NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/911

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 5.0 KB | 94 lines

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux4.cso.uiuc.edu!jlamb
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:24:28 GMT
Lines: 82

[e-mail] (Milind Pandit) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>>The Koran also states some things that have been contradicted by physical
>>evidence. This isn't such a big deal, but the Koran shcolars can't give
>>any (not even an unreasonable one) as to why these contradictions exist.
>>Therefore I claim that the Koran is faulty, has been shown to be so, and
>>generalizing from this we can assume it has more than just the few mistakes
>>we have been able to show.

>Some other people have pointed out that the Bible indirectly states
>that pi = 3.  Maybe its just a matter of interpretation, but then you
>must also allow wide interpretation of other Biblical concepts.

The pi = 3 thing has come up a lot. (If someone has an exact reference
on this I wish you'd mail it to me). I think the passage goes: "The bowl
was measured to be 10 cubits wide and 30 cubits around." (I don't have
the reference so I can't be sure. I'm going to do something dangerous
and attack it from view without being sure. If this is an accurate
view of the passage then there is nothing wrong here. The bowl was
measured as such (which would have been within the instruments they
were using's measure of accuracy). The other thing is: How do we know
the bowl was a circle, or that the inner rim was used for one measure-
ment and the outer lip for the other? My point is that it is like likely
that this is a serious problem for you in believing the Bible, than it
is that you are looking for an excuse to dismiss the Bible. I'll add
something here: If you want to find a way to justify the dismission of
the Bible you don't have to look to far. If you want to really attack
my theory then I think you should look a little deeper.

>What about some scriptures on Hindu mysticism?  I have one which gives
>a lot of practical, useful advice on breathing and yogic postures,
>with miraculous but scientifically verified results, and eventually
>claims that God can be experienced through meditation.  Again, there
>are some provably true statements and some unprovable statements, and
>some of the latter contradict the Bible.

The parts that can be proven are fine. It would foolish to reject them.
Unfortunately, I can't really comment on Hindu writing. I haven't done
a lot of research on it (actually more like any research). I can see that
what you say might be a valid attack, but I'd have to do the research
before I'd give up. Sorry. (I'm only a freshman. I have a long way to
go before I can claim to be an authority on other religions (if ever)).
:-) When I go over the writings, I'll try to get back to you.


>>[deleted]

>>Yet another problem is the fact that God had to revel the Bible to a man,
>>to be read by man. How does God explain to Moses the concept of Evolution,
>>DNA, one billion years, etc. And if he does, how do the people understand?
>>God would have to revel to everyone everywhere all the knowledge necessary.
>>It just can't be. It makes logical sence for the Bible to require translation
>>based on the knowledge of the individual. How can God write a book that never
>>goes out of date? How can he create a work that will relate to a group of
>>nomads in tents in the middle of the desert, and a group of people 5000
>>years later, typing news articles in a language that hasn't been created yet,
>>on boxes called computers? The only way the make the Bible timeless was to
>>make parts of it symbolic and parts of it tranlatable. It makes logical
>>sence for it to be this way, and it adds to the argument rather than taking
>>away from it.

>I agree that what makes the Bible (or any other text) timeless is that
>it can be interpreted.  Can't the Biblical "definition" of God be
>similarly interpreted to mean a wide range of things, some of which
>obviously exist (goodness, love, human potential)?

I agree that there can be some real argument over the nature of God, but
I'm only trying to prove His existence, not his nature. But, I can justify
putting a limit on Him. (ie contained by human potential etc) Anything
that can account for all the descriptions found in the Bible is fine by
me. As long as you acknowledge the existence of God and the definition
of His abilities within the framework of the Bible. (I'm not really
expecting this, BTW).


--
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?"             | Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"       -Ayn Rand     | ([e-mail])