Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[AquinasD]

1) If Jesus is the Son of God, then the Bible is divinely inspired

2) Jesus is the Son of God

3) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired

That's a logical deduction with the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired, which serves to show that divine inspiration can be demonstrated with the use of logic. Perhaps McCulloch would like to elaborate on what he's looking for?

[Jax Agnesson]

1. If and only if Jesus's SonofGod-ness can be established without reference to the WordofGod-ness of the Bible, then His SonofGod-ness can be used as evidence in favour of the WordofGod-ness of the Bible.
2. Or vice-versa.
3. We can't know for absolute sure.
4. But I reckon it's extremely unlikely.
5. 'nuff sed.

[McCulloch]

1) If Jesus is the Son of God, then the Bible is divinely inspired

2) Jesus is the Son of God

3) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired

That's a logical deduction with the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired, which serves to show that divine inspiration can be demonstrated with the use of logic. Perhaps McCulloch would like to elaborate on what he's looking for?

What I would really like is for jimvansage who made the original bold claim to elaborate and defend his claim. But he seems to have abandoned his claim.

[Goat]

1) If Jesus is the Son of God, then the Bible is divinely inspired

2) Jesus is the Son of God

3) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired

That's a logical deduction with the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired, which serves to show that divine inspiration can be demonstrated with the use of logic. Perhaps McCulloch would like to elaborate on what he's looking for?

Well, how do you know the 'Jesus is the son of God'? You know it through the bible, ..

However, if the bible is wrong, then, your logic is wrong. This is one big piece of circular nonsense... because you can not show that 1) Jesus is in fact the 'Son of God'. and 2, you can not show that 'If Jesus is the son of God' the bible is divinely inspired'.

If we reverse the claim and say 'Jesus is not the son of God', then, we can conclude that 'The bible is not divinely inspired'.

[Dantalion]

1) If Jesus is the Son of God, then the Bible is divinely inspired

2) Jesus is the Son of God

3) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired

That's a logical deduction with the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired, which serves to show that divine inspiration can be demonstrated with the use of logic. Perhaps McCulloch would like to elaborate on what he's looking for?

1) If the Dread Cthulhu lies sleeping in R'lyeh, mankind is doomed

2) Dread Cthulhu lies sleeping in R'lyeh

3) therefore, mankind is doomed

but nice try

[Davka]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

Actually, attempting to use logic and available evidence to demonstrate the veracity of any tenet of Christianity is extremely dangerous to the faith of the believer.

It was through just such attempts that my eyes were opened to the truth. It's a slippery slope, folks! Just walk on by with blinders on, nothing to see here.

[JohnPaul]

1) If Jesus is the Son of God, then the Bible is divinely inspired

2) Jesus is the Son of God

3) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired

That's a logical deduction with the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired, which serves to show that divine inspiration can be demonstrated with the use of logic. Perhaps McCulloch would like to elaborate on what he's looking for?

1) God exists because the Bible tells us so.

2) The Bible is true because it is the Word of God.

Hmmm.

[AquinasD]

What I would really like is for jimvansage who made the original bold claim to elaborate and defend his claim. But he seems to have abandoned his claim.

Well, I might not be jimvansage, but I will put up a response which should serve a reply to the others who think they were making some witty remark towards me.

The word "logic" is overused. If we take McCulloch's question to mean something like "Can divine inspiration be demonstrated with a valid argument?" the question is yes. But if the question is something like "Can divine inspiration be demonstrated using only logic?" then no. In fact, nothing but logical truths can be demonstrated using logic. Using only logic, I couldn't prove that I exist, or that the earth exists, or that rain is precipitation or that bachelors are unmarried. But on the other hand, if it is simply the former, then that's trivially easy. If you can infer a conclusion in a valid argument, then you can demonstrate something by logic.

So everyone else thinking you're clever because I've put out some obviously poor argument, I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood my meaning. That anyone thinks my argument was put out in all seriousness to persuade, well, I guess people have very low expectations of me! Does that reflect badly on them, or me..?

[Nickman]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

Actually, attempting to use logic and available evidence to demonstrate the veracity of any tenet of Christianity is extremely dangerous to the faith of the believer.

It was through just such attempts that my eyes were opened to the truth. It's a slippery slope, folks! Just walk on by with blinders on, nothing to see here.

That is exactly what happened to me. When I started using logic I lost my faith and ended up an atheist. Blinders are necessary if one wants to remain in their faith.

Getting wise on the bible will only bring one to the truth about it, and once the truth is discovered then no one can deny it. I actually enjoy the bible more now because I understand it as an actual history in the same regard as other ancient texts.

[Furrowed Brow]

1) If Jesus is the Son of God, then the Bible is divinely inspired
2) Jesus is the Son of God
3) Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired

It seems folk are wanting to jump up and down on AquionasD’s argument.

But let’s be clear the argument is poor because it contains an invalid inference and the problem is premise 1. Premise 1 is and “if...then� claim, and the claim is itself invalid, because arguably the inference is false, and there are circumstances under which if Jesus were theson of god we cannot infer the bible is divinely inspired. This problem is closely related to the Paradox of Material Implication

This next argument is also valid:

1) If Napolean was French then the moon is made of cheese
2) Napolean is French
3) therefore, the moon is made of cheese.

But this next argument is probleamtic

1) If Napolean loved his mother then he intended to marry her.
2) Naopolean loved his mother.
3) Napolean intended to marry her.

Classic logic also says this is a valid argument. The problem is that Napolean loving his mother does not mean he intended to marry her. Maybe he did and he was strange like that, but clearly there is a problem with concluding 3. In this case there is an equivocation over the meaning of "loved" in 2. If anything this shows us we have to be wary of the what is meant by any proposition.

Sure, if we say P then Q is true, then where P = Jesus is the son of God and Q = the bible is divinely inspired, and we insist this inference is true, then the AquinasD's argument is valid. But a host of reasons why the inference is invalid have to be ignored to make that inference.

There is a disconnect between the presumption that Jesus is the son of God and the question of what inspires the bible. Let’s allow for sake of argument the premise that Jesus is indeed the son of God, it does not follow from this assumption that the bible is divinely inspired. Maybe the authors of the bible get all the major facts wrong, maybe they misunderstood Jesus' message, maybe they are inspired by Satan to mislead folk, maybe God decided he wanted the divinely inpsired text to be discovered in a cave a couple of thousand years later, maybe some of those ancient texts discarded at the council of Nicea were the divinely inpired scripture, and the council managed to throw out the baby and keep the bath water. If we presume Jesus was divine we still only left to guess and fumble over the veracity and inspiration of the NT....unless we begin to worship the bible, or we just admit the truth and say that if Jesus is the son of God our best guess is that the bible is divinely inspired.....but to be clear a best guess is not a valid inference. Anyone who says it is has made a mistake.

So really AquinasD’s arguments contains two distinct presumptions.

1) Jesus is the son of God
2) The bible is divinely inspired

2 does not follow logically from 1 however they are parcelled up. But 1 does follow 2 (if we also allow God does not lie to us). I think the correct and consequently stronger argument goes:

1) If the Bible is divinely inspired, then Jesus is the Son of God
2) the Bible is divinely inspired
3) Therefore, Jesus is the son of God

This argument is stronger because no invalid inference is sneaked into premsie 1.