Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[bluegreenearth]

It's only meaningless to compare them if our standard is 100% certainty, but why should that be our standard? I agree some things can be ruled out 100%, but that's not really much once we get into the weeds. In most things we aren't left with only one possible option. Even in science, our scientific conclusions aren't 100% because they rely on philosophical commitments which have room, if even a slight amount, for uncertainty.

What you are describing above is the problem of underdetermination. Your objection only refers to the fact that it is impossible to be 100% certain if a falsifiable hypothesis is true. I've already acknowledged the fact that when a falsifiable hypothesis survives all attempts at being disproved, it is still not possible to know if it is true with 100% certainty. However, while a scientific conclusion is never known to be true with 100% certainty, scientists were at least able to rule-out all of the competing falsifiable hypotheses with 100% certainty. In this way, it is possible for scientists to arrive at a single falsifiable inference to the best explanation.

It is only when the competing claims are unfalsifiable (i.e., unable to be disproved with 100% certainty) that there may be more than "one possible option" for an inference to the best explanation. Should this occur, it is meaningless to compare these unfalsifiable claims against each other because there are no standards of evidence that can be applied to reliably determine the most reasonable inference to the best explanation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #323]

While some scientific issues may have been able to rule out all except one possible option, this doesn't seem to be the case for all scientific claims. I don't think that means those scientific claims are meaningless. We can still come to a rational decision in holding one of the possible options to be the rational belief to (tentatively) hold over the others.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #323]

While some scientific issues may have been able to rule out all except one possible option, this doesn't seem to be the case for all scientific claims. I don't think that means those scientific claims are meaningless. We can still come to a rational decision in holding one of the possible options to be the rational belief to (tentatively) hold over the others.

I'm not sure what scientific claims you are referring to, but unresolved scientific debates are usually about falsifiable claims that remain in the process of being tested to determine if they false or not. The process of testing unresolved falsifiable claims is not meaningless. Arguing about the merits of an unfalsifiable claim, on the other hand, is meaningless.

[The Tanager]

I'm not sure what scientific claims you are referring to, but unresolved scientific debates are usually about falsifiable claims that remain in the process of being tested to determine if they false or not. The process of testing unresolved falsifiable claims is not meaningless. Arguing about the merits of an unfalsifiable claim, on the other hand, is meaningless.

I'm thinking of details concerning evolutionary theory as well as cosmological theories and models of quantum mechanics.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm not sure what scientific claims you are referring to, but unresolved scientific debates are usually about falsifiable claims that remain in the process of being tested to determine if they false or not. The process of testing unresolved falsifiable claims is not meaningless. Arguing about the merits of an unfalsifiable claim, on the other hand, is meaningless.

I'm thinking of details concerning evolutionary theory as well as cosmological theories and models of quantum mechanics.

I'm not aware that any of those claims are unfalsifiable. They all appear to be falsifiable and continue to survive all tests designed to try and disprove them. Where there are debates within those very broad topics, it is with nuanced falsifiable claims that are still in the process of being tested. Of course, unfalsifiable claims could be and may have been made within those fields, but I'm not aware of any examples at this time. In any case, if you could point to unfalsifiable claims made within those topics, they would not be scientific.

[RBD]

I like new terms to fit context. Do you mean that someone can try and make the Bible unfalsifiable, or 'protected' against proven error? Rather than simply allowing the Book to stand on it's own?

No, I mean that a claim can be inherently unfalsifiable whether the book containing it is allowed to "stand on its own" or not.

Ok, I understand unfalsifiable. It can't be objectively tested. It's not verifiable. I.e. there's no facts to verify in the first place; therefore, any argument about infallibility is made invalid in a factual sense.

Myths and unverifiable legends are by nature unfalsifiable, since there's nothing factually recorded. They cannot be intelligently argued as factually true. The only thing falsifiable and factual about them, is their validity as a myth. Any argument of infallibility, only verifies they can be an infallible myth.

The fact that it took me a while to see the jest of the 'unfalsifiable' argument, firmly attached to the mythical fire-breathing dragon, proves it's a seductively unique way of just calling the Bible a myth. If the book itself is unverifiable, then it can only be confirmed as a myth at best.

Furthermore, nothing about inerrancy makes the central unfalsifiable claim of the book more justifiably believed. Because the claim about an undetectable fire-breathing dragon is inherently unfalsifiable, intellectual honesty compels a lack of belief (i.e., agnosticism) at best.

Exactly. Because the claim about the Bible being the same as an inherently unfalsifiable fire-breathing dragon, intellectual honesty compels a lack of belief in the Bible as factually true, but only a myth at best. And therefore, any flawlessness within the Book only makes it an internally flawless myth, so that the author is a flawless mythographer at best.

Classifying the Bible as myth by unfalsifiability, truly is uniquely ingenious. It turns the debate away from factual reality at the outset. Unfalsifiable appears reasonable, but is in fact a charge. The Bible being unverifiable, makes it only a myth. And the continual comparison between the Bible with the myth of fire-breathing dragons, confirms the charge, and so reinforces the Bible's classification as a myth.

However, the lynchpin of falsifiability is softer than wax, because the Bible is plainly not unfalsifiable, but is abundantly factually verifiable, like any other book of math, history, astronomy, ecology, zoology, etc... In fact, the instruction on wisdom and spiritual insight can also be factually verified, by their practical results in life.

And finally, since many people through history have sought to verify or disprove the recorded facts in the Bible, it proves it cannot possibility be unfalsifiable, and so not a myth. Afterall, mythographers may study the intricacies of myths, but no serious historian, archeologist, astronomists, etc... goes about seeking to verify or disprove the veracity of fire-breathing dragons.

Now that we've dismissed the false analogy of the verifiable Bible with unfalsifiable myths, we can get back to the realistic argument of Bible infallibility, that proves it certainly can be believable. (Any talk about fire-breathing dragons and other unfalsifiable myths is for the mythographers alone.)

[bluegreenearth]

However, the lynchpin of falsifiability is softer than wax, because the Bible is plainly not unfalsifiable, but is abundantly factually verifiable, like any other book of math, history, astronomy, ecology, zoology, etc... In fact, the instruction on wisdom and spiritual insight can also be factually verified, by their practical results in life.

At some point in the argument above, you conflate falsifiability with verifiability. These two concepts are not interchangeable. Your philosophical notion that a claim is meaningful if it can be factually verified is also known as Logical Positivism. It is possible to verify when a falsifiable claim is false, but the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where it is not possible to verify that the claim is true. With unfalsifiable claims, it is not possible to verify when they are either true or false.

The Bible contains both falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims. Many of the claims about the existence of particular historical people and places are falsifiable. The claims about the existence of the god and the occurrence of various supernatural events are unfalsifiable.

[RBD]

Disagree. Inerrancy by definition proves something certainly does at least qualify as being true, and therefore can be reasonably accepted as true. The absence of verifiable error and flaw qualifies as possibly true.

Inerrancy, by definition, only proves that a text is not internally inconsistent.

True. With the many writers of the Bible over time, it allows for their claim to be flawlessly guided by the one God and Spirit, or proves they are themselves flawless.

And so, we can choose to accept the God and Spirit, or to idolize the writers. Or, not accept and believe any of them. But no one can intelligently say they cannot possibly be accepted as they are.

Internal consistency does not reasonably justify the acceptance of an unfalsifiable claim

Only with unfalsifiable myths, that are in themselves without recorded fact and unbelievable. Reasonable justification of acceptance only applies to verifiable accounts and records of fact, that can be believed.

Since the Bible has recorded facts and claims, that are verifiable, then arguments about unfalsifiable books do not apply.

No one can honestly and intelligently declare any book of verifiable factual record a myth, unless all the claims are first proven untrue and only fantasy.

It just doesn't mean anyone must accept it. However, it does mean no one can sensibly judge it must be rejected.

Yes, this is the inherent problem with postulating unfalsifiable claims as explanations for anything.

