Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #3

The writer of The Thousand-Year View  knows very well the problem which most of us face

Most of us today can’t read Hebrew very well. It’s a defect we share with the ancient Jewish community in Alexandria, where scholars translated the Torah into Greek because many Jews knew little or no Hebrew. That produced the Septuagint, the first known Torah translation. {Translating the Bible for Our Era}

Many anti-Jehovah people are convinced only the people who worked on the Authorised King James Bible were able to know God’s Words.For them all other scriveners and scribes were people who wanted to work against the Word of God and as such made fraudulent entries. Those KJV-only people do not believe The God of gods would be powerful enough to protect His Own Word.

They also forget that since the 17th century lots of new material has been found and archaeologists and linguists have worked very hard to present sincere good Bible translations. Though we also know that

Like the archaeologists, we often must guess at the conventions in the Biblical text that were obvious to people of that era. Note that in this case, it makes no difference whether God gave the Torah to Moses or it was assembled by human editors. To communicate the message adequately, either source would have used conventions and references familiar to the people of the time. {Translating the Bible for Our Era}

By those giving the impression all bibles are fakes, those KJV-onlyism people give oil for those who see in it that there does not exist a god or God. For them it might be clear that in case there would be a Higher Supreme Power That One should be strong enough to protect His Own Words.

When the world changed or when we can see social and religious attitudes changing that would not have much to do with That Supreme Being, because that could always be attributed to man. The atheists may smile a lot seeing in Christendom a lot of people who even have no faith at all in That God, Him not able to protect His Word enough, and seeing so many different interpretations of that Word by which the majority even do not want to take the words like they are written in that book of books. For example they see and hear people saying

God the son

when in the Bible is written

The son of God.

which is clearly something totally different, but not for many Christians.

Lots of agnostics and atheists laugh with the definition many Christians do give to their “God.” For them there does not seem to be any logic in their thinking at all. And we think they have good reason to think so, when you consider those ideas of the trinitarians.
The Thousand-Year View writer thinks about it, concluding

If we describe “God” as an infinite spirit of goodness that transcends both the universe and our understanding, the belief is no longer obviously false. But then it’s not at all clear what the belief means, since we admit at the outset that we don’t understand what we’re saying.

It seems to me that Schimmel and most other religious skeptics are trapped by an unrealistically narrow concept of what belief is and what it does. They think that belief is only about making assertions, such as “the book is on the table.” If belief is only assertion, then the only justification for a belief is evidence — logical or empirical — that what it asserts is true. As a result, religious skeptics make faith more cognitive than it really is.

Skeptics admit that belief does other things. Schimmel, for example, says that:

“My own moral and ethical values have been deeply shaped by certain core values and teachings of Orthodox Judaism …” {Schimmel, S. The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth (2008), loc. 177}

He thinks that belief can have negative consequences as well. However, since he thinks belief is only about making assertions, he is forced to discard positive results of belief as irrelevant. In a curious inconsistency, he does not in the same way discard negative results of belief: he thinks that negative results are arguments against a belief. However, that’s almost certainly an unconscious side effect of his skeptical view. {What Is Faith in God?}

Professor of Education and Psychology, Hebrew College, Solomon Schimmel examines the ways in which otherwise intelligent and bright Jews, Christians, and Muslims defend their belief in the divine authorship of the Bible or of the Koran, and other religious beliefs derived from those claims, against overwhelming evidence and argument to the contrary from science, scholarship, common sense, and rational analysis. He also examines the motives, fears, and anxieties of scriptural fundamentalists that induce them to cling so tenaciously to their unreasonable beliefs. According some reader

He represents an intelligent inquiry into the cognitive world of secular modernity’s religious discontents that is both fearlessly frank and unusually empathetic.

When we look at the belief of certain name-Christians we hear them saying God is all-knowing, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. When the atheists look at their god Jesus they clearly see that Jesus has none of those qualities and as such they say their god is a charade or not a realistic fantasy, him even having less equal qualities with certain gods and their main or father god in polytheist groups.

Structure of Truth in July of 2018 had explored a number of different arguments for the existence of God. In other words, he has

been exploring the area of philosophy known as natural theology, reasons to believe in God apart from any religious claims of special revelation. {Natural Theology}

For him

God is the best explanation for the origin and contingent existence of the universe.

