Non-Circular reasons for believing in the Bible.

[help3434]

I often see people quote Bible verses about scripture when asked why they believe in the Bible. Of course arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular. Are there any non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible?

[Ooberman]

So you think we can use our senses as reasonable proof that our senses are accurate to use? I certainly agree that we assume this to be the case but to think it is anything more than an assumption is unjustified.

It's not an assumption at all! It's testable every time you drive a car.

Am I really driving a car though? Is the world around me really behaving the way my senses make me believe it is happening? There is no justification for believing that it is, we just assume that it is because there isn't really a clear alternative that I'm aware of. If it's not, and we believe it's not then where does that leave us?

It means we know less than we thought and gives no one a leg up on any other view.

So, if you wish to argue that level of ignorance about our world, I will let you.

Certainly, the Christian is the first loser since it would mean Jesus wasn't really flesh and blood as the Bible says. The entire Bible would be a lie.

It's not about arguing ignorance, quite the opposite. It's about arguing certainty and the value of perceptual experience. In the end, we all base our lives and our worldview on certain assumptions that differ from person to person. Your objection to Diana's comments so far are simply saying that her axioms are not as reasonable as your axioms. Which, given an axiom is an unsupportable assumption, doesn't really make much sense.

Yes, when i re-read my posts and yours i understand (i think).

Im ok if we want to reduce our knowledge to such a low level. Perhaps we really do struggle with perception and reality, and perhaps Di happens to be right.
My experience, which is certainly based on presuppositions and a collection of axiomatic premises tell me that her direct experience of God is of a class of experiences that 'seem' to be more unreliable than others when compared across all people having the same experience.

So, if we leave it at that, we simply throw up our hands and say "we are all probably wring, since we seem to disagree about so much, and the things we agree on (like the experience of gravity and aging) are ultimately unprovable because of a prior commitment that all our experiences are suspect.

Its not very aethstetically pleasing, but it removes any burden of proof.

[Filthy Tugboat]

So you think we can use our senses as reasonable proof that our senses are accurate to use? I certainly agree that we assume this to be the case but to think it is anything more than an assumption is unjustified.

It's not an assumption at all! It's testable every time you drive a car.

Am I really driving a car though? Is the world around me really behaving the way my senses make me believe it is happening? There is no justification for believing that it is, we just assume that it is because there isn't really a clear alternative that I'm aware of. If it's not, and we believe it's not then where does that leave us?

It means we know less than we thought and gives no one a leg up on any other view.

So, if you wish to argue that level of ignorance about our world, I will let you.

Certainly, the Christian is the first loser since it would mean Jesus wasn't really flesh and blood as the Bible says. The entire Bible would be a lie.

It's not about arguing ignorance, quite the opposite. It's about arguing certainty and the value of perceptual experience. In the end, we all base our lives and our worldview on certain assumptions that differ from person to person. Your objection to Diana's comments so far are simply saying that her axioms are not as reasonable as your axioms. Which, given an axiom is an unsupportable assumption, doesn't really make much sense.

Yes, when i re-read my posts and yours i understand (i think).

Im ok if we want to reduce our knowledge to such a low level. Perhaps we really do struggle with perception and reality, and perhaps Di happens to be right.
My experience, which is certainly based on presuppositions and a collection of axiomatic premises tell me that her direct experience of God is of a class of experiences that 'seem' to be more unreliable than others when compared across all people having the same experience.

So, if we leave it at that, we simply throw up our hands and say "we are all probably wring, since we seem to disagree about so much, and the things we agree on (like the experience of gravity and aging) are ultimately unprovable because of a prior commitment that all our experiences are suspect.

Its not very aethstetically pleasing, but it removes any burden of proof.

You don't have to take it that far, you can just leave it at, "her life experience leads her to believe x." Di isn't proselytizing (at the moment), she's just saying what she believes and why she believes it and from what I can tell she has not reduced into circular reasoning, she's merely doing the same thing everyone else is, relying on axioms.

[Ooberman]

So you think we can use our senses as reasonable proof that our senses are accurate to use? I certainly agree that we assume this to be the case but to think it is anything more than an assumption is unjustified.

It's not an assumption at all! It's testable every time you drive a car.