Does not apply to any book of verifiable records, which certainly includes the Bible, that contains more record of ancient history, than any other book in ancient history.

The Bible is the verifiable evidence, that the Lord God Almighty can be true.

So, any logically possible unfalsifiable claim contained within the Bible "can be true"

Here is where the Bible is first treated honestly. It's not an unfalsifiable book, but a book of unverifiable claims mixed with verifiable records of fact. With most of the writing being falsifiable.

The book itself therefore cannot possibly be an unfalsifiable myth, and only the unlearned or biased would even try to imply it, by referring to the Bible as unfalsifiable.

Inerrancy in verifiable books of record, cannot be compared to unerring myth, that cannot possibly be believed.

So, any logically possible unfalsifiable claim contained within the Bible "can be true", but never be proven or reasonably accepted as true because it is impossible to ever determine if it false.

This is an ill reasoned conclusion based upon wrongly mixing two different arguments. Being proven as fact, so that it must be accepted as true, is not the same as being proven inerrant, and so can be accepted as believable.

Firstly, The verified facts of the Bible demand accepting them as true. The infallible record of true things, demands the possibility of accepting unfalsifiable things as believable.

Infallibility of the factual things, allows for an intelligent acceptance of the spiritual things: the Authorship and Spirit of an infallible book of record, must themselves be accepted as infallible, and certainly can be believed in their authorship of unverifiable things.

Infallible records of proven factual truth, can only be recorded by factually infallible authors and writers.

In other words, it is not helpful to declare the Bible to be the verifiable evidence that "the Lord God Almighty can be true" when the central unfalsifiable claim retains the possibility of being false and with no way to ever determine if this is the case or not.

With the unfalsifiable, the argument is about believability, not about proven fact. And so long as they are accompanied with verifiable things proven infallible, then the unfalsifiable things become believable.

That includes infallibility between the factual and spiritual record. If anything recorded as fact is proven false, or if anything recorded as Spirit contradicts the factual record, then the authorship is in error, and the Author and the Spirit cannot possibly be believed in all things.

Once again, this is not about proving anyone must believe anything, but only about the grammatical evidence being flawlessly unerring against any evidence to the contrary. That's where factual evidence demands qualifies something as being acceptable.

When it comes to the unfalsifiability of the Bible's central claim, the concept of "evidence to the contrary" does not apply.

True.

If evidence to the contrary were to apply, the claim would be falsifiable.

True again.

That's why the argument of inerrancy for all the verifiable things is important toward believability of the unfalsifiable.

And the fact that so many people of science, religion, and philosophy have sought to either verify or disprove the falsifiable record, not only proves the Bible can't possibly be an unfalsifiable myth, but also demonstrates the logic that inerrancy in the verifiable things concludes believability in the unfalsifiable.

Afterall, they aren't all just trying to verify the veracity of a history book, but do so to judge the veracity of a Book authored by the perfect God Himself. And this is especially true for those only seeking fault in the Book, in order to reasonably disbelieve what the writers say of the Author and themselves.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Afterall, if it were just a matter of simply disbelief, without any need to justify it, why all the efforts to find fault in it? I don't have to find fault in the Koran, just to not believe it's author is the true God. I just don't choose to believe it without a second thought about it...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #327]

But scientific theories rest on a web of auxiliary hypotheses and background assumptions, not all of which are scientific themselves. Our tests of the current scientific theory could fail, but it could be said to fail because of some other hypothesis or assumption and, thus, the theory itself isn't actually falsifiable (at 100% at least).

But even if falsificationism is attainable on some issues (or even all scientific ones), why would that mean such a standard is the only one that provides reliable meaning? Why aren't historical beliefs meaningful? Our memory? Ethical beliefs? Cause and effect? That science gives us truth rather than is just pragmatic in interacting with the world, that the falsification principle gives us truth, etc.?

[RBD]

However, the lynchpin of falsifiability is softer than wax, because the Bible is plainly not unfalsifiable, but is abundantly factually verifiable, like any other book of math, history, astronomy, ecology, zoology, etc... In fact, the instruction on wisdom and spiritual insight can also be factually verified, by their practical results in life.

