How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1449]

Even I have tried to let you know that the science is there, you have responded that you don't care because your preference is to view reality only in binary, and to heck with the evidence which supports that what you think of as real, is fundamentally not real.

I never said I don't care about your assertions in this regard. I've rejected your assertions because I don't find em rational, logical, etc.

My alleged "assertions" are not what you are rejecting - what you are rejecting, is even viewing the evidence which is offered for your assessment.
----------------------------------------------
From a previous discussion which clearly shows your lack of interest in discovering the evidence for yourself.

William: It is an interesting topic, given that we know the brain is unable to show the user the fundamental reality of what we think of as 'reality'.

Even if 'the user' is the brain itself [as emergent theory implies] , the user is still unable to show itself or see for itself the fundamental reality and so all we have are impressions, which come through as ideas/thoughts.

JK: I never much cared for the term "fundamental reality".

William: On the other hand, scientists do, and probably coined the phrase out of respect for its existence.

JK:I'll let them fuss about it then. I see no need for the term.

JK: Reality needs no such modifiers.

William: If that were the case, they wouldn't exist for scientist to discover.

JK: I just see it as a binary option - something either exists in reality, or it doesn't. That's about as "fundamental" as reality gets.

William: Your seeing of it is incomplete then, according to the science...

JK: I'll stick with logic on this'n.

William: What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.

Search "Spacetime is doomed" as one example. There are others.

William: Discovery is finding things that exist.

JK: I do try my best to understand and learn, but for me reality is a yes/no type of deal.

William: I hear you. I can assume that you give that much grace to everyone else, my friend...for not everyone sees it the way you do and you can be content with that. We call can.

{SOURCE...}

You assertion that you are not interested in any evidence of their being a more fundamental reality to the reality we experience - because you are content enough with the logic of the reality you are experiencing - is clearly telling the reader that your not even wanting to know about the evidence is the reason why any assertions ideas opinions et al to do with the evidence are outright rejected by you.

[TRANSPONDER]

"You assertion that you are not interested in any evidence of their being a more fundamental reality to the reality we experience - because you are content enough with the logic of the reality you are experiencing - is clearly telling the reader that your not even wanting to know about the evidence is the reason why any assertions ideas opinions et al to do with the evidence are outright rejected by you."


whaaaa?

dude...the only approximation of meaning I can get from this is countered theis way:

We live in a world that works the way we know it works. We have faith that our car will start, and our house will not fall down because we know the odds. Cards do fail to start and houses do fall down. We know the odds and what to do about it. We also know the odds that our car will suddenly go toxic an explode, our our house will float away and remove into the sea. Miracles do not (on all decent evidence) happen, not even with prayer.
We even know thanks to science how many things that puzzled us - comets, instinct, wives giving the silent treatment, work. Materialism is a fact. It is Something More - the sortagoddists and claimants of the Cosmic Mind, - that have to do the work to prove their belief or case.

Thus it is not valid to play the old 'closed minded' trick. "It is not we who should demand less evidence, but you, who should demand more". When you have it, yourself - not links and videos being posted and us being expected to do your work for you, get back to us, and save the finger - pointing.

[otseng]

Not sure why you're saying I'm dismissing the argument. Actually, it's very relevant. I believe the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe. There really is no other viable alternative naturalistic explanation. So, I confidently believe God exists. This also affirms the Bible because it says God created the universe, unlike some other religions that do not claim God created the universe.

Rethinking it, obviously you'd go with believing a god exists.

That "Let's move on" struck me as dismissive.

Dismissive is when a question is not answered, but another irrelevant issue is brought up. I did neither. What we are currently talking about is the first sentence of the Bible. I've brought up the origin of the universe and fine-tuning of the universe. And these support the Biblical claim of Genesis 1:1.

My point there was that just as you made a fictional account of some Galba chick, the criteria you presented in that case applies almost word for word to God accounts.

This is why we need to get back to the argument of origin and design of the universe. These are the evidence and the crux of the argument of why I confidently believe God exists.

So, your turn. If God is not the solution to the origin of the universe and for fine-tuning, then what is?

Christians.

I see no gods, nor fine tuning, but a bunch of Christians declaring such gods and tunings exist.

Note, it is not Christians that declare there is fine-tuning and a beginning to the universe. These are incontrovertible facts that are recognized by cosmologists, which I've posted several examples. And as illustrated by your response, there are no viable naturalistic explanations.

