(Not reading the bible or any religious text but science related books).
1 MrWhippie 2017-12-06
Couldn't the universe or universes be existence and eternal?
1 AgentOne3Nine 2017-12-06
Sure. You can interpret God however you want. I'm not here to tell you otherwise/that your wrong.
1 MrWhippie 2017-12-06
Nah that's all good. Me neither. Just making the point that, does there need to be a god? Matter could just be in existence eternally. The big bang was the beginning of this universe but is this the first universe? It may just be one of eternal big bangs.
1 AgentOne3Nine 2017-12-06
There does, because we aren't bound to the material world. There exists a spiritual one too. If we could live forever, then I would say we wouldn't but that will never be the case(Without becoming that guy From JL)
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
No, because they contain matter and energy, which cannot be created or destroyed according to the physical laws of the universe.
By analogy, if you found a human you could not assume they created themself or were eternally existent because creating a human requires a man and a woman.
Similarly, the creation of matter and energy in the universe requires something that is not subject to the laws of physics, or that somehow changes the laws of physics, in order to explain its existence. Aristotle called it the "unmoved mover."
1 MrWhippie 2017-12-06
If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, wouldn't that be an argument FOR what I said?
The humans analogy doesn't make sense because the humans arrived extremely recently in the scale of cosmology.
I don't know which theoretical physicists you've been reading but I haven't heard that one. I wouldn't worry too much about what Aristotle said. Those guys were great thinkers but they were among the first in civilization to ask the big questions. We have millennia of knowledge after that to work with.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
There is something that sets physical laws without being subject to them. Aristotle called it the unmoved mover.
It sounds like a an internal contradiction because it is violating known natural laws. But that is not an internal inconsistency, it is an external one based on the assumption that the laws of physics are inviolate. Theists believe specifically that there is something that is not subject to the laws of physics that did the creating.
1 Just-my_Opinion 2017-12-06
Well that's the great paradox
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
It's really not a paradox, it's a fact that needs to be dealt with in one's worldview if you want to avoid non contradiction (believing false things). It's one thing to say theism is false, but at least it avoids internal contradictions inherent to atheism. Atheism, like all worldviews that don't involve an "unmoved mover," simply can't explain the universe as it exists, so it must be rejected.
1 Just-my_Opinion 2017-12-06
All is a paradox I mean we as humans know nothing we just try to interpret our world as best we can so we really have no idea how the universe was created or even if the universe we live in is really a universal for really just inside of some sort of ant farm created by a civilization I mean do you think the fish in the labrador quarium know that they're not in the ocean if they were never in the ocean before they just know their life is what it is.
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
We don't know how the universe came into existence. God is just a substitute for "we don't know".
It might be there is an equal anti matter universe and both universes added together equal zero. But we can't know that at the moment.
We only can know starting from the big bang forward at the moment.
1 AgentOne3Nine 2017-12-06
You're right, but how do you get to 1 without starting at 0. There isn't a jump or loophole.
there is and there isn't.
There's a lot we don't know, and probably will never know. But what we do know is stuff that we perceive and experience and TRY to make sense of it all.
I like to think of the chaos theory when discussing stuff like this.
I also said that I believe there's a god, whatever form he/she/it may be in not that extra stuff that people associate with what comes with it. I also believe in evolution.
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
We simply don't know. Substituting God for "we don't know" is the same substituting Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or giant invisible space turtle. If you can substitute another deity without issue is it really a satisfying explanation?
I'm ok with a deistic approach as source for the big bang if people take comfort in that. But after the big bang there is no place for God left in our observable universe.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
If you want to take the position of atheism, that's fine. But saying there is "no evidence for the existence of a God" is just silly. The world as it exists today cannot be explained through existing natural laws because matter and energy are conserved.
You can't have matter and energy without something outside the system that created the matter and energy ex nihilo. Call it whatever you want God, Allah, Source Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, and so on, but something created matter and energy by violating the laws of physics, or else something modified the laws of physics. Either way, you can't explain things without something existing that is not subject to the laws of physics.
Atheism says "give me a free miracle with the Big Bang and I can explain the rest."