At some point in the argument above, you conflate falsifiability with verifiability. These two concepts are not interchangeable.

If falsifiable does not mean verifiable, then give your definition of falsifiable. We all know what verifiable means.

Your philosophical notion that a claim is meaningful

No philosophy has to be meaningful, even if some verify it as 'true' philosophy. But like unfalsifiable myths, that has nothing to do with verified recorded fact, that means the factual record is true. The historian is not being philosophic, when confirming a record of factual events is factually accurate. The mathematician is not being philosophic, when determining the numbers correctly add up.

You apparently have moved away from arguing the Bible is a myth by being unfalsifiable, to now arguing that the proofing of the Bible's verifiable record, is somehow only 'philosophical' in nature, and not verified fact?

Have you gone from arguing the Bible is only a myth, to only another book of philosophy?

if it can be factually verified is also known as Logical Positivism.

So, you are arguing the Bible is now only empirical philosophy, since you can no longer argue it's just unfalsifiable myth.

It is possible to verify when a falsifiable claim is false, but the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where it is not possible to verify that the claim is true.

By underdetermination you mean undeterminable philosophy?

There's nothing underdetermined nor undetermined about factual records being verified as accurate. They are records factually determined to be true.

Let's dispense with changing the narrative to unfalsifiable myths and underdeterminable philosophy, shall we? Let's stick to the verifiable Bible of factual record, that can be determined as true or false.

With unfalsifiable claims, it is not possible to verify when they are either true or false.

Which does not pertain to the Bible record as a whole, nor does it apply to unfalsifiable claims, that are accompanied with verifiable facts. So long as the verifiable remains infallibly true, then the unfalsifiable can be reasonably believed as also true.

Though any intelligent person must accept the verified record, no one has to believe the unfalsifiable. That's not the purpose here. The only purpose is to prove it's reasonably possible to believe all the Bible, and no one can intelligently say it can't possibly all be true.

The Author of the Bible Himself does not have a particular problem with people choosing not to believe Him, so far as logic is concerned. However, it's a particularly ignorant insult to Him, to say He can't possibly be believed, after an objective reading and intelligent study of His Book. Only the unobjective and unreasonable reader can possibly accuse Him of being decieved, and/or a liar.

The Bible contains both falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims.

True. This is the second time you've acknowledge this fact. Which was not first acknowledged, until well after first representing the Bible as all unfalsifiable, and so only another book of unfalsifiable myth. Hence, your continued comparison to the Bible with the myth of a fire-breathing dragon.

Comparing the unfalsifiable spiritual kingdom in the Bible with ET's is at least credible, since the God and His angels, and ET's share in believability among human beings. Although the God and angels are far more believable, at least in terms of a great sample of believers in human history. While God is at least an 8 in believability factor, ET's are about a 4 or 5? But fire-breathing dragons are about 0-1 among human beings, at least with modern rational people. And that is lower in believability than modern fae-folk.

Therefore, comparing the Bible with a mythical fire-breathing dragon fails on two basic factors in a believability argument: The Bible does have verifiable records, whereas the myth does not. And the Bible has the greatest share of believability factor among all human beings, and the myth as little to none.

This is only a believability argument, not a useless argument about who has to believe or disbelieve something. Afterall, the power of human beings is to believe what is factually disproven, or disbelieve what is factually proven. (The Bible calls this power of faith and unbelief, as being created in the image of God. As opposed to being created animals with no power to believe or disbelief in anything at all.)

Many of the claims about the existence of particular historical people and places are falsifiable. The claims about the existence of the god and the occurrence of various supernatural events are unfalsifiable.

True.

Which unfalsifiable claims are made possibly viable by flawless verifiable claims.

This logic is self-evident by the amount of people throughout history and today, that take the time to verify or disprove the falsifiable record of the Bible, including internal Book integrity. They do so for the express purpose of helping to confirm or deny the unfalsifiable in the Bible. (A minimum number of readers, I suppose, may only be treating the Bible as another history book to verify or not.)