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

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1427]

Which is the more logical position to hold ?

1) You confidently believe God exists, or

2) God does not exist

All things being equal, why is 2) worded differently from 1)?

I tried to stick to the original wording and intent best I could.

Did I goof something up?

Which is the more logical position to hold ?

1) You confidently believe God exists, or

2) You confidently believe God does not exist

Plenty fair.

As I said, I tried to hold it close to the original.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1425]

the Fermi paradox.

The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi paradox.

With no evidence of intelligent life in places other than the Earth, it appears that the process of starting with a star and ending with "advanced explosive lasting life" must be unlikely. This implies that at least one step in this process must be improbable. Hanson's list, while incomplete, describes the following nine steps in an "evolutionary path" that results in the colonization of the observable universe:

The right star system (including organics and potentially habitable planets)
Reproductive molecules (e.g. RNA)
Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life
Complex (eukaryotic) single-cell life
Sexual reproduction
Multi-cell life
Tool-using animals with intelligence
A civilization advancing toward the potential for a colonization explosion (where we are now)
Colonization explosion
According to the Great Filter hypothesis, at least one of these steps—if the list were complete—must be improbable.{SOURCE}

[brunumb]

I see no evidence for the existence of a creator/designer.

Even if there is no evidence for a creator/designer, one can still confidently believe God exists. Just like what you've said that no evidence exists for alien life, yet you confidently believe life exists elsewhere.

I knew you would say something like that. There is a huge difference between what we know about stars, planets, life etc. and what we know about any gods. We can extrapolate from what we know but not from what we don't know. Gods are all based on anecdotes and hearsay, not actual hard evidence.

But, as for no evidence for God, that is not true. You might not accept them, but there are plenty of indirect evidence. Further, it is also the most plausible explanation for a wide-ranging host of issues, issues in cosmology being one of the areas.

As I said, what you call indirect evidence I regard as nothing more than hearsay and anecdotes and I do not accept them because they do not stand up to scrutiny. As far as I am concerned there is no substantial evidence for gods.

Life on Earth exists in a wide range of conditions even if a lot of them are not conducive to humans.

We're not talking about life on earth, but on other planets. There are so many necessary requirements for any life to exist on a planet that to have all of them on a single planet among all the planets in the universe would be very rare. Some of these are covered in the Rare Earth book.

My reference to life on Earth was to point out that it exists under many different and extreme conditions. That means we do not require other planets to have identical conditions to ours in order to harbor life forms.

As far as I know, there is no evidence for the existence of life elsewhere in the universe so I do not claim that it is actually there. From what we know about the structure of the universe and the existence of life here on Earth, I am confident that it does exist elsewhere. That does not mean that it has to be anything more than simple forms like those that dominate our own planet.

How can you be confident if there's no evidence for it?

What I know and currently understand of the universe has allowed me to consider everything and reach that conclusion. I am not adamant that life does exist elsewhere, but it seems to me that if it could arise here then in the trillions of other planets formed from the same building blocks as our planet, then the probability for it is high. When considering the god concept, to me there is nothing remotely comparable in coming to the conclusion that a god exists.

But, you are not alone in this belief. We can add this as another belief in cosmology that has no empirical support for.

But a far more solidly founded belief as far as I am concerned.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #1425]

Using the same logic and reasoning...

What is the difference between aliens not existing and YHVH not existing?

Aliens that exist on other planets is not a possible solution to the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe. It would require something outside and independent of our universe. This would be a creator/designer.

Which is the more logical position to hold ?
1) You confidently believe God exists, or

Let's get back to the origin of the universe and evidence of fine-tuning. As for any naturalistic explanations for either of these, there are none. At a minimum, it would require an extranaturalistic explanation - whether it be a multiverse or a creator god.

The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi paradox.

I would agree that it requires a series of improbable steps for life, esp advanced life, to exist in the universe. And as far as I know, there are no plausible naturalistic explanation for any of the steps leading to multicellular life. As a matter of fact, I believe just getting to a simple cell naturalistically would be impossible. So, my prediction is not even a single cell life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Gods are all based on anecdotes and hearsay, not actual hard evidence.
As I said, what you call indirect evidence I regard as nothing more than hearsay and anecdotes and I do not accept them because they do not stand up to scrutiny. As far as I am concerned there is no substantial evidence for gods.

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

I am not adamant that life does exist elsewhere, but it seems to me that if it could arise here then in the trillions of other planets formed from the same building blocks as our planet, then the probability for it is high.

The question is how many planets have the right conditions to support life? It must be in a galactic habitable zone, a circumstellar habitable zone, a terrestrial planet, have an atmosphere, etc. As we stack up what is required for a planet to support life, let alone evolve life, it would be far less.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1434]

Using the same logic and reasoning...