Am I really driving a car though? Is the world around me really behaving the way my senses make me believe it is happening? There is no justification for believing that it is, we just assume that it is because there isn't really a clear alternative that I'm aware of. If it's not, and we believe it's not then where does that leave us?

It means we know less than we thought and gives no one a leg up on any other view.

So, if you wish to argue that level of ignorance about our world, I will let you.

Certainly, the Christian is the first loser since it would mean Jesus wasn't really flesh and blood as the Bible says. The entire Bible would be a lie.

It's not about arguing ignorance, quite the opposite. It's about arguing certainty and the value of perceptual experience. In the end, we all base our lives and our worldview on certain assumptions that differ from person to person. Your objection to Diana's comments so far are simply saying that her axioms are not as reasonable as your axioms. Which, given an axiom is an unsupportable assumption, doesn't really make much sense.

Yes, when i re-read my posts and yours i understand (i think).

Im ok if we want to reduce our knowledge to such a low level. Perhaps we really do struggle with perception and reality, and perhaps Di happens to be right.
My experience, which is certainly based on presuppositions and a collection of axiomatic premises tell me that her direct experience of God is of a class of experiences that 'seem' to be more unreliable than others when compared across all people having the same experience.

So, if we leave it at that, we simply throw up our hands and say "we are all probably wring, since we seem to disagree about so much, and the things we agree on (like the experience of gravity and aging) are ultimately unprovable because of a prior commitment that all our experiences are suspect.

Its not very aethstetically pleasing, but it removes any burden of proof.

You don't have to take it that far, you can just leave it at, "her life experience leads her to believe x." Di isn't proselytizing (at the moment), she's just saying what she believes and why she believes it and from what I can tell she has not reduced into circular reasoning, she's merely doing the same thing everyone else is, relying on axioms.

Then she is simply asserting her beliefs, yet that is not the purpose of our time here, nor the reason for this site.

[help3434]

Anybody else willing to share their reasons for believing in the Bible?

[DBMJ]

Anybody else willing to share their reasons for believing in the Bible?

Sure. In no particular order:

> It seems true to me on a purely intuitive, subjective level. That is, the truth of it speaks to me with authority and therefore I accept it on faith. Most of us believe in lots of other basic ideas – e.g., the validity of logic, the reliability or our senses to accurately perceive the external world, the intelligibility of the universe, or the existence of other minds – for similar reasons. As Gödel took some pains to demonstrate, truth ultimately transcends proof.

> I believe the authors to be relatively intelligent men recording their experiences in good faith. Conversely I see no good reason to think the Bible's various authors a host of dolts or knaves setting out to convert or deceive the rest of us for as-yet unexplained reasons.

> Three of the most significant miracle claims in the Bible remain unaffected (and arguably even bolstered) by the accumulation of knowledge bearing on the claims: the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

> The Bible goes to some lengths to describe a fact of human nature that becomes more obvious the longer we live to observe ourselves and those around us: We almost universally recognize and embrace certain moral principles which we are nonetheless unable to keep. That fact can be traced theologically to the Garden of Eden and is underscored by Jesus and the apostles (most notably Paul).

> Fulfilled prophecy. The still-unfolding history of the nation of Israel would be case in point here. The Old Testament in a few places (Amos 9, Ezek. 37 and others) foretold the worldwide dispersion, wandering and persecution, and eventual restoration of the Jewish nation to her homeland. That pattern held specifically in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD, followed by centuries of unprovoked harassment of the Jews during such episodes as the Inquisition and the Holocaust, followed by their return to Palestine and the recognition of Israeli statehood in 1948. I don't know of any reputable scholar – believer or otherwise – who thinks the Old Testament prophetic books were written after 70 AD…let alone after 1948.

[help3434]

> Three of the most significant miracle claims in the Bible remain unaffected (and arguably even bolstered) by the accumulation of knowledge bearing on the claims: the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Have you read the first couple of chapters of Genesis lately? It flatly contradicts what we now know about the origin of the universe and life.

[McCulloch]

Anybody else willing to share their reasons for believing in the Bible?

