Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[ding]

In this callout thread alang1216 will be presenting his evidence for his belief that the God of Abraham is a myth and ding will be presenting his evidence that the God of Abraham is not a myth. No one else will be allowed to post in this thread. This is a 1v1 death match.

Have at it Alan. Present your evidence.

 

[alang1216]

Challenge accepted ding. Is there a time limit (the rules page seems to be missing)? I don't approve of a 'death match' since I don't expect to be resurrected.

 

[alang1216]

Evidence # 1: In my many years of living, I have NEVER once encountered ANYTHING that could only be attributed to a supernatural force. The sun has never stopped in the sky, never saw a burning bush that was not consumed, etc. By definition, the God of Abraham would be supernatural yet he has left no supernatural bread crumbs for me to follow.

 

[ding]

Challenge accepted ding. Is there a time limit (the rules page seems to be missing)? I don't approve of a 'death match' since I don't expect to be resurrected.

Don't worry it was only a joke to scare off others from chiming in.

Take your time. I'm in no rush at all.

 

[ding]

Evidence # 1: In my many years of living, I have NEVER once encountered ANYTHING that could only be attributed to a supernatural force. The sun has never stopped in the sky, never saw a burning bush that was not consumed, etc. By definition, the God of Abraham would be supernatural yet he has left no supernatural bread crumbs for me to follow.

So what? Maybe that's why it was a big deal. It's not something that commonly happens. Or maybe that was Jewish embellishment to make the account more memorable so that it was easier remember and pass down because that's how information was passed down back then; orally; through stories. Let's go with that. Let's say it was embellishment. That something did happen and that it was embellished like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree was embellished. I mean after all, Exodus didn't occur like it was portrayed, right? But something did happen. Not just the way it was portrayed.

So I am going to have to say... that just because the accounts were embellished, that doesn't make the God of Abraham a myth.

My evidence that the God of Abraham isn't a myth is Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[ding]

Evidence # 1: In my many years of living, I have NEVER once encountered ANYTHING that could only be attributed to a supernatural force. The sun has never stopped in the sky, never saw a burning bush that was not consumed, etc. By definition, the God of Abraham would be supernatural yet he has left no supernatural bread crumbs for me to follow.

So let's examine the key point of that account. The key point is that standards should be established. I'm pretty sure you will agree with that. You don't strike me as an anarchist. And of those initial ten standards - which are attributed to the God of Abraham - is there anything which is obviously flawed or wrong? For example let's say one of the commandments was that men can take any women they want whenever they want. Because if that were the case, I'd be agreeing with you. But that isn't the case. I can't find anything I disagree with in the 10 commandments. I find them to be quite logical. And after all my perception of the God of Abraham is that the God of Abraham IS logic among other "things."

 

[alang1216]

So what? Maybe that's why it was a big deal. It's not something that commonly happens. Or maybe that was Jewish embellishment to make the account more memorable so that it was easier remember and pass down because that's how information was passed down back then; orally; through stories. Let's go with that. Let's say it was embellishment. That something did happen and that it was embellished like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree was embellished. I mean after all, Exodus didn't occur like it was portrayed, right? But something did happen. Not just the way it was portrayed.

So I am going to have to say... that just because the accounts were embellished, that doesn't make the God of Abraham a myth.

I agree that whatever happened was an embellishment, in other words there was nothing supernatural required. Furthermore, I'd say that all the miracles in the Bible are embellishments, probably due largely to the author's ignorance of natural phenomenon. If you don't know why it rains, rain coming when you need it looks like a miracle, especially if you prayed or sacrificed for it.

Just because the accounts were embellished, that doesn't make the God of Abraham a myth, it just makes him unnecessary.

My evidence that the God of Abraham isn't a myth is Jesus Christ Himself.

You can't just define Jesus as the messiah and then use him as proof he was the messiah. Circular reasoning.

 

[alang1216]

So let's examine the key point of that account. The key point is that standards should be established. I'm pretty sure you will agree with that. You don't strike me as an anarchist. And of those initial ten standards - which are attributed to the God of Abraham - is there anything which is obviously flawed or wrong? For example let's say one of the commandments was that men can take any women they want whenever they want. Because if that were the case, I'd be agreeing with you. But that isn't the case. I can't find anything I disagree with in the 10 commandments. I find them to be quite logical. And after all my perception of the God of Abraham is that the God of Abraham IS logic among other "things."

You can't find anything you disagree with in the 10 commandments. OK, but that only means they could have been written by you, they didn't need to come from a supernatural source.

 

[ding]

I agree that whatever happened was an embellishment, in other words there was nothing supernatural required. Furthermore, I'd say that all the miracles in the Bible are embellishments, probably due largely to the author's ignorance of natural phenomenon. If you don't know why it rains, rain coming when you need it looks like a miracle, especially if you prayed or sacrificed for it.

Just because the accounts were embellished, that doesn't make the God of Abraham a myth, it just makes him unnecessary.


