Is this a good reason for not accepting the reality of an abrahamic god?

Question

a rational methodology for categorizing and building on information came around (the scientific method). This allows one to look at any particular idea or question in an unbaised reasoned rational form.
For example, you look at the "holy book" and then you assess whether the stories described in them actually occurred. For all but the wilfully ignroant--we know there was no global flood. We know based on hard evidence (geology, palentology, genetics) that there was no such event within the last few hundred million years, certianly none within the reign of man. We know that the hebrews basically copied the story fromt the much older sumerian epic of gilgamesh. LIkewise as we go through the holy book we find much evidence of sumerian and babylonian mythology being transliterated into the hebrew mythology. We find that one of the major bedrock stories of the bible (hebrews in bondage in egypt) has absolutely no historical evidence to support it, no evidence of the ten plagues, no evidence of the exodous, no evidence of the wanderings of a large group in the desert for 40 years, and finally no evidence of the hebrews ever settling in the promised land until about 1000 years after the story purportedly happened. We further find that the early life of the moses character was transliterated from the akaadian King Sargon myth (Sargon was much much older than the moses story). Given this, it means that the ten commandments etc were all just teaching aids--never actually happened.

To your point, just because you don't believe something doesn't make it true or untrue--evidence makes it true or untrue. It is a fairly simple assertion that if the evidence doesn't support the stories told in your bible then the bible is no more "real" than the stories of Zeus and Apollo. What it basically comes down too is --IF there were some supreme being out there--it most certainly isn't the mythical god of the abrahamics.

BTW--just cbecause you believe in a higher power (by the same token) doesn't mean such a higher power exists.

Answer 1

Although I'm not a believer personally, there are a couple of problems with your question. You seem to assume that the stories contained in the Hebrew Bible: a) have to be historically true to be of any value and b) are all ahistorical. There are also a couple of factual errors in your question: the Epic of Gilgamesh is not a Sumerian text, and there is evidence for the existence of an ethnic group called "Israel" from the 13th century BCE (the Merneptah Stele) - around 300 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred, not '1000 years' as you submit.



To get back to the two assumptions mentioned above, the Hebrew Bible does contain myth and legend but it also contains independently verifiable historical information. This comes mainly from the period of the monarchy leading up to the Babylonian exile and beyond. I get rather irritated with the frequently expressed implication that all of the "old testament" is all simply borrowed from other cultures. The examples given for this vast borrowing, however, seem to be limited to one or two stories from the early sections of Genesis and the similarity between the birth stories of Moses and Sargon. This is hardly compelling evidence.



The other assumption you make is that if it's not historical, it's of no value. This seems to be an unnecessary accommodation to the views of ultra conservative, Christian fundamentalists. The idea that deeper truths may be conveyed by fables, parables and myths than by the dry recounting of historical events is hardly new. It is particularly hypocritical of Christians to suggest that none of the stories in the Hebrew Bible could be parabolic when they hold just as fervently that their founder taught 'everything in parables'. If the story of Moses was a thinly veiled resistance story designed to keep alive nationalistic hopes during the period of the Babylonian exile - when Israel was in danger of disappearing completely like its northern neighbor (by Assyria) - then it would have to be understood quite differently. If the story of the "fall" of Adam and Eve is a parable of exile brought about by disobedience to YHWH, then it becomes a myth that is rooted in real history. A further example of these contradictions of form is found in the book of Daniel. Scholars quickly acknowledge that the visions of the book recount historical events via the genre of pseudonymous, ex-eventu prophecy, while the court tales are ahistorical legends that may been shaped to subvert the pretensions and murderous activities of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes.



In summary, I'm not suggesting that 'a higher power' exists - merely that you are dismissing the worth of the bible stories a little too flippantly. The Hebrew Bible does borrow from other cultures, but it is also built upon a historical backbone and a narrative that is unique in ancient literature. The focus of this long and rambling history is a story of brutal conquest, enslavement and exile that is not completely irrelevant in a world still dominated by wars, religious and cultural conflicts, human trafficking, economic oppression, third world migrants, the propaganda of empire, and the longings of the dispossessed.

Answer 2

Just because YOU do not believe in a higher power does not mean that one does not exist



There is evidence of the Black Sea suddenly emptying into the Mediterranean Sea, causing a flood in the known world



Cave drawings in proto-Hebrew have been found in Egypt. Their age corresponds with the time of the slavery in Egypt.



As for the plagues and Exodus, Egyptians, even then, did not admit defeats. That would acknowledge that the Pharaoh was not a god.



