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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

[William]

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.

What understanding of YHVH does the Bible give which wouldn't include AI Artifacts as a reasonable explanation for those stories?

If you want to assert aliens are AI artifacts, please support that in another thread.

Why? Does the idea that YHVH is an AI Alien Artifact unsettle you. How is the idea even unscriptural?

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?

So your use of science in this manner has it that the only complex organisms which are evident are here on this planet and that due to the enormous problems in sparking life up in this universe you assert that there can be no other life in the universe?

Re that, you assert that YHVH created a universe which isn't able to spawn life but was able to make life happen due to the specific conditions YHVH created on one single tiny planet, to make that happen.

After managing to do that, YHVH specifically creates human form which are able to function through the high end of intelligence and - knowing that humans will never survive anywhere else in the universe, YHVH gave us the order to spread across the face of the planet and subdue said planet.

For what practical purpose did YHVH do all this?

Indeed, why was it necessary to make the universe so infinitely huge and place innumerable objects within it which are of no use to human beings?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1441]

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.

I can accept that YHVH may have also been designed and this does not change anything re us and this universe being designed.

The current science supports intelligent design Joey. Unfortunately the epoch where so many scientists were on the bandwagon pronouncing GOD was dead, did its damage in that new information is regarded as untouchable by those who invested their belief in those declarations.

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.

"Spacetime is Doomed" is a real thing Joey - and perhaps in that it supports the implication that our reality isn't as real as we think it is and that it also implies that GOD is not yet as dead as the nontheists have been declaring this past couple of hundred years - it appears the news is too devastating for so many nontheists that they refuse to even view the evidence - perhaps because they are not really wanting evidence supporting any implying that we exist within a creation.

Because of the lack of evidence Joey - the question of "who created the creator?" is not able to be answered, even that we were to accept we exist within a creation.

I see no reason to reject the one [we exist with a creation] simply because the other [who created the creator] cannot presently be answered.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1441]

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.

I can accept that YHVH may have also been designed and this does not change anything re us and this universe being designed.

The current science supports intelligent design Joey. Unfortunately the epoch where so many scientists were on the bandwagon pronouncing GOD was dead, did its damage in that new information is regarded as untouchable by those who invested their belief in those declarations.

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.

"Spacetime is Doomed" is a real thing Joey - and perhaps in that it supports the implication that our reality isn't as real as we think it is and that it also implies that GOD is not yet as dead as the nontheists have been declaring this past couple of hundred years - it appears the news is too devastating for so many nontheists that they refuse to even view the evidence - perhaps because they are not really wanting evidence supporting any implying that we exist within a creation.

Because of the lack of evidence Joey - the question of "who created the creator?" is not able to be answered, even that we were to accept we exist within a creation.

I see no reason to reject the one [we exist with a creation] simply because the other [who created the creator] cannot presently be answered.

Science does not support the Intelligent Design theory, William. Tossing 'spacetime is doomed' and 'reality may not be as real as we think' at us is not new - it is mere Woo intended to make us 'doubt everything we thought we knew' and this fails because a bit of understanding of particle physics accommodates those arguments, and in any case, if we could rely on nothing, that might create a Gap in knowledge, but not a gap for God, because if we could not trust anything, we could not trust the god -claim.

Theism gives itself away every time, because it cannot escape from the 'a priori' god premise that drags it down to logical failure every time..

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Right. Window of opportunity..clever. I like it. But that is just appeal to unknowns, which is not evidence of anything. It is used as gap for gods, and that is apparently how you use it, too

Precious beliefs applies rather to theists (including yourself, it seems) as rationalists do not adhere to anything to the exclusion of better evidence coming along.

My jumping in (I only had my usual look, but you talked such trash, I had to comment, so don't blame me) may be wasted on you. That doesn't matter. If I can drop a hint as to where you are going wrong (mostly everywhere) . it's worth doing.

As to spacetime, I suggested before that it was up to you to explain why that video somehow upset reality, or for that matter, why that was relevant to the discussion. Posting a video to make your case will not do. The ball is in in your court and I think I've said that before.

You have MY attention if you can suggest much less validate an alternative to what you suppose 'my beliefs' are. Off you go.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1446]

Right. Window of opportunity..clever.

I am inclined to agree with you on that.

The video I linked needs to be viewed before one can make a case against it, or claim it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
From the video link;

Einstein's theory of relativity appears to break down at very small space (10 to the -33 m) and time (10-43 seconds). Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and popular science author and argues that there is no such thing as space time in physics, and that all physical events are ultimately conscious.

This video is a fascinating look at one of the leading minds in cognitive science , and his argument that physical events are ultimately conscious.

Hoffman discusses the problems with the popular idea of space and time being fundamental aspects of the universe, and argues that these concepts are instead results of our own understanding (or lack there of) and experience.

I think it is supportive evidence for us existