Is any purported work of sacred scripture the word of God?

[uwot]

Sir, whoever you are, I like you far better than that truculent Greylorn Ell. Still, I shall read his book anyway.

[Greylorn Ell]

Sir, whoever you are, I like you far better than that truculent Greylorn Ell. Still, I shall read his book anyway.

Sometimes I like me better than him as well. He's an excellent filter.

This has been an edgy and constructive conversation. I'm delighted that you will read DUAS and look forward to further conversations with you, from which I expect to learn. I'll PM with suggestions.

Don't expect to like Greylorn while reading, but he's managed to connect with some readers who have a sense of humor. If, after an honest perusal of the book including plenty of your comments written in the margins and free pages, you conclude that I've misrepresented it, I'll buy it back from you with shipping on my nickel.

[Greylorn Ell]

You could ask God to see what God says. BTW, Please let me know what God tells you.

God told me that he really did write all the scriptures, but as a joke and a test, and you pass the test by realizing they're all bullshit. If you believe them you're the butt of the joke.

Excellent perspective!

But what happens if one passes the test?

[Blaggard]

You could ask God to see what God says. BTW, Please let me know what God tells you.

God told me that he really did write all the scriptures, but as a joke and a test, and you pass the test by realizing they're all bullshit. If you believe them you're the butt of the joke.

Excellent perspective!

But what happens if one passes the test?

The Ragnarok.

[Blaggard]

Actually, no. If you pick up a calculus or physics textbook, or peruse a math or physics paper, you'll find that it is not just lines of mathematics. There is always some explanatory text involved. Even the people who read these things can use some assistance following the author's line of thought, and these are always expressed in some language, often with lots of jargon developed within the book or paper, or, for advanced material, jargon that was taught in the educational process.

Perhaps you noticed that Newton's "Principia Mathematica" was a more difficult read than a modern calculus book because 17th century British English does not translate directly into American English? Leibnitz' version of calculus was essentially the same as Newton's, but was written in German and used different symbolisms, and so was not immediately recognized as being the same thing. I tried reading Newton's book after graduating with a physics degree, and had considerable difficulty making sense of it. Had I been transported back to Newton's time, I'd have had a difficult time understanding him.

You are correct in a sense that there are, or have been, different mathematical dialects, but this is a matter of symbolism. The use of symbols such as + - / and a raised "x" or dot for multiply are fairly standard. Often, the multiplication symbol is implied, as in E=mcc. Other symbols are used for different mathematical operations, such as the Greek lower-case delta in differential calculus, and the integral symbol. Notice that I cannot even display these symbols in the language allowed here, not even c-squared.

But in mathematics, when all is written and translated, the core mathematical principles are what they are. Were you or I to try to compare Newton's expression of calculus to Leibnitz, we would have trouble perceiving that they are the same. Mathematicians who knew both languages had no difficulty recognizing that the math is the same.

∫∂

You can use this and cut and paste the html:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... al_symbols

Usually if its an equation as well you can simply post an image link:





On some boards you can use tags like [sup]2[/sup] to raise the letter so you can show squared but not on this one. Of course it'd be great if every forum had installed LaTeX but sadly they aint.

Windows lets you alter the font or cut and paste html versions of hundreds of fonts too.

Simply type charmap into the search box and it'll let you mess about with various fonts including some more science friendly ones:
e=mc²
x²
100°=½°½ f(x)=y³
∑=∫x dx lim→±∞
and so on

[R2D2]

Thanks for all the lengthy responses...I find them all interesting. This one is controversial for many...but I say emphatically HELL NO There are so many christians in my class so I'm sure I'll get backlash. I have to say that everyone has rewritten the bible, Koran,....how can anyone claim it was even from God in the first place.
Look at the Mormons for example...that is so f*%$% laughable. But whats pathetic is he was able to sell his sacred scripture and pass it off as the restored bible. He said God and Jesus appeared before him and told him where to find the buried "gold scripted plates that was the new gospel". The mormon church has 15 million members world wide and 15K missionaries. What ever believe in whatever makes you happy but don't hate on those that think it's no different than believing in Santa Clause.

[Soren]

Kind of irrelevant, R2. I'm not sure how the failures of the Mormons are supposed to be damning to every other belief system...unless you somehow know they're secretly all Mormons, in some sense. And Mormons aren't committed to the Koran, nor Muslims to Torah. So it seems to me you've got apples and oranges there.

The question of how many loony or misguided religions are out there wouldn't even impinge on the question of whether or not there were some other writing that was actually backed by God. That "word" would have to stand or fall on its own merits, not on proposed analogies with other writings. And if there were a billion fake "scriptures," it would still not tell us whether or not there existed among them one truthful one.

It seems to me that the methodology necessary here is pretty obvious: if someone told me they had the "word of R2" in hand, I would email you and ask, "Did you write this?" That would be the easiest way to find out. And the answer would depend not at all depend on how attractive/plausible/congenial/pleasant or whatever I found the "word" in question, but rather it would turn on whether or not it was in fact the "word" that you had issued and which you yourself happen to condone.

Does that not seem sensible enough?

[R2D2]

Thank you
I guess what I'm trying to say is that no one can "ask" god if he wrote any of them therefore the answer is no.

[Soren]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no one can "ask" god if he wrote any of them therefore the answer is no.

What is your evidence to support this statement?

It can't be simply the fact that you personally don't know God...no one would bother to contest that, but it wouldn't tell against someone else knowing such a Being if He existed, would it? At least in theory, you'd have to admit it was quite possible that either Muhammed in his cave, or Joseph Smith with his tablets, or Moses on his mountain, or the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in a trance, or someone or some other group had encountered God, even if you personally are disinclined to want to believe it.

So how did you come to disprove all such possibilities?

[R2D2]

your right...I can't prove it and neither can they

[thedoc]

Absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

[Soren]

Astutely observed, thedoc, and concisely put.

The strong claim (i.e. that no religion has a genuinely "sacred scripture" from God) is R2's claim. Thus he takes on himself a burden to show the proof for his assertion.

As for the others, he gives us no reason to think he knows whether or not they can prove it. It's starting to look like maybe it's just a bald assumption.

But perhaps he will still come through with his evidence.

[thedoc]

Religion is about faith, so proof is irrelevant. And in some cases counterproductive.

[R2D2]

Thank you Doc

[Soren]

Don't thank him to quickly. However well intended, his reply is an irrelevant one.

The question is not whether or not religion is about faith, but whether your belief that no one has "sacred scripture" is a faith belief.

It appears now that it is.

You don't know at all...you've chosen to believe, despite having no evidence for your dismissive position.

Prove me wrong.