Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

[Orange_Crush]

No issue really. You stated you believe the OT to be historical then pointed to a documentary about the Exodus. When challenged on the veracity of the evidence in the documentary the answer seemed to have been "well there is no evidence it didn't happen". Well....ok? You're right. So what.

I agree. So what?

I actually responded to a post that had nothing to do with the Exodus. I was pointing out to 8188 that he was painting Christians with too broad a brush in his critiques of us. He tried to divert the conversation away from his stereotypes by asking me about my beliefs about the Exodus. I actually tried twice to ignore the question because I thought it a non-issue to the discussion at hand.

On the third time asking me about my belief, I answered. He asked about the lack of evidence. I told him that didn't bother me, and gave the reason why. I also listed what I thought may be positive evidence. It was called into question. Since it doesn't matter to me all that much, I (admittedly sarcastically) fell back to my lack of worry per lack of evidence.

I then asked for clarification if there is any positive evidence against the Exodus, which should cause me more concern than a lack of evidence. I haven't seen any positive evidence presented against the Exodus, so have nothing to research on that matter at the moment.

Did you notice that I didn't start this conversation about the Exodus, so definitely didn't start it trying to prove that it happened? I was asked what I believe and said what I believe. I was asked about the lack of evidence and responded to the question.

As a side, I couldn't care less about Egyptian archeological documentaries at the moment.

That's one more thing we have in common at the moment.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

One, i haven't referenced Plantinga's essay. Plus, you'll have to be more specific on what you are referencing regarding Plantinga. I have a few of my own issues with him.
2nd, you've accused me of circular reasong. Care to provide an example?

3rd, your answer to name calling is to again name call. Brilliant.

Christian theists have a reason to view the laws of logic in the highest regard. That is, thought is goverend by an objective, and transcendent standard. I asked you several posts back to provide an objective grounding for logic from a material perspective. Still waiting. From a Thomist POV, God is logic, not merely a being that is logical. God is being/God is logic. As such God is not composed of a logical part, but his being is logic. Therefore God cannot be something He is not. That itself is fundamental to the law of logic, specifically the law of non-contradiction. To be illogical is to defy His nature (His being).

The source i refereced explained this, and your retort is to blast me for providing an explanation? That makes no sense. If you are going to ignore the explanation, then why ask the question? It's absurd.

Miracles would not be a matter of defying nature (the natural world), but transcending nature. God is NOT nature. Nature is the material world. By defintion, classical theology, views God as transcendent, immutable, immaterial and eternal. The universe is temporal, materlal, and changing. So, if we are examining this LOGICALLY, God is sovereign and has dominion over the natural world.
So, according to classical theology, logic relates to God's being. Miracles relate to God's power over His creation and is external to His being. That is why God cannot/will not defy logic but can defy (transcend) nature.

The bottom line is this. You made a claim that logic and faith are in conflict. You've yet to offer an evidence to support this claim. I've provided evidence based on the rules of logic itself to show where you are actually being illogical.

Can God create a stone which he can not lift? If he can he is defying logic. If he can't he is not all powerful. If he is all knowing then free will either in God or man does not exist. Prayer is pointless.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can God create a stone which he can not lift? If he can he is defying logic. If he can't he is not all powerful. If he is all knowing then free will either in God or man does not exist. Prayer is pointless.

I don't want to tread on Roust's fun, so I'll just say that I look forward to his response.

 

[rjd970]

I agree. So what?

I actually responded to a post that had nothing to do with the Exodus. I was pointing out to 8188 that he was painting Christians with too broad a brush in his critiques of us. He tried to divert the conversation away from his stereotypes by asking me about my beliefs about the Exodus. I actually tried twice to ignore the question because I thought it a non-issue to the discussion at hand.

On the third time asking me about my belief, I answered. He asked about the lack of evidence. I told him that didn't bother me, and gave the reason why. I also listed what I thought may be positive evidence. It was called into question. Since it doesn't matter to me all that much, I (admittedly sarcastically) fell back to my lack of worry per lack of evidence.