What is the difference between aliens not existing and YHVH not existing?

Aliens that exist on other planets is not a possible solution to the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe. It would require something outside and independent of our universe. This would be a creator/designer.

How do we distinguish between the stories of the Bible to do with YVHV interacting with humans, and Aliens that exist on other planets, or for that matter - possible AI artifacts of Aliens which were sent out to seed other planets?

If such artifacts were to claim they were the creators of the universe, how would we be able to tell the difference unless we were able to see them?

And if we were able to see them, what we we look for which would allow us to know they were indeed the creators of the universe?

For, we can neither see them nor YVHV so they share that same - rather than different - attribute.

The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi paradox.

I would agree that it requires a series of improbable steps for life, esp advanced life, to exist in the universe. And as far as I know, there are no plausible naturalistic explanation for any of the steps leading to multicellular life. As a matter of fact, I believe just getting to a simple cell naturalistically would be impossible. So, my prediction is not even a single cell life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Do you base your prediction on what the bible says?

[JoeyKnothead]

Which is the more logical position to hold ?
1) You confidently believe God exists, or

Let's get back to the origin of the universe and evidence of fine-tuning. As for any naturalistic explanations for either of these, there are none. At a minimum, it would require an extranaturalistic explanation - whether it be a multiverse or a creator god.

My understanding is you presented your previously referenced comments as relevant to the logicality of belief, but now when a similar proposition is presented to you, it's time to "move on".

While I know you're busy with life and other posters, your dismissal of what is essentially your own argument doesn't bode well for your thinking rationally here.

We see often theists on this site who're fine asking questions of others, but seek to avoid being questioned themselves. It's my contention the god concept is at play here, but I won't bore folks with the details unless requested to do so.

As to the multiverse, or proposed god/s, it's my contention we'll never see us the other side of that question.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1436]

As to the multiverse, or proposed god/s, it's my contention we'll never see us the other side of that question.

One can never be sure as to what happens re dying, although I understand that your belief is that you are a product of your brain and when you die that will be the end of your consciously existing.

I accept that your contention here is only a belief, no different form any other contentious belief.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1436]

As to the multiverse, or proposed god/s, it's my contention we'll never see us the other side of that question.

One can never be sure as to what happens re dying, although I understand that your belief is that you are a product of your brain and when you die that will be the end of your consciously existing.

I accept that your contention here is only a belief, no different form any other contentious belief.

Yep.

It's in respecting that we can reasonably disagree on complex matters, even unknowns, where I find these debates most productive and enjoyable. (But I still enjoy a bit of trolling the arrogant)

I respect otseng's views because I trust he's giving us his truth, unfiltered by any fear of being shown wrong - as convinced he is he ain't. I also trust he knows I tell my truth, ready to retract or update.

And of course I respect your position because you've obviously thought it out, and can defend it quite well.

So, though we three may disagree on the particulars, hopefully we challenge one another out of respect for the person, and the ideas we discuss.

If I'm truly a friend, I should encourage my friends to rethink things I think they get wrong, and expect they do the same for me.

And yes, having been paired up with me a hen a time or two, the realization I'm wrong about everything is always at the forefront of my thinking

[otseng]

How do we distinguish between the stories of the Bible to do with YVHV interacting with humans, and Aliens that exist on other planets, or for that matter - possible AI artifacts of Aliens which were sent out to seed other planets?

I'm asserting the Bible is reliable and true and the contents are authoritative to give us an understanding of YHVH in this thread. If you want to assert aliens are AI artifacts, please support that in another thread.

I would agree that it requires a series of improbable steps for life, esp advanced life, to exist in the universe. And as far as I know, there are no plausible naturalistic explanation for any of the steps leading to multicellular life. As a matter of fact, I believe just getting to a simple cell naturalistically would be impossible. So, my prediction is not even a single cell life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Do you base your prediction on what the bible says?

Actually, primarily on science and empirical evidence. Is there any evidence of any alien single cell life existing?

[otseng]

Which is the more logical position to hold ?
1) You confidently believe God exists, or

Let's get back to the origin of the universe and evidence of fine-tuning. As for any naturalistic explanations for either of these, there are none. At a minimum, it would require an extranaturalistic explanation - whether it be a multiverse or a creator god.

My understanding is you presented your previously referenced comments as relevant to the logicality of belief, but now when a similar proposition is presented to you, it's time to "move on".

While I know you're busy with life and other posters, your dismissal of what is essentially your own argument doesn't bode well for your thinking rationally here.

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.

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

BTW, you never answered...

On fine tuning and design, folks might also find the following informative...

I fail to see your point. What are you claiming?