+

God is the best explanation for the objectivity of moral, rational, and aesthetic values and duties, and God is the best explanation of our knowledge of those values and duties. {Natural Theology}

This brings us to ask how such objectivity of moral would come to us and why it took until the 17th century before the right teachings would be given to man. Again a reason for atheists to say God is a very cruel being excluding lots of people in the previous centuries plus also excluding those who do not speak English.

The blog writer of Natural Theology also seems to think we should look at the existence of God as a perfect being, having properties such as omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, though in later writings we can find him believing in Jesus to be God, who is not at all being a perfect being.

He himself writes

William of Ockham.png
William of Ockham, also called William Ockham, Ockham also spelled Occam, byname Venerabilis Inceptor (Latin: “Venerable Enterpriser”), or Doctor Invincibilis (“Invincible Doctor”) Franciscan philosopher, theologian, and political writer, a late scholastic thinker regarded as the founder of a form of nominalism—the school of thought that denies that universal concepts such as “father” have any reality apart from the individual things signified by the universal or general term.

All of these arguments can reasonably be combined into a cumulative case for the existence of God. For example, if the cosmological argument reveals a cause of the universe, and the teleological argument reveals a designer of the universe, Occam’s razor recommends the hypothesis that these are the same being. So natural theology reveals a God who is:

  • Necessarily existing
  • Eternal
  • Immaterial
  • Transcending space
  • The creator and designer of the universe
  • The ground of objective values and duties
  • Omnipotent
  • Omniscient
  • Perfectly good
  • Perfectly rational
  • The paradigm of beauty and worth
  • The unique greatest possible being

This is a very strong concept of who God is. I believe that these arguments from natural theology rule out naturalism, as well as polytheistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic conceptions of God. (Though I will not be fully justified in making this claim until I respond to objections to belief in God.) But all this still leaves the precise identity of God unknown. {Natural Theology}

But then comes to write many articles on trying to proof the existence of Jesus Christ with the conviction that Jesus is God and therefore he should try to proof the existence of Jesus, which can simply be done by looking at the historical writings of that man of flesh and blood. He also shows then how Jesus is not infallible or all knowing, like he declares God to be. Like with all those who claim Jesus to be God from their writings we clearly come to see that Jesus was not able to be everywhere at once (omnipresent) nor to know everything (all-knowing), even not able to do everything (omnipotent).  By showing all those things Jesus can not or is not, like not being immaterial or not being a ghost or spirit (what Jesus himself proofs and says that God is) they give all reasons for believers and atheists to belief Jesus can not be God, but worse of all they also could undermine the belief in God by others who are in a trinitarian church and at last started coming to see the Biblical truth, but do not want to take distance of their Trinitarian indoctrination and as such keeping to the idea that Jesus must be God, seeing he is not God, they fall in the trap of those anti-Jehovah people coming to belief they have been fooled all the way and as such there has not to be such an eternal Supreme Being God.

In the previous post we could see  how many of those KJV-only and anti-Jehovah people think and want us to believe that we do have to do no works, though when looking at that given book it tells us clearly or even better “commands us”

to be “workmen:”

we are to “study [it]… rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15).

Though some Christians may say

Of course, it is much easier to let the preacher do all the reading and studying, then go sit and listen to him tell us what the Scriptures say. {What Does God Think?}

Shawn Brasseaux, the administrator of “arC Ministries” (ambassadors for the risen Christ ministries), a nondenominational grace and young earth creation science ministry asks.

Which shall we choose? {What Does God Think?}

+

Preceding

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #1

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #2

++

Additional reading

  1. History and Archaeology sciences looked at #2 Co-operative of excavators, archaeologists, anthropologists, historians and culture morphologists
  2. Science and God’s existence
  3. Gone astray, away from God

+++

Related

  1. What is a word? – The Hard Truth About Academic Language and Linguistic Discrimination
  2. Archibald Sayce, Assyriologist and linguist
  3. What Does God Think?
  4. When was Jesus crucified? The accounts differ
  5. Editor’s Pick: David’s Census Disproves Biblical Inerrancy Theory

5 thoughts on “Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.