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 POI in post #4169]

I already spoke to this. Why would you have me waste time speaking to it again?
Your belief that somehow (3) - or any of the three positions - is "faith-based" means nothing relevant in the context of the subject matter.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4169]

I already spoke to this. Why would you have me waste time speaking to it again?
Your belief that somehow (3) - or any of the three positions - is "faith-based" means nothing relevant in the context of the subject matter.

I already spoke to this William. You asked me if a "cat has got my tongue". I informed you that you are ducking out of my repeated attempts to challenge your position. You then engaged it. And now that you cannot demonstrate your position beyond faith alone, you want to go back to your prior excuse of "irrelevance" you used, in which I already spoke about in posts 4141, 4149, and 4162.

Your position re a 'TCM' has no evidence. Hence, requires all faith instead. The 'TCM', in a nutshell, is basically a faith-based placeholder term for: ((( there's no way the brain can manifest "actions" on its own. We know this because humans create gadgets, such as computers, or any other known human created widget, requires the interaction of human(s). )))

Well, like I stated, produce the evidence for a 'TCM' -- like we have evidence for humans, as well as producing the evidence that a 'TCM' creates human brains -- like we also have evidence of humans creating computers, and you are then well on your way.

As was exchanged with otseng, the less evidence we have, the more faith is required to hold to an asserted position. Or, faith is (belief w/o) or (in spite of) evidence.

To recap:

(1) otseng asserts an outside driving force (god)
(2) Neil asserts an outside driving force (a simulator)
(3) William asserts an inside driving force (TCM)
(4) POI asserts that all we know, thus far, is that our thoughts require the need for a physical brain.

You argue that our brain is like a computer, in that it will do nothing on its own. But it takes zero faith to assert that humans create and operate computers. In that a computer cannot both generate itself as well as operate completely on its own. Why? We have evidence for humans. Thus far, it takes all faith to assert "TCM" creates human flesh as a tool for 'thought/action(s)'. And like I stated prior, my pushback to otseng and Neil differ from yours.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4172]

Your wrote.

4) Real Uncreated Universe Theory - Our 'universe' is real and eternal. (SOURCE)

As yet you have not explained where mindfulness comes into your eternal universe theory.
Has it always existed as a real attribute (in which case you would be arguing (3)) or did it appear at some point in time, and if so then at which point in time?

I ask, because you wrote of the Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: "Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone."

Which "form" of existence did mindfulness first appear, if indeed you believe that mindfulness is not a natural attribute/did not always exist as a natural attribute of this eternal universe you believe in?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4172]

Your wrote.

4) Real Uncreated Universe Theory - Our 'universe' is real and eternal. (SOURCE)

As yet you have not explained where mindfulness comes into your eternal universe theory. Has it always existed as a real attribute (in which case you would be arguing (3)) or did it appear at some point in time, and if so then at which point in time?

I do not know. But, what I do know is that we have physical/material brains, which is where our thoughts look to come from. Anything more than this requires evidence, and not instead faith-based-assertions. Do you have evidence for an actual 'TCM'?

I ask, because you wrote of the Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: "Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone."

Which "form" of existence did mindfulness first appear, if indeed you believe that mindfulness is not a natural attribute/did not always exist as a natural attribute of this eternal universe you believe in?

William, it is up to you to prop up, and also support, your asserted position of the 'TCM'. Regardless of if a 'TCM' exists, or not, my position still applies either way. Meaning, humans possess physical/material brains and thoughts emerge from it. If you can provide evidence that the source of the thoughts are not merely from the brain itself, like that of a computer/other which need the driving force of a human, I'm ready and waiting to read it. Can you do that, or are you going on record to admit that the 'TCM' is nothing more than a hunch/other?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4174]

As yet you have not explained where mindfulness comes into your eternal universe theory. Has it always existed as a real attribute (in which case you would be arguing (3)) or did it appear at some point in time, and if so then at which point in time?

I do not know.

Then your theory seems to be incomplete (lacking that particular knowledge)

But, what I do know is that we have physical/material brains, which is where our thoughts look to come from.

I acknowledge that these can appear to be that way, but argue that just because they appear to be that way, does not mean they are that way.
You cannot say with any certainty that mindfulness hasn't always been an aspect of this eternal universe you believe in. Can you acknowledge that it may well have always been an aspect of said eternal universe, even that you don't "know"?

Anything more than this requires evidence, and not instead faith-based-assertions.