I then asked for clarification if there is any positive evidence against the Exodus, which should cause me more concern than a lack of evidence. I haven't seen any positive evidence presented against the Exodus, so have nothing to research on that matter at the moment.

Did you notice that I didn't start this conversation about the Exodus, so definitely didn't start it trying to prove that it happened? I was asked what I believe and said what I believe. I was asked about the lack of evidence and responded to the question.



That's one more thing we have in common at the moment.

All I'm saying is there being "no evidence of lack" doesn't mean anything whereas "lack of evidence" says a lot more. If you were being sarcastic, my bad.

 

[Orange_Crush]

All I'm saying is there being "no evidence of lack" doesn't mean anything.

My point was just that a lack of evidence proves nothing--one way or another--so I wasn't really worried about it.

If you were being sarcastic, my bad.

Were my fingers typing? And by all means, no 'bad' at all...

 

[ClearwaterVol]

My point was just that a lack of evidence proves nothing--one way or another--so I wasn't really worried about it.

Not always factual. A lack of evidence can tend to prove or disprove something if it is a situation in which one would expect evidence to be present. But I guess in that case the lack of evidence becomes evidence. So who knows.

 

[rjd970]

Can God create a stone which he can not lift? If he can he is defying logic. If he can't he is not all powerful. If he is all knowing then free will either in God or man does not exist. Prayer is pointless.

While I think this makes perfect sense and a valid question, it's going to be pointless going down this road, just FYI. When one side can point to an all powerful being where anything is possible, they can philosophically scrape anything together and dress it up nice. It's a different set of rules. In fact, rules probably don't apply, by definition.

I suspect some sort of this is the wrong question and words like question begging, straw man, "ought" and other such stuff will be thrown around. This response is guaranteed to be multiple paragraphs long in an elaborate display of pseudo philosophical nonsense. Your head will be spinning and eyes turned to the back of your head. You will make a valiant effort to show how it is wrong, but it will be to no avail because one side will simply not be able to comprehend that your definition of reason and logic shouldnt apply in this case. This will all continue for several pages until we've agreed to disagree that evolution happened.

Bless you friend, bless you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not always factual. A lack of evidence can tend to prove or disprove something if it is a situation in which one would expect evidence to be present. But I guess in that case the lack of evidence becomes evidence. So who knows.

I agree. It's kind of like the old (incorrect) adage that "you can't prove a negative". Acually, you can. If we're standing together in the same room, and I claim that I don't have a pea in my right fist, we can easily prove that negative.

I guess the the question is, is the Exodus like us standing in the same room and opening our fist? It comes down to how much you should expect to find evidence of something that happened thousands of years ago, when you're not sure when it happened, in a culture that is known for whitewashing stuff that they considered embarrassing from their historical records.

In any case, unless positive evidence against the Exodus is found, I'm not too worked up about it either way. :good!:

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I agree. It's kind of like the old (incorrect) adage that "you can't prove a negative". Acually, you can. If we're standing together in the same room, and I claim that I don't have a pea in my right fist, we can easily prove that negative.

I guess the the question is, is the Exodus like us standing in the same room and opening our fist? It comes down to how much you should expect to find evidence of something that happened thousands of years ago, when you're not sure when it happened, in a culture that is known for whitewashing stuff that they considered embarrassing from their historical records.

In any case, unless positive evidence against the Exodus is found, I'm not too worked up about it either way. :good!:

I enjoy your posts.

 

[rjd970]

Just out of curiosity, what would constitute positive evidence against Exodus?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

3rd, your answer to name calling is to again name call. Brilliant.

I didn't name call. I called your post "cut and paste drivel." Are you going to deny that it was a cut and paste job?