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
I answered this in another comment:
We simply don't know. Substituting God for "we don't know" is the same substituting Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or giant invisible space turtle. If you can substitute another deity without issue is it really a satisfying explanation?
I'm ok with a deistic approach as source for the big bang if people take comfort in that. But after the big bang there is no place for God left in our observable universe.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
Yes. Agnostic theism or even deism is vastly preferable to a worldview containing internal contradictions (atheism). You can start to focus your time on the important question: who is the Unmoved Mover?
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
Why does Atheism have internal contradictions? As an Atheist myself I'm perfectly fine saying "we don't know" to the origin of the universe. It might be eternal itself, it might be created, it might be a simulation within a computer, it might exist due to quantum fluctuations springing a negative and positive universe. We don't know and I'd even argue we might never know due to our limitations of being within the universe.
And if you agree with me that the only interaction of a God would be the creation of the universe wouldn't searching for a "who did it" a moot point? Because what difference would it make to the inhabitants of the universe?
Do you agree with the big bang theory and the theory of evolution through natural selection, or do you believe in divine creation? Honestly asking and not baiting for an easy target.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
The universe is governed by inviolate natural laws.
One of these inviolate natural laws is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Matter and energy exist.
But matter and energy cannot exist, because they cannot be created in the first place.
Then you're not an atheist. You're agnostic. Atheists claim to know that there was not a creator.
I don't agree with that.
I agree with big bang theory, evolution by natural selection, and divine creation.
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
Sorry but Atheists reject the notion that a god exists. They don't claim absolut knowledge about a gods existence. At least they shouldn't if they are intelectually honest. I don't say that I don't know if god exists, I reject the claim that one does exist or is needed to explain our own existence.
What I do say is I don't know how the universe came into existence. And a god isn't the only possible answer for this. I've listed other possible anwers in my previous post. A creator isn't a necessity.
In addtion we only know the Claim "matter and energy can't be destroyed or created" is true within our universe. We can't say that to be true outside our univers because our laws of physics don't apply there.
Ok thank you for your answer. If I undestand correctly you believe God created the universe and the laws governing it and let it proceed according to those laws but he still guides us and judges us for the entrance into heaven? Do you believe he directly invervenes with our lives?
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
You can call it whatever you want, but you still need an Unmoved Mover outside of the system. Something that can create energy and matter, or else alter the laws of physics to allow the creation of energy and matter.
No, I believe he violates the laws of the universe on very rare occasions. Like creating life, creating humanity, coming to Earth as Jesus, and so on.
I believe God intervenes from time to time. Speaking to people, inspiring the writing of books, influencing people to act in certain ways and occasionally directly forcing outcomes.
That doesn't mean he will intervene directly in your life or mine. But that he can be detected and known through his interventions in our world. Even something as simple as observing a sunset or the beauty in nature and realizing there must be a true form that is beautiful behind it.
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
We don't know if we need an outside source though. Our laws of physics don't apply outside of our universe. Maybe it is possible for energy to simply spring into existence outside of our universe. We simply don't know. The laws of physics we know are limited to the confince of our universe.
Ok, again thank you for your answer. I appreciate your openness even if I don't agree with your worldview.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
Right. If something exists outside of our universe that can create matter and energy in this universe, that's your Unmoved Mover.
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
Yes but it very well might be natural processes and not a sentient being. Again in my opinion the answer to this question is not possible to be given at the moment, without a leap of faith.
1 Loose-ends 2017-12-06
They are certainly very real attempts to try and explain our own unknown origins and purpose in life as physical creatures with no identifiable niche or role to play that we can ascertain when compared to all the other living things in the natural world and all their inter-dependent relationships in the ongoing creation and maintenance of that natural world we observe around us.
A world we too are utterly dependent on and yet would continue on and still be what it is or even more of what it is without our presence. Our purpose appears to be to search for and find a worthy purpose and make our lives meaningful.
It's towards that end that all of our philosophical thoughts and efforts are directed including all of our religious philosophies.
1 Iworshiplemons 2017-12-06
No.
1 TinKnockinMoroccan 2017-12-06
The bible is a physical document. God is a nebulous concept that various from religion and culture.
1 goingtohateme 2017-12-06
No!
Religion was and is a way to control the masses
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
Science has also been used to control the masses. That doesn't make science false. Similarly, the misuse of religious ideas and institutions doesn't falsify all claims of the existence of a deity.
1 Mixelplfft 2017-12-06
About as real as Gandalf.
1 SpiderDjion 2017-12-06
The Bible is nothing but a storybook and God is just made up bullshit .
1 donaldtroll 2017-12-06
Is this really a legitimate post?
Asking such a question in here with just a headline seems quite a lot like trolling/distractions to me...
1 orrery 2017-12-06
Only the Pantheistic God is real. The Bible is just an invention of Rome.
1 pmichel 2017-12-06
Yes.
1 Ostmormor 2017-12-06
In my opinion GOD is everything everywhere. Yes and no, i think the bible is more like a collection of history mixed with truth,exaggerations and lies used to control.
There is a lot of hidden messages in the bible only someone with knowledge of astrology, math, science etc can understand. Some of the things hidden is golden ratios and sacred geometry.
1 Osziris 2017-12-06
Why is it that you are made to view the Bible as myth? Made fun of if you believe it? Like a true conspiracy researcher said William Cooper, either the Bible is true and prophecy is being fulfilled, or these guys are using the book of Revelation as a blueprint.
1 YonicSouth123 2017-12-06
Can't really understand this fixation to the bible and god? What about all the other religions that surrounded us and still surround us?
I don't believe in any of these and i only see each religion as a manifestation of beliefs our ancestors had, trying to deal with natural phenomens and creating some kind of basic moral ethics for those societies, nothing else.
One of the oldest figures with an estimated religious connection that was found in europe is the lion-man found in Germany, estimated to be 35-40k years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-man
This points strongly in the direction that all those religious stories do attempt to deal with the circumstances (natural phenomens, strong/dangerous animals,etc.) those people living in that time had to deal with.
1 Wheresmyfoodwoman 2017-12-06
God is real to me. Each person must find him in their own way. Of course we have free will so you can choose to decide that it's completely b.s. and that's ok too. The Bible is a collection of metaphors, some bring the truth, where others were added for control. It's a personal journey for me, I would never try to impose it on anyone else.
1 mombomb22 2017-12-06
Yes. Spend time researching it. The deeper you go, the more you will believe. It is a journey. Take the first step.
1 SketchTeno 2017-12-06
The bible is a tangible real object. Like harry potter books are. The stories, myths, legends, and mythology is of controversial validity. For both. As per god? Real in the sense that jedi or christmas are real. The concept is an existing idea/ spirit. But is their a sentient being that is god? I venture only in the same way that the same way math or english are 'real'.
1 AgentOne3Nine 2017-12-06
God is existence, I think your prescribing god as more materialistic. God isn't bound to time, he doesn't exist in the same way we perceive the world because he's eternal.
To be honest, I don't have all the answers, and I doubt that you will find them here. This qUestion is one you should be asking yourself. I use to be just like you, but lately I've had a change of heart(Not reading the bible or any religious text but science related books).
1 httr_barbarian 2017-12-06
this isn't a race. being in first doesn't imply authenticity or accuracy.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
Depends on where you date the start of the religions you are calling Abrahamic. The Book of Genesis doesn't start with Abraham, it starts with Adam and there are several important leaders before Abraham. Mainstream Christianity barely discusses Adam, Enoch or Noah, but they are important figures in Islam, Middle Judaism, and early Christianity.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2017-12-06
There is something that sets physical laws without being subject to them. Aristotle called it the unmoved mover.
It sounds like a an internal contradiction because it is violating known natural laws. But that is not an internal inconsistency, it is an external one based on the assumption that the laws of physics are inviolate. Theists believe specifically that there is something that is not subject to the laws of physics that did the creating.
1 Sarcophilus 2017-12-06
Yes but it very well might be natural processes and not a sentient being. Again in my opinion the answer to this question is not possible to be given at the moment, without a leap of faith.