But isn't your assertion (that we have physical/material brains, which is where our thoughts look to come from) MORE THAN what you know re (4)?

Do you have evidence for an actual 'TCM'?

Like I have already stated, the only difference between (3) and (4) is that (3) accepts the logic that mindfulness has been an eternal aspect of an eternal universe, rather than something which "came about somehow" in one of its "one form or another" episodes.

If you can logically explain to me why we should have to think that mindfulness hasn't always existed as part of the eternal universe which has always existed in one form or another, then I will accept that as evidence for no actual Creator Mind.

are you going on record to admit that the 'TCM' is nothing more than a hunch/other?

See the above. I am using logic and until anyone who believes in (4) can explain why it is necessary to believe that mindfulness has not always been part of the eternal universe (4), there is no logical reason to assume that as the actual case.

[POI]

Then your theory seems to be incomplete (lacking that particular knowledge)

Therefore, "TCM".

I acknowledge that these can appear to be that way, but argue that just because they appear to be that way, does not mean they are that way.
You cannot say with any certainty that mindfulness hasn't always been an aspect of this eternal universe you believe in. Can you acknowledge that it may well have always been an aspect of said eternal universe, even that you don't "know"?

As stated repeatedly, just as you or I can demonstrate or prove the computer has an actual builder/operator, you need to prove the brain has an actual builder/operator.

[William]

Then your theory seems to be incomplete (lacking that particular knowledge)

Therefore, "TCM".

I acknowledge that these can appear to be that way, but argue that just because they appear to be that way, does not mean they are that way.
You cannot say with any certainty that mindfulness hasn't always been an aspect of this eternal universe you believe in. Can you acknowledge that it may well have always been an aspect of said eternal universe, even that you don't "know"?

As stated repeatedly, just as you or I can demonstrate or prove the computer has an actual builder/operator, you need to prove the brain has an actual builder/operator.

I disagree that I have to prove any such thing - as in - your replies so far have done nothing to convince me that I have to do such. If you were able to answer my questions put to you, that would be helpful.

I will go so far as to say that I agree with the theory that brains (and all biological critters) evolved from the planet itself, and I have no reason to believe that the planet is not also a mindful entity (explaining how such could happen) but again, if you are unable or unwilling to admit that you cannot say with any certainty that mindfulness hasn't always been an aspect of this eternal universe you believe in (can you acknowledge that it may well have always been an aspect of said eternal universe, even that you don't "know"?) then I see little point in wasting time interacting with you about this. Doing so simply won't go anywhere or produce anything relevant /worthwhile.

[POI]

if you are unable or unwilling to admit that you cannot say with any certainty that mindfulness hasn't always been an aspect of this eternal universe you believe in (can you acknowledge that it may well have always been an aspect of said eternal universe, even that you don't "know"?) then I see little point in wasting time interacting with you about this. Doing so simply won't go anywhere or produce anything relevant /worthwhile.

As you would say, I see the above as irrelevant to my challenge to your stated position. I do not know whether or not mindfulness always was, or not? But even IF it was, how does that point to --> "TCM"?

All I read you doing here is continuing to dodge my repeated request. And the fundamental request remains as follows:

As stated repeatedly, just as you or I can demonstrate or prove the computer has an actual builder/operator, you need to prove the brain has an actual builder/operator.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4178]

I do not know whether or not mindfulness always was, or not? But even IF it was, how does that point to --> "TCM"?

IF
There has always been mindfulness re this eternal universe
THEN
We have a contender for why it manifests in one form or another

Just as you or I can demonstrate or prove the computer has an actual builder/operator, you need to prove the brain has an actual builder/operator.

The planet (earth) is the builder. The human mind is the operator. Mindfulness is the common denominator therein.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #4178]

I do not know whether or not mindfulness always was, or not? But even IF it was, how does that point to --> "TCM"?

IF
There has always been mindfulness re this eternal universe
THEN
We have a contender for why it manifests in one form or another

Just as you or I can demonstrate or prove the computer has an actual builder/operator, you need to prove the brain has an actual builder/operator.

The planet (earth) is the builder. The human mind is the operator. Mindfulness is the common denominator therein.

There has been order (physics and what works), but 'mindfulness' (outside of biology) is a claim you would have to demonstrate, before you even got round to showing how your 'contender' had any particular credibility and less than, say, physics, which we know exists.

Planet earth is the river bed. Humans make mud pies. How that degree of 'mindfulness' supports theism I fail to see and you appear to fail to show.