 

[Orange_Crush]

While I think this makes perfect sense and a valid question, it's going to be pointless going down this road, just FYI. When one side can point to an all powerful being where anything is possible, they can philosophically scrape anything together and dress it up nice. It's a different set of rules. In fact, rules probably don't apply, by definition.

I suspect some sort of this is the wrong question and words like question begging, straw man, "ought" and other such stuff will be thrown around. This response is guaranteed to be multiple paragraphs long in an elaborate display of pseudo philosophical nonsense. Your head will be spinning and eyes turned to the back of your head. You will make a valiant effort to show how it is wrong, but it will be to no avail because one side will simply not be able to comprehend that your definition of reason and logic shouldnt apply in this case. This will all continue for several pages until we've agreed to disagree that evolution happened.

Bless you friend, bless you.

Again, I don't want to step on Roust's discusion, so I won't go too deeply here, but I think you're almost exactly wrong. Roust's argument is actually dependent on logic. Your prediction that one may "...scrape anything together and dress it up nice" is going in the wrong direction. I think it would be helpful to define "omnipotence" and "thing" before Roust gets back, since the Biblical definition of "omnipotence" is "all things are possible".

See? Just one paragraph...

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just out of curiosity, what would constitute positive evidence against Exodus?

That was kind of the point of the sarcasm per "The Jews were not here". I'm not sure I can think of any, but I think it was implied. So, I'm still waiting.

 

[Roustabout]

Can God create a stone which he can not lift? If he can he is defying logic. If he can't he is not all powerful. If he is all knowing then free will either in God or man does not exist. Prayer is pointless.

This is called a logical absurdity. It isn't valid and nothing personal, is about as amateur as you get when it comes to objections. For one, it commits the very error I've already pointed out.
It's much like the squared circle.
The argument of free will is a complex one, but unrelated to whether God, much less the Christian God exists.
RJD said it. "anyTHING." A rock too big for god to lift is an absurdity, not a thing. So is a squared circle or a one ended stick. yawn.

 

[Roustabout]

I didn't name call. I called your post "cut and paste drivel." Are you going to deny that it was a cut and paste job?

Huh, I provided content and quotes to directly deal with objections. You have a unique way of not dealing with the actual content.

 

[rjd970]

This is called a logical absurdity. It isn't valid and nothing personal, is about as amateur as you get when it comes to objections. For one, it commits the very error I've already pointed out.
It's much like the squared circle.
The argument of free will is a complex one, but unrelated to whether God, much less the Christian God exists.
RJD said it. "anyTHING." A rock too big for god to lift is an absurdity, not a thing. So is a squared circle or a one ended stick. yawn.

So God is bounded by absurdities?

 

[rjd970]

This is called a logical absurdity. It isn't valid and nothing personal, is about as amateur as you get when it comes to objections. For one, it commits the very error I've already pointed out.
It's much like the squared circle.
The argument of free will is a complex one, but unrelated to whether God, much less the Christian God exists.
RJD said it. "anyTHING." A rock too big for god to lift is an absurdity, not a thing. So is a squared circle or a one ended stick. yawn.

So God is bounded by absurdities of logic? Or is this a case where our minds can't comprehend it, so it doesn't need to be answered?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I enjoy your posts.

Likewise my friend.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

This is called a logical absurdity. It isn't valid and nothing personal, is about as amateur as you get when it comes to objections. For one, it commits the very error I've already pointed out.
It's much like the squared circle.
The argument of free will is a complex one, but unrelated to whether God, much less the Christian God exists.
RJD said it. "anyTHING." A rock too big for god to lift is an absurdity, not a thing. So is a squared circle or a one ended stick. yawn.

The free will argument absolutely has to do with whether God exists. If God is all knowing then he knows everything from the beginning of time through the end of time. Such a being can have no uncertainty. Therefore, there is no ability change his mind. For if he were to change his mind then he would not have known what was to occur in the first place. Since he lacks free will he is clearly not all powerful because he has no ability to change occurrence of events.