You can't just define Jesus as the messiah and then use him as proof he was the messiah. Circular reasoning.

Saying nothing supernatural happened is not a leap I'm willing to make. As for your belief that all the miracles in the Bible are embellishments are probably due largely to the author's ignorance of natural phenomenon, is something I totally disagree with (i.e. Jesus Christ). Besides you can't just make statements like this without any evidence or basis besides your desire for it to be true. Maybe provide a few examples of this supposed author's ignorance of natural phenomenon.

You know full well that the basis of my belief concerning the miracles performed by Christ are founded on evidence. But we can get to that soon enough after we have discussed the basis of your beliefs that the God of Abraham is a myth.

 

[ding]

You can't find anything you disagree with in the 10 commandments. OK, but that only means they could have been written by you, they didn't need to come from a supernatural source.

The point I was making was that if any of the ten commandments were blatantly false it could be used as evidence that ten commandments did not come from a supernatural source. I wasn't making the argument that since they are correct standards that they had to come from a supernatural source. But while we are on the subject of supernatural, supernatural is from man's perception. From the God of Abraham's perspective we are the alternate reality as our reality proceeded from his reality. From the perspective of the God of Abraham there is nothing supernatural about his reality as his reality is the source or matrix of all realities. This is a core belief of all monotheistic theologies.

 

[alang1216]

Saying nothing supernatural happened is not a leap I'm willing to make. As for your belief that all the miracles in the Bible are embellishments are probably due largely to the author's ignorance of natural phenomenon, is something I totally disagree with (i.e. Jesus Christ). Besides you can't just make statements like this without any evidence or basis besides your desire for it to be true. Maybe provide a few examples of this supposed author's ignorance of natural phenomenon.

Here is one but I don't know where I got it. There is a lot of casting out of demons in the Bible. My theory is that these were cases of autism, not supernatural possession.

There are plenty of miracles in the OT that have nothing to do with JC. Which of those do you feel is a true miracle?

 

[alang1216]

The point I was making was that if any of the ten commandments were blatantly false it could be used as evidence that ten commandments did not come from a supernatural source. I wasn't making the argument that since they are correct standards that they had to come from a supernatural source.

Got it but my point was that since they what your 10 commandments would have been, they didn't need to come from a supernatural source. In fact, there is nothing I see in the Bible that was not known to the people of that time.

But while we are on the subject of supernatural, supernatural is from man's perception. From the God of Abraham's perspective we are the alternate reality as our reality proceeded from his reality. From the perspective of the God of Abraham there is nothing supernatural about his reality as his reality is the source or matrix of all realities. This is a core belief of all monotheistic theologies.

You can't just make statements like this without any evidence or basis besides your desire for it to be true.

 

[ding]

Here is one but I don't know where I got it. There is a lot of casting out of demons in the Bible. My theory is that these were cases of autism, not supernatural possession.

There are plenty of miracles in the OT that have nothing to do with JC. Which of those do you feel is a true miracle?

You are going to have to be a little more specific as context is extremely important in deciphering the author's descriptive portrayal of reality. If you are going to make it's all a myth argument, you're going to have to put in some effort. So walk me through a couple of these non-Jesus miracles and let's see what happens.

 

[ding]

Got it but my point was that since they what your 10 commandments would have been, they didn't need to come from a supernatural source. In fact, there is nothing I see in the Bible that was not known to the people of that time.

And likewise the embellishments about the ten commandments don't make the God of Abraham a myth. Especially since following his laws led to the success of the Jewish people. It's widely known that they believe they were chosen by the God of Abraham to raise standards and follow his laws. The Mosaic covenant was a conditional agreement where obedience to God's laws would result in blessings and a special relationship with God, while disobedience would lead to failures. Was their belief that they were following the laws of the God of Abraham a myth? Was their success a myth?

 

[ding]

You can't just make statements like this without any evidence or basis besides your desire for it to be true.

Logic makes it true. Whatever exists outside of our space and time meets the definition of supernatural. The term "supernatural" means "above nature" or "outside or separate from nature," suggesting something that transcends the natural world and cannot be explained by natural laws. So that's the first part.

The second part is that whatever is outside of our laws of nature would not be considered unnatural to it. In fact, it would be quite natural to it. It is only from our perspective that we see it as supernatural.

 

[alang1216]

You are going to have to be a little more specific as context is extremely important in deciphering the author's descriptive portrayal of reality. If you are going to make it's all a myth argument, you're going to have to put in some effort. So walk me through a couple of these non-Jesus miracles and let's see what happens.

Plenty of miracles in Exodus, which are real and which are embellishments?

Historical consensus

The consensus of modern scholars is that the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites.[8] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the early 12th century BCE).[9] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[10] While a few scholars continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the exodus story, the majority of archaeologists have abandoned it, in the phrase used by archaeologist William Dever, as "a fruitless pursuit".[11][12]​

Miracles in the Book of Exodus:

• The Ten Plagues:
  God sends a series of devastating plagues upon Egypt to persuade Pharaoh to release the Israelites from slavery. These include the turning of water into blood, frogs, lice, flies, pestilence on livestock, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the slaying of the firstborn.
  
