Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#151
#151
LittleCat said:
We tend to be focusing on the more "outrageous" claims made, which are believed by christians through faith. Not evidence. I don't think any could give legitimate evidence that a man was swallowed by a whale for 3 days. But that's the point I suppose. That christians are supposed to believe in ideas/events that God helped happen that seem unreal in all reasonable thinking. I don't know. It's just don't see an argument, it usually turns into a bashing christians party.
Click to expand...

I understand.
 
#152
#152
Orange_Crush said:
Probability does not dictate possibility. I would say that if God exists, and He wants to interact with His creation, miracles should be expected, but not repeatable.

Actuality is not dependent on repeatability.

This will always come down to whether God exists. So, you'll need to make a logical argument why it is more rational to believe that God does not exist than to believe that He does.
Click to expand...

Probability doesn't dictate anything, but it does make a certain event more or less likely. Rational and logical thought leans towards the probable not the improbable.

Your arguments regarding logic, though well formed, are simply circular in nature. Your position is that since I can't prove Jonah didn't live in a whale due to God's intervention it is equally likely that he did and did so by God's hand. However, you can provide me no evidence that anyone ever has survived after being eaten by a fish and living for 3 days in its belly while there are literally thousands of examples of people dying when eaten by a fish. This alone makes my position more likely.

Religion asks for faith. It asks that you suspend your belief in laws of nature that are set in stone. It is less likely to be true than to not be true. Furthermore, when you account for the nearly infinite number of religions that have been around since the beginning of time, it makes it even less likely that your particular brand of religion is the truth since almost all religions require an adherence to their own singular truth at the exclusion of all others.

The existence or non-existence of God is a very personal belief for some. The feelings that people have on the subject and the proof required are also deeply personal. These feelings enable people to suspend their belief in the logical and scientific and allow them to have faith that the impossible has occurred, as written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#153
#153
ClearwaterVol said:
Probability doesn't dictate anything, but it does make a certain event more or less likely. Rational and logical thought leans towards the probable not the improbable.
Click to expand...

Give me the logical proof that 'rational and logical thought leans toward the probable and not the improbable." I think you're smuggling something in there. As a matter of fact, the above is the fallacy of the appeal to probability.

And, as we'll see, how 'probable' miracles' existence are will be dictated by whether someone believes in God, or believes that only material exists. So, what you are actually saying is that it is more probable that God does not exist. You'll need to prove that.

ClearwaterVol said:
Your arguments regarding logic, though well formed, are simply circular in nature. Your position is that since I can't prove Jonah didn't live in a whale due to God's intervention it is equally likely that he did and did so by God's hand. However, you can provide me no evidence that anyone ever has survived after being eaten by a fish and living for 3 days in its belly while there are literally thousands of examples of people dying when eaten by a fish. This alone makes my position more likely.
Click to expand...

You are either misstating my argument, or missing it. I have never said that "since I can't prove Jonah didn't live in a whale due to God's intervention it is equally likely that he did and did so by God's hand". That would be too close to the fallacy of the appeal to possibility, which is a sister fallacy to the appeal to probability that you made above.

Calling Jonah a miracle by definition makes it less probable. Since we've both agreed that actuality does not depend on probability or repeatability, its probability is a red herring.

I am merely stating that believing in miracles is equally as rational/irrational as your belief that miracles do not happen because they are equal and opposing statements on the same subject: "God exists" or "God does not exist". If the subject is unprovable on both sides, then both statements are equally rational.

ClearwaterVol said:
Religion asks for faith. It asks that you suspend your belief in laws of nature that are set in stone. It is less likely to be true than to not be true. Furthermore, when you account for the nearly infinite number of religions that have been around since the beginning of time, it makes it even less likely that your particular brand of religion is the truth since almost all religions require an adherence to their own singular truth at the exclusion of all others.
Click to expand...

Prove that miracles are less likely to be true than not to be true. I propose that miracles, if the God of the Bible exists, are more likely to be true than not true. So, their probability will rest in the existence of God. We've both agreed, I think, that His existence is neither proven, not disproven, so please give me the logical arguments that would support the statement that miracles are less likely to exist than not to exist.

Again, you are smuggling a lot into your argument.

The rest of this paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion since we've established that actuality does not depend on probability.

ClearwaterVol said:
The existence or non-existence of God is a very personal belief for some. The feelings that people have on the subject and the proof required are also deeply personal. These feelings enable people to suspend their belief in the logical and scientific and allow them to have faith that the impossible has occurred, as written.
Click to expand...

I am stating categorically that my belief in miracles are every bit as logical/rational as your disbelief in miracles. You have called my logic well formed while arguing against it. For you to support the claims of your last paragraph, that I've suspended logic to believe in miracles, please point out where your logic is better formed than my logic.
 
#154
#154
Let me see if I can clarify by simplification.

The Christian logic:

God exists and interacts with the world.
Thus it is possible that He kept Jonah alive in a whale for three days.

Atheist logic:

God does not exist; all that exists is material and natural laws.
Thus it is impossible for Jonah to have lived for three days in a whale.

Those are the two logical alternatives, as I see them, without resorting to logical fallacies as red herrings. And both are based on the unproven bolds. Thus, each is equally rational.

What am I missing?
 
#155
#155
So OC, by your own logic, you have to concede then that every other belief and religion is just as rational as your Christian faith and atheism, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#158
#158
VolsSportsFan said:
So OC, by your own logic, you have to concede then that every other belief and religion is just as rational as your Christian faith and atheism, correct?
Click to expand...