Hence a being that is all knowing and all powerful cannot logically exist.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The free will argument absolutely has to do with whether God exists. If God is all knowing then he knows everything from the beginning of time through the end of time. Such a being can have no uncertainty. Therefore, there is no ability change his mind. For if he were to change his mind then he would not have known what was to occur in the first place. Since he lacks free will he is clearly not all powerful because he has no ability to change occurrence of events.

Hence a being that is all knowing and all powerful cannot logically exist.

Brain-fry a little deeper, and add that He exists outside of time. I think you're confusing His ability to logically exist with our ability to fully comprehend Him.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Brain-fry a little deeper, and add that He exists outside of time. I think you're confusing His ability to logically exist with our ability to fully comprehend Him.

But now we're getting outside the arena of logic and into one of faith which is where I have positioned myself since the beginning of this discussion. It requires a leap of faith.

 

[Orange_Crush]

But now we're getting outside the arena of logic and into one of faith which is where I have positioned myself since the beginning of this discussion. It requires a leap of faith.

Pretty much all metaphysical discussions begin there. That's one reason, despite the tenacity of discussions, I actually really respect PKT, RDJ, etc... on here. They realize this. Any Christian worth their salt should realizes this as well.

At the end of the day, these discussions almost always consist of little more than analyzing someone's underlying, un-provable presuppositions against someone else's underlying, un-provable presuppositions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

One, i haven't referenced Plantinga's essay. Plus, you'll have to be more specific on what you are referencing regarding Plantinga. I have a few of my own issues with him.
2nd, you've accused me of circular reasong. Care to provide an example?

3rd, your answer to name calling is to again name call. Brilliant.

Christian theists have a reason to view the laws of logic in the highest regard. That is, thought is goverend by an objective, and transcendent standard. I asked you several posts back to provide an objective grounding for logic from a material perspective. Still waiting. From a Thomist POV, God is logic, not merely a being that is logical. God is being/God is logic. As such God is not composed of a logical part, but his being is logic. Therefore God cannot be something He is not. That itself is fundamental to the law of logic, specifically the law of non-contradiction. To be illogical is to defy His nature (His being).

The source i refereced explained this, and your retort is to blast me for providing an explanation? That makes no sense. If you are going to ignore the explanation, then why ask the question? It's absurd.

Miracles would not be a matter of defying nature (the natural world), but transcending nature. God is NOT nature. Nature is the material world. By defintion, classical theology, views God as transcendent, immutable, immaterial and eternal. The universe is temporal, materlal, and changing. So, if we are examining this LOGICALLY, God is sovereign and has dominion over the natural world.
So, according to classical theology, logic relates to God's being. Miracles relate to God's power over His creation and is external to His being. That is why God cannot/will not defy logic but can defy (transcend) nature.

The bottom line is this. You made a claim that logic and faith are in conflict. You've yet to offer an evidence to support this claim. I've provided evidence based on the rules of logic itself to show where you are actually being illogical.

So God is bounded by absurdities?

So God is bounded by absurdities of logic? Or is this a case where our minds can't comprehend it, so it doesn't need to be answered?

I think Roust already presented his position on this, which was consistent with his dismissal of the logical proof against God. To take the liberty of boiling Roust's position down, God's very nature is logical; He is bound by His nature.

Roust's philosophy here is supported by Biblical theology, which makes it internally consistent, unless you can show differently. Short of you showing it internally inconsistent, you aren't taking issue with the God of the Bible's existence, but instead are taking issue with whether a god of your creation exists.

 

[Roustabout]

So God is bounded by absurdities of logic? Or is this a case where our minds can't comprehend it, so it doesn't need to be answered?

Neither. That's a false dichotomy. You are talking to a classical theist. God is simple and not comprised of parts. He isn't bound to logic as if it is an outside force. He is logic. His being is logic. To say God is bound by an absurdity is well, absurd.

 

[SergeantVol]

Instead of name calling, all insults in this thread will be presented in the style of Monty Python!