BIBLE AND THEOLOGY FORUM






Correct Addy: http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/

is the new site, but if you click on that link, it may not go there. But if you put that addy http://Bible-Forum.InvisionZone.com in your URL box, it will go there.  The Invisionzone forum has many categories of Bible & Theology with special forums for each.  This Bravenet site here is the old general forum site.  We may eliminate that invision site because it is expensive and is not getting enough traffic.

Welcome!  You are at BibleAndTheology.com, which is the general forum for BibleAndTheology.org.  Persons are invited to post on Bible and Theology (widely interpreted).  Some postings may be chosen to be reposted on BibleAndTheology.org.  Give & receive love here. If you post here, please do not use "Anonymous" or the like. Choose your own screen names, but do not use one that you know is already being used by someone else. Please: 

1. You may debate with any ideas posted, but do not post objections to the topic, style, spelling, use of capital letters, or grammar of anyone's posting.  For example, you may debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but kindly refrain from reviling a poster by telling him that it is politically incorrect to discuss green cheese.   

2. Do not post complaints or attacks vs. other posters.  

3. No obscene language,cuss words, or blasphemy may be used.   

4. Send complaints privately by e-mail to NellPatKay@hotmail.com.  If your posting is deleted, it could be because it violates forum rules or is just chosen for a short run on the forum.  

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you want the password, register your screen names by e-mail, as password may be needed again if problems arise on the Forum. CHECK OUT THE search function, which is good: it checks the content of the postings.


Note that if you paste onto the Forum, for some reason Bravenet may change your quote marks and apostrophes into something else, like little boxes or funny U's.   Thanks for coming, participating, and for showing love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Also try out our new site:

http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/

BIBLE AND THEOLOGY FORUM
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: 2 AXIOMS

Your proposed axioms dont work. The problem is that they are not axiomatic at all. It is not at all self-evident that the god of the bible exists. This is a actually quite trivial to demonstrate: No culture that has exited in isolation from the bible has ever reproduced the biblical concept of god. Only cultures with access to the bible and other contemporary documents entertain the notion of a biblical god. If it were truly self-evident that the biblical god exists then we should not need a bible to know that, such being the nature of axioms. The next proposed axiom is problematic as well. First of all because it being true is contingent upon your first proposed axiom, which is false. Second, even if we grant, for the moment, that your first axiom is legitimate, the bible is so filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, inaccuracies, forgeries, that it could not possibly have been authored by any being claiming to be inerrant. In fact, cosmological information in the bible is exactly what you would expect for the time it was written, meaning there is no information in the bible that goes beyond a typical bronze age understanding of the world. If it were true that god authored the bible we should expect to see some evidence of a ground breaking scientific nature, but,even though we have had several such ground breaking scientific events, not one hint of them can be found, in retrospect or other wise, in the bible. What you have really done here confuse dogma with axiom.