There is a passage in the Bible which says that even after 40 years of traveling, clothing had not worn out. As for looking for bodies, the Sinai Peninsula is a big place.



There is evidence of Hebraic pottery associated closely with the time attributed to the return to Caanan.



If the 613 commandments were nnot Divinely directed, then The Jews were easily a thousand years ahead of their time.

Answer 3

There may be nothing called Aryans and Dravidians. The thought of Dravidians was presented through Bishop Caldwell, as just an one more attempt to divide India. The thought of Aryans has also been now proved to be unsuitable now. In step with the DNA experiment conducted by way of college of Michigan and school of Mysore it has been proved that the entire Indians have the equal ancestors without reference to whether they are Hindus, Muslims or any other faith or they are in south India or North India or they are saying in every other elements of India. Dravid is a Sanskrit phrase which means meeting point of three oceans and it was once first time introduced with the aid of Adi Shankaracharya whereas Arya manner smooth men and our country's fashioned name is Aryavrat( As stated in Vedas) and hence whoever are denizens of Aryavrat are Arya (and now not Aryan).....This inspiration used to be falsely interpreted by way of the Britishers simply as an one other attempt to divide India in which they have got been beautiful effective. They knowingly misinterpreted the word dravid and stated that the people in south India had been initially dravidians at the same time the north Indians were Impure Aryans who migrated from Europe whereas the Pure Aryans stayed in Europe. For further information you'll be able to refer Vedas which has nothing so known as Aryan- Dravidian idea but as an alternative Arya alone who lived in the land of Aryavrat.

Answer 4

The problem with your proposal:



You do not know what scientists know



You do not yourself understand the relevant science



You claim that science has made several things "known" that it certainly has not made known



You propose that a lack of evidence of things **for which we should not expect evidence to have survived** is evidence of their non-existence



You do not understand the meaning of the word "transliterated"



You make illogical conclusions...employing non sequitur



You illogically pronounce that evidence is what makes a thing true or untrue (of course, that is absolutely not a true statement - a thing that is true is true whether or not there is evidence available to support it or to prove it)



You make a "fairly simple assertion" - which of course IS very simple to assert but which also is - of course - completely contrary to logic and reasoning.





Conclusion: your proposal is not the least bit persuasive for someone with even rudimentary reasoning skills.



- Jim, Bach Sci Physics 1989

Answer 5

Serious question.



Do you have the sources for the historical studies involving the religion, and how nothing has been found?

I'm an atheist who wants to read up on that, and would love to use that for future arguments.



Thank you!

Answer 6

No gods or devils exist anywhere outside of any ones properly inculcated mind! The only truth since the bile says you need a (pretend fake) belief of faith on your part to believe any gods or devils are even believable! The brainwashing gives you that belief of faith not any truths!

Answer 7

Those who've actually done the science disagree with your premise because they've done the science.

Case in point:



'Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard'

Link - http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533



He's hardly alone in disagreeing with your pretensions:



“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”

–Christian Anfinsen, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ribonuclease



“The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

–Arno Penzias, the 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics



“From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.”

–Professor of Mathematical Physics Frank Tippler.



"Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.



“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

–Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle



“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.



“The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.”

–Cosmologist and astronomer Edward Robert Harrison



“The context of religion is a great background for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork’. Thus scientific research is a worshipful act, in that it reveals more of the wonders of God’s creation.”

–Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University and winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics.



“I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible.”

–William D. Phillips, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.



“The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

–Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize.



“God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence. Recent discoveries, such as observations supporting the Big Bang and similar astronomical phenomena, are wholly compatible with this view.”

–Henry Margenau, Yale University Professor of Physics and Natural Philosophy.



“This much I can say with definiteness – namely, that there is no scientific basis for the denial of religion – nor is there in my judgment any excuse for a conflict between science and religion, for their fields are entirely different. Men who know very little of science and men who know very little of religion do indeed get to quarreling, and the onlookers imagine that there is a conflict between science and religion, whereas the conflict is only between two different species of ignorance.”

–Robert Andrews Millikan, who won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect.



“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

–Albert Einstein



“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”

–Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his book Descent of Man.



These few examples are hardly alone in their conclusions, either:



'Quotes about God to consider…if you think science leads to atheism'

Link - http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/



And yet more besides them:



'50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God'

Link - http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html



Oh and in case you're curious, I hold a Master of Mathematics in Quantum Information.

What branch of science are your degrees in?