  
• • The Parting of the Red Sea:
    God miraculously parts the Red Sea, allowing the Israelites to escape the pursuing Egyptian army, and then closes the sea upon the Egyptians, destroying them.
    
  • Sweetening of the Waters of Marah:
    The Israelites find bitter water at Marah and complain to Moses. God instructs Moses to throw a piece of wood into the water, which sweetens it.
    
  • Manna from Heaven:
    God provides the Israelites with manna, a bread-like substance, to sustain them in the wilderness.
    
  • Water from the Rock at Rephidim:
    Moses strikes a rock with his staff, and water gushes out to quench the thirst of the Israelites.

 

[alang1216]

And likewise the embellishments about the ten commandments don't make the God of Abraham a myth. Especially since following his laws led to the success of the Jewish people. It's widely known that they believe they were chosen by the God of Abraham to raise standards and follow his laws. The Mosaic covenant was a conditional agreement where obedience to God's laws would result in blessings and a special relationship with God, while disobedience would lead to failures. Was their belief that they were following the laws of the God of Abraham a myth? Was their success a myth?

They believed they were following the laws of the God of Abraham, just as Jews do today. Certainly Jesus would have agreed.

Was their success a myth? What success? They were a tiny nation constantly invaded, exiled, annexed, etc.

 

[alang1216]

Logic makes it true. Whatever exists outside of our space and time meets the definition of supernatural. The term "supernatural" means "above nature" or "outside or separate from nature," suggesting something that transcends the natural world and cannot be explained by natural laws. So that's the first part.

Math exists outside of our space and time but does not meet the definition of supernatural. The supernatural has to interact with the natural world or it is just an unfalsifiable theory.

The second part is that whatever is outside of our laws of nature would not be considered unnatural to it. In fact, it would be quite natural to it. It is only from our perspective that we see it as supernatural.

Again, not a falsifiable theory.

 

[ding]

Plenty of miracles in Exodus, which are real and which are embellishments?

Historical consensus

The consensus of modern scholars is that the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites.[8] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the early 12th century BCE).[9] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[10] While a few scholars continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the exodus story, the majority of archaeologists have abandoned it, in the phrase used by archaeologist William Dever, as "a fruitless pursuit".[11][12]​

Miracles in the Book of Exodus:

• The Ten Plagues:
  God sends a series of devastating plagues upon Egypt to persuade Pharaoh to release the Israelites from slavery. These include the turning of water into blood, frogs, lice, flies, pestilence on livestock, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the slaying of the firstborn.
  
  
• • The Parting of the Red Sea:
    God miraculously parts the Red Sea, allowing the Israelites to escape the pursuing Egyptian army, and then closes the sea upon the Egyptians, destroying them.
  • Sweetening of the Waters of Marah:
    The Israelites find bitter water at Marah and complain to Moses. God instructs Moses to throw a piece of wood into the water, which sweetens it.
  • Manna from Heaven:
    God provides the Israelites with manna, a bread-like substance, to sustain them in the wilderness.
  • Water from the Rock at Rephidim:
    Moses strikes a rock with his staff, and water gushes out to quench the thirst of the Israelites.

I think a lot of them are, yes. That's not the point of the account though. So the question you have to ask yourself is why were they embellished and what was the point of the account. Because the evidence shows it did not occur in the numbers, it's not clear if they were forced slaves or indentured servants, but it is likely that something did happen. That there were a group of Jews that were at least indentured servants, that did leave in mass and did establish their identity that they were chosen by the God of Abraham to raise standards and follow his laws. This was their belief and it is undeniable that they did believe that. That is not a myth. That is history. And as a result they did have a special relationship with the God of Abraham. And by all accounts they did receive blessings and were prosperous disproportionate to their tiny numbers. It wasn't the myth that made them prosperous, it was their worship of the God of Abraham that made them prosperous.

 

[ding]

They believed they were following the laws of the God of Abraham, just as Jews do today. Certainly Jesus would have agreed.

Was their success a myth? What success? They were a tiny nation constantly invaded, exiled, annexed, etc.

No. They believed that they were chosen by the God of Abraham to raise standards and follow laws. They believed they had a covenant with the God of Abraham which was conditional to the obedience of God's laws and would result in blessings and a special relationship with God. Which is what history shows.

What success? Really? It's amazing that you say that given that historians see the continued existence and disproportionate success of the Jews as inexplicable. That such a tiny group could have such an impact of all of history.

If you want to keep arguing this point, I'll be bringing up what Toynbee, Blaise Pascal and Mark Twain said about them as well as a long list of their achievements. I'd like to say I am surprised by your ignorance on this, but it is in keeping with your bias.