Sure. In no particular order:
> It seems true to me on a purely intuitive, subjective level. That is, the truth of it speaks to me with authority and therefore I accept it on faith. Most of us believe in lots of other basic ideas – e.g., the validity of logic, the reliability or our senses to accurately perceive the external world, the intelligibility of the universe, or the existence of other minds – for similar reasons. As Gödel took some pains to demonstrate, truth ultimately transcends proof.

I am glad that you admit that this reason is subjective. You will forgive those of us who do not share your subjective opinion. Does it really make intuitive sense that the all-knowing creator of the universe would create intelligent beings, set the punishment for disobedience to eternal torment, knowing that obedience would be impossible to achieve. Then to rectify this gross injustice, become a human himself, so that the other humans could kill him thus paying the price for humanity's sin. And then this sacrifice would be only effective to the minority who believe this story? Really?

> I believe the authors to be relatively intelligent men recording their experiences in good faith. Conversely I see no good reason to think the Bible's various authors a host of dolts or knaves setting out to convert or deceive the rest of us for as-yet unexplained reasons.

I see no reason to presume this. Yes the writers were intelligent and male. But there is no reason to presume good faith. The writers of the Gospels, for example, were writing with the express purpose of convincing their readers that Jesus of Nazareth who died decades prior to their writing, was the Messiah promised by the Jewish prophets. They ripped passages of scripture out of context and distorted their meanings in order to make their case. Paul, who claims authority because of a vision and not having actually met Jesus alive, disagrees publicly with Jesus' own followers and apostles, teaching contrary to Jesus that the law had been set aside for Christians.

> Three of the most significant miracle claims in the Bible remain unaffected (and arguably even bolstered) by the accumulation of knowledge bearing on the claims:

[mrow]Miracle Claim [mcol]In the Bible [mcol]Accumulated knowledge [row]the creation of the universe [col]Earth and water existed prior to light A world-wide flood[col]Light, billions of years, Earth then water A series of partial ice ages, completely neglected by the Biblical writers[row]the creation of life [col]seed and fruit bearing plants then aquatic animals and birds then cattle and other land animals [col]microbial life, plants and animals evolving in parallel, land animals prior to birds [row]the resurrection of Jesus Christ [col]Which day? The earthquake and zombies in Jerusalem The empty tomb The ascension into the clouds [col]It is difficult to reconcile the Easter narrative to the prophesy of three days AND three nights No contemporary evidence of the events which allegedly happened when Jesus died No historical reason to believe that such a tomb existed or that the Romans would have allowed Jesus to be buried. No historical evidence to the existence of Joseph of Aramethea. Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. We have been above the clouds since.

[Ooberman]

Also, isn't the evidence that Jesus was executed STRONG evidence he wasn't divine? That the people of that time generally believed him to be a fraud?

Why would people knowingly execute the Son of God?

They didn't know. Even Jesus says it.

why didn't they know?

Because it wasn't obvious: there was no evidence he was divine.

Seems a very straight forward case.

[DBMJ]

> Three of the most significant miracle claims in the Bible remain unaffected (and arguably even bolstered) by the accumulation of knowledge bearing on the claims: the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Have you read the first couple of chapters of Genesis lately? It flatly contradicts what we now know about the origin of the universe and life.

Apart from the revelation of Scripture, what we know about the origins of the universe and life can be boiled down to this:

Very little.

Our scientific extrapolations may plausibly take us back to very near the physical emergence of the universe, yes, and on that there seems to be a consensus. The emergence event itself remains of necessity unreachable by science. Given that investigation of any sort requires a universe, the origin of the universe itself cannot be investigated even in principle. Without a complete and coherent naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, though, the Christian doctrine of creation remains untroubled by naturalistic views of cosmology.

Theories of abiogenesis, on the other hand, abound precisely because there is not a consensus on how life could have begun without a "jump-start" courtesy of divine agency. The way I see it, abiogenesis theorizing is so much special pleading by naturalists against nature's own disclosures, chiefly the law of biogenesis.

I remain duly impressed by the fact that two of the biggest mysteries confronting science just happen to correspond with two of the biggest miracles in the Bible.

[99percentatheism]

Anybody else willing to share their reasons for believing in the Bible?

The news.

Human nature.

Math.

DNA.

Reality.