Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote:I would be very surprised if the genesis story in the bible is a factual account of what it purports to be a factual account of. But I also don't necessarily believe that if the Bible isn't factual that therefore there is no god.

Joan of Arc was a reasonable proof of God.

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I would be very surprised if the genesis story in the bible is a factual account of what it purports to be a factual account of. But I also don't necessarily believe that if the Bible isn't factual that therefore there is no god.

Joan of Arc was a reasonable proof of God.

Why do you say that?

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I would be very surprised if the genesis story in the bible is a factual account of what it purports to be a factual account of. But I also don't necessarily believe that if the Bible isn't factual that therefore there is no god.

Joan of Arc was a reasonable proof of God.

Joan was reasonable proof of schizophrenia.

HexHammer wrote: Adam ate of the Apple and became aware of his nakedness, and God asked Adam, where art thou?

........why would God ask Adam where he is, if God already knew that? ...seems God's omnipresents is something applied later, in the bible.

Doesn't a parent ask a child "what did you do?" knowing what the child did in advance, but just wanting the child to admit what they have done? You post as as if you have never had children.

Dalek Prime wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I would be very surprised if the genesis story in the bible is a factual account of what it purports to be a factual account of. But I also don't necessarily believe that if the Bible isn't factual that therefore there is no god.

Joan of Arc was a reasonable proof of God.

Joan was reasonable proof of schizophrenia.

I would suggest that it is unreasonable to expect an accurate diagnosis of anyone's mental state from such a fanciful historic account.

The winners write the history, or those with an agenda to promote.

I find it quite hilarious when christian apologists like W L Craig pretend to use science to 'prove' the existence of 'God'. God is a supernatural being. The supernatural is outside the natural world, and therefore any actual evidence that supports its existence effectively puts it out of existence. Evidence would make it a part of the natural world, therefore the supernatural doesn't exist by default.

thedoc wrote: I would suggest that it is unreasonable to expect an accurate diagnosis of anyone's mental state from such a fanciful historic account.

The winners write the history, or those with an agenda to promote.

And I would suggest that in Joan's well studied case, even most Frenchmen would assign a degree of probability to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. All history is written by the winners, doc. Is it thus all wrong? That's silly, and you know it. Especially when considering the alternative; that she was actually in contact with divinity. I accept the simple answer before the extreme..

I would have voted but there wasn't a "don't really care" category.

No God has ever been reported to
What never was
Cannot hope to hear from you.

...or you from IT!

God exists...and it's a c*nt to (real) sinners.

Gulf of Owe Man.

attofishpi wrote:God exists...and it's a c*nt to (real) sinners.

Gulf of Owe Man.

I wonder what God thinks of you for committing the sin of making him look like an idiot.

Harbal wrote:

attofishpi wrote:God exists...and it's a c*nt to (real) sinners.

Gulf of Owe Man.

I wonder what God thinks of you for committing the sin of making him look like an idiot.

Good, keep pondering.

attofishpi wrote: Good, keep pondering.

I'm afraid not. It was just a passing thought and I'm not expecting it to pass this way again.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote: I would suggest that it is unreasonable to expect an accurate diagnosis of anyone's mental state from such a fanciful historic account.

The winners write the history, or those with an agenda to promote.

And I would suggest that in Joan's well studied case, even most Frenchmen would assign a degree of probability to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. All history is written by the winners, doc. Is it thus all wrong? That's silly, and you know it. Especially when considering the alternative; that she was actually in contact with divinity. I accept the simple answer before the extreme..

I never said it was wrong, but you must consider it when evaluating the account.

I also don't think it's a good idea to just accept it at face value, all possibilities must at least be considered, and each person should make their own evaluation. I would say it's most likely that the basic story is true, but I would also expect there to be some enhancement.

BTW, I don't deny the possibility of direct contact with the divine, but I question the accuracy of the account, when it is people doing the reporting.

Gary Childress wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I would be very surprised if the genesis story in the bible is a factual account of what it purports to be a factual account of. But I also don't necessarily believe that if the Bible isn't factual that therefore there is no god.

Joan of Arc was a reasonable proof of God.

Why do you say that?

How is it that an ignorant peasent girl suddenly gets an urge to lead the army of froggers against the tea drinkers? Is that a common thing? ..I think not.

She had visions and voices to guide her.