I guess I would by this simple, singular line of logic. However, I've spent a great deal of time studying the various major religions of the world and come to my own beliefs as to their logical veracity. They each fail, as I see it, on their own points, to explain reality as we see it.

But for the sake of argument here... Sure. By this simple line of reasoning. Are you inferring that that is more of a problem for Christianity than for atheism?
 
#159
#159
Orange_Crush said:
I guess I would by this simple, singular line of logic. However, I've spent a great deal of time studying the various major religions of the world and come to my own beliefs as to their logical veracity. They each fail, as I see it, on their own points, to explain reality as we see it.

But for the sake of argument here... Sure. By this simple line of reasoning. Are you inferring that that is more of a problem for Christianity than for atheism?
Click to expand...

No; I'm making sure you are being consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#161
#161
MercyPercy said:
The OP asks if you think the old testament is literal or an allegory. If you believe it is literal on faith alone and openly admit it, that's fine. If you claim there is more substantial basis than just faith, that's where the debate starts. I don't think it's a more difficult argument to have than any other question regarding supposed historical events. What makes discussing the veracity of these historical claims different than discussing those made by any ancient text? It's normal academic pursuit.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I think the bigger, more interesting issue is: why have faith in story A, but not story B, story C, etc.? What criteria does one use to accept story A on faith but not story B, C, D, etc. on faith as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#162
#162
VolsSportsFan said:
No; I'm making sure you are being consistent.
Click to expand...

And for the record, that logic is comparing only Christian logic vs atheistic logic. I would need to use different logical arguments to compare the other religions of the world to Christianity in this case. I'll give my example.

Christian logic:

God exists and interacts with the world.
Thus Jonah could have lived in the whale for three days.

Buddhist logic:

The world does not exist.
It, you, I, Jonah, the whale and time are all illusions.
Thus Jonah did not live in the whale for three days.

Since Buddhism is one person telling another person that no person exists, it is an internal contradiction that is less rational on the subject of Jonah than both Christianity and Atheism.
 
Last edited:
#163
#163
PKT_VOL said:
I disagree.

I think the bigger, more interesting issue is: why have faith in story A, but not story B, story C, etc.? What criteria does one use to accept story A on faith but not story B, C, D, etc. on faith as well?
Click to expand...

Referring to stories within the same religion, or different religions themselves?
 
#164
#164
MercyPercy said:
Referring to stories within the same religion, or different religions themselves?
Click to expand...

Either/or.

As for within the same religion, fundamentalists understand and care greatly about the can of worms opened by not taking the text as literal and infallible (despite how nuts it makes them appear).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#165
#165
PKT_VOL said:
Either/or.

As for within the same religion, fundamentalists understand and care greatly about the can of worms opened by not taking the text as literal and infallible (despite how nuts it makes them appear).
Click to expand...

I understand. I'm not sure exactly what you were disagreeing with in my post.
 
#166
#166
Orange_Crush said:
If Christians believe that Jesus could die and rise again, why would you expect us not to believe that the same God could keep a man alive in a whale for three days?

Just a couple of questions... No big deal.
Click to expand...

This is where I am, OC. If I believe (because of my faith) that God created man and woman, created the world, created the universe, healed diseased people, etc.

Why would having a man be held safely in a fish's belly for 3 days be so difficult for God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#168
#168
Orange_Crush said:
Let me see if I can clarify by simplification.

The Christian logic:

God exists and interacts with the world.
Thus it is possible that He kept Jonah alive in a whale for three days.

Atheist logic:

God does not exist; all that exists is material and natural laws.
Thus it is impossible for Jonah to have lived for three days in a whale.

Those are the two logical alternatives, as I see them, without resorting to logical fallacies as red herrings. And both are based on the unproven bolds. Thus, each is equally rational.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Equally rational, if applying the principles of logic to each premise.

But not equally probable, since we know for a fact that "miracles" as such don't occur with the frequency that all other phenomena do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#169
#169
As long as we are consistent and say that believing Julius Caesar and Cleopatra took a spaceship to Mars is equally as rational as believing it didn't happen, I'm good. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#170
#170
This thread is a perfect example of why this country's future is ****ed.

We have real issues, real problems and no leaders yet the biggest discussions are about a ****ing book! The newstainment industry and political elite win again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#171
#171
hog88 said:
This thread is a perfect example of why this country's future is ****ed.

We have real issues, real problems and no leaders yet the biggest discussions are about a ****ing book! The newstainment industry and political elite win again.
Click to expand...

I think our best bet is to move to the Second Great Roman Empire on Mars.
 
#172
#172
hog88 said:
This thread is a perfect example of why this country's future is ****ed.

We have real issues, real problems and no leaders yet the biggest discussions are about a ****ing book! The newstainment industry and political elite win again.
Click to expand...

Um, it's a messageboard. Ultimately if I and OC or MP or whoever disagree on stuff like this it's not like it's greatly going to affect anything, and even if things appear to get heated I don't anyone is really taking things that personally.

For the record, I mostly just like the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#173
#173
VolsSportsFan said:
Um, it's a messageboard. Ultimately if I and OC or MP or whoever disagree on stuff like this it's not like it's greatly going to affect anything, and even if things appear to get heated I don't anyone is really taking things that personally.

For the record, I mostly just like the discussion.
Click to expand...

post_thanks.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top