I make no claims as to the origins of something that can't be shown to've had an origin.

That there is a beginning to the universe is an incontrovertible fact. We can quibble as to how long ago the universe started, but it is without a doubt a finite amount of time ago. Are you saying the universe is infinite in age?

It's about how we see "design" in things that can't be shown to've been designed. Especially where the claimed designer is some supermegaultra entity that only begs the question of how it was designed.

Again, it is recognized by scientists that fine-tuning exists in the universe. Since this cannot be explained, resorting to appeal to ridicule by posting irrelevant material is fallacious.

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

As for rejecting a hypothesis because one cannot explain its origin is also not a valid argument. One can say the same thing about the multiverse. How did all the multiverse originate? Similar with the Big Bang. Scientists have no idea what caused the Big Bang, but the theory is still accepted.

Bottom line, it is not through evidence that a creator is rejected, but the a priori assumption that God does not exist, therefore God cannot be the answer. To account for the findings in cosmology, the most logical answer is God exists. As we've seen, there is no viable naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the universe and fine-tuning. The only alternatives we've seen are extranatural proposals (which have no evidence to support) or fallacious arguments.

[otseng]

Going back to the origin of the universe and fine-tuning, how would you explain these then?

I can't. Is that significant? I'm just not prepared to invent an answer and claim it as the only possible explanation. When one invents a God that can do anything, then every possible question has an answer, without actually answering anything at all.

The universe may appear to be fine-tuned but no one has shown that any actual fine-tuning was involved or that it is even a possibility. How the universe got here is in the same bag as how God got here. We can see the universe and ponder its origins. We cannot see God and not only are we left to ponder its origins but also whether it is there at all. The questions surrounding the universe do not count as answers for the existence of God.

There's only two proposals on the table then really - God or "I don't know". Therefore it is rational to believe in God since there is no other viable explanation.

Cosmology is not the only area to support God's existence. There are many other arguments as well, which some have already been touched on in this thread. So, it's not just the origin and design of the universe, but there are additional support from a multitude of disciplines to support the Biblical God. We'll get to another major one later when we discuss the resurrection of Jesus.

It is not necessary to "see" God. Can anyone see a multiverse? Or can anyone "see" dark matter or dark energy? To be consistent, then one must also reject practically all the major theories in modern cosmology.

[brunumb]

There's only two proposals on the table then really - God or "I don't know". Therefore it is rational to believe in God since there is no other viable explanation.

God is really just another version of "I don't know". We don't know what God is or how God does things. We just give God magical attributes that have never actually been demonstrated to exist. Anecdotes and hearsay don't cut it as far as I'm concerned. "I don't know" is a far better proposition than the invention of a being that can apparently do anything and thus explain everything by default.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1449]

Even I have tried to let you know that the science is there, you have responded that you don't care because your preference is to view reality only in binary, and to heck with the evidence which supports that what you think of as real, is fundamentally not real.

I never said I don't care about your assertions in this regard. I've rejected your assertions because I don't find em rational, logical, etc.

My alleged "assertions" are not what you are rejecting - what you are rejecting, is even viewing the evidence which is offered for your assessment.
----------------------------------------------
From a previous discussion which clearly shows your lack of interest in discovering the evidence for yourself.

William: It is an interesting topic, given that we know the brain is unable to show the user the fundamental reality of what we think of as 'reality'.

Even if 'the user' is the brain itself [as emergent theory implies] , the user is still unable to show itself or see for itself the fundamental reality and so all we have are impressions, which come through as ideas/thoughts.

JK: I never much cared for the term "fundamental reality".

Not caring about a term doesn't mean I don't care for an assertion.

As I said at that time, but which was not presented here, reality is a go / no go proposition. Something either exists in reality, or it does not.

William: On the other hand, scientists do, and probably coined the phrase out of respect for its existence.

JK:I'll let them fuss about it then. I see no need for the term.

See my comment above. Something either exists in reality, or it does not.

JK: Reality needs no such modifiers.

William: If that were the case, they wouldn't exist for scientist to discover.

JK: I just see it as a binary option - something either exists in reality, or it doesn't. That's about as "fundamental" as reality gets.

William: Your seeing of it is incomplete then, according to the science...

JK: I'll stick with logic on this'n.

William: What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.

Where, in amongst any of that, has my comment - something either exists within reality, or it does not - been refuted?

Search "Spacetime is doomed" as one example. There are others.

While having folks search for data regarding our contentions can be helpful, site rulings indicate it's the claimant who is responsible for presenting their data, here, where such claims and contentions are made.

I simply don't have the time to search the entire internet, or the world's libraries, or the world's research institutions, in hopes of finding what data, or specific data within a location, the claimant may consider pertinent to their claims.

When folks from outside this site come here and present their case, I'll be happy to fuss with em about it.

William: Discovery is finding things that exist.

JK: I do try my best to understand and learn, but for me reality is a yes/no type of deal.

William: I hear you. I can assume that you give that much grace to everyone else, my friend...for not everyone sees it the way you do and you can be content with that. We call can.
{SOURCE...}

Your assertion that you are not interested in any evidence of their being a more fundamental reality to the reality we experience - because you are content enough with the logic of the reality you are experiencing - is clearly telling the reader that your not even wanting to know about the evidence is the reason why any assertions ideas opinions et al to do with the evidence are outright rejected by you.

My assertion remains the same. Reality needs no modifier like "fundamental" because something either exists within, or as a part of, reality, or it don't.

I ask anyone to present just one thing that confounds my assertion.

Upon such presentation, I'll be happy to forevermore split reality into parts of which are "fundamental", and parts of which ain't.

So, in conclusion, what I ain't interested in is searching the entire globe for evidence that supports a claimant's assertions.

When I make me a claim that gets challenged or fussed about, I either present supporting data, or I retract.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit cause don't ya hate it when don't ya hate when you do that...

Not sure why you're saying I'm dismissing the argument. Actually, it's very relevant. I believe the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe. There really is no other viable alternative naturalistic explanation. So, I confidently believe God exists. This also affirms the Bible because it says God created the universe, unlike some other religions that do not claim God created the universe.

Rethinking it, obviously you'd go with believing a god exists.

That "Let's move on" struck me as dismissive.

Dismissive is when a question is not answered, but another irrelevant issue is brought up. I did neither.

Plenty fair. Your later posts cleared that bit up.

8<...

My point there was that just as you made a fictional account of some Galba chick, the criteria you presented in that case applies almost word for word to God accounts.

This is why we need to get back to the argument of origin and design of the universe. These are the evidence and the crux of the argument of why I confidently believe God exists.

And I contend that your comments there, about if it's reasonable to believe something based on the criteria presented, directly relates, nigh on point for point, to the issue.

You stated or implied about how rational it'd be to believe a thing, based on the presented criteria, or not.

I contend your own argument can be applied to the question of whether this god exists, to have taken part in the creation of the universe.

So, your turn. If God is not the solution to the origin of the universe and for fine-tuning, then what is?

Christians.

I see no gods, nor fine tuning, but a bunch of Christians declaring such gods and tunings exist.

Note, it is not Christians that declare there is fine-tuning and a beginning to the universe.

My point being that we have many Christians who claim their god was the universe tuner.

These are incontrovertible facts that are recognized by cosmologists, which I've posted several examples. And as illustrated by your response, there are no viable naturalistic explanations.

Nor are there viable explanations that propose a god did it, when no god can be shown to be involved.

I make no claims as to the origins of something that can't be shown to've had an origin.

That there is a beginning to the universe is an incontrovertible fact.

NO!

What we see is an expanding universe, and draw from that it once was once smaller. There's nothing in the BB theory that refutes my contention here.

We can quibble as to how long ago the universe started, but it is without a doubt a finite amount of time ago. Are you saying the universe is infinite in age?

That you, or others, have no doubts does not apply to any of that bunch that do.

I'm saying a claimant on either side of that question has em a tough row to hoe.

It's about how we see "design" in things that can't be shown to've been designed. Especially where the claimed designer is some supermegaultra entity that only begs the question of how it was designed.

Again, it is recognized by scientists that fine-tuning exists in the universe.

If all the scientists though the moon was made of cheese, should mankind's efforts be put into building a giant bowl of nachos?

Our best conclusion in this regard is that things act according to their properties.

Is life "tuned" because carbon combines so readily with so much stuff, or is it simply that life builds off of something that combines so readily with so much stuff?

Since this cannot be explained, resorting to appeal to ridicule by posting irrelevant material is fallacious.

As a mod, and one of our most intelligent posters, surely you'd know that asking someone why they thought their material relevant would be superior to declaring their material irrelevantwithout having done that first bit there.

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

I use the term "supermegaultra" in the exact same way a theist uses "omnipotent", or "omniscient", or "tuner".

I was ascribing properties to a thing I can't show exists to even have those properties.

As for rejecting a hypothesis because one cannot explain its origin is also not a valid argument. One can say the same thing about the multiverse. How did all the multiverse originate? Similar with the Big Bang. Scientists have no idea what caused the Big Bang, but the theory is still accepted.

One is fair to reject any hypothesis they consider fails to put truth to a matter.

That's why I make no claims as to the earliest moments of the universe, as well as no claims regarding the multiverse.

Bottom line, it is not through evidence that a creator is rejected, but the a priori assumption that God does not exist, therefore God cannot be the answer.

I could equally charge you with an apriori belief God exists, therefore must be the answer.

Such a situation leaves us to arguing this topic on the merits of arguments other'n that'n.

To account for the findings in cosmology, the most logical answer is God exists. As we've seen, there is no viable naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the universe and fine-tuning. The only alternatives we've seen are extranatural proposals (which have no evidence to support) or fallacious arguments.

Do we now have an -ahem- a priori belief the universe didn't always exist in a prior form?

Is there any fretful difference, other'n spelling, between "extranatural", and "supernatural"?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1444]

it is mere Woo intended to make us 'doubt everything we thought we knew'

One persons 'Woo' is another persons...



I have no interest in making anyone doubt their precious beliefs. I am simply responding to JKs apparent willingness to practice honesty.

You jumping in as if I am sowing seeds of "doubt" and stating things without supporting evidence as to what nontheists supposedly already sorted re spacetime is doomed, is wasted on me.

Explain why spacetime is doomed is not indicative of us existing within a less real thing than we think it is, and you will have my attention.

Meantime, there is evidence for an alternative to your own beliefs.

_______________________________________________

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1456]

As I said at that time, but which was not presented here, reality is a go / no go proposition. Something either exists in reality, or it does not.

I contend that the math which shows that spacetime is doomed, exists in reality, and so - even by your own standards, can [as thus should] be included in the proposition.

While having folks search for data regarding our contentions can be helpful, site rulings indicate it's the claimant who is responsible for presenting their data, here, where such claims and contentions are made.

And I have done so - see the quoted post above.

I simply don't have the time to search the entire internet, or the world's libraries, or the world's research institutions, in hopes of finding what data, or specific data within a location, the claimant may consider pertinent to their claims.

Nor are you being asked to do anything of the sort. All that is required from you is to examine the evidence presented and tell us why the scientist is incorrect and you are not.

What I am not about doing, nor think the forum rule mentioned by you expects me to do, is work out other peoples minds for them, try to teach them, or any such other thing which involves intelligence.

There is no reason at all as to why I should explain the video information to anyone. All I can do and am required to do, is point folk to the evidence as presented and if they have reasonable cause to reject said evidence, they can fuss it out with me and perhaps together we can debate the pros and cons.

I regard my observation as sound re those who are not interested in evidence, show it in their responses.

[JoeyKnothead]

I contend that the math which shows that spacetime is doomed, exists in reality, and so - even by your own standards, can [as thus should] be included in the proposition.

Then, if the math you haven't presented is correct, the reality is that spacetime is doomed.

Nor are you being asked to do anything of the sort. All that is required from you is to examine the evidence presented and tell us why the scientist is incorrect and you are not.

I've not seen any evidence beyond a link to a video that may or may not be worth my time to wade through.

If you're so convinced the math supports you, why not just present the math?

What I am not about doing, nor think the forum rule mentioned by you expects me to do, is work out other peoples minds for them, try to teach them, or any such other thing which involves intelligence.

We seem to be at an impasse then.

I'm not wading through a video in the hope of finding your data.

There is no reason at all as to why I should explain the video information to anyone.

Then I can only conclude you can't support the contentions pit forth in that video.

All I can do and am required to do, is point folk to the evidence as presented and if they have reasonable cause to reject said evidence, they can fuss it out with me and perhaps together we can debate the pros and cons.

I can't reject evidence that ain't put forth for analysis.

Show us the math.

I regard my observation as sound re those who are not interested in evidence, show it in their responses.

I'm interested in evidence, but I've not seen anything that supports your contentions here.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1459]

We seem to be at an impasse then.

Indeed.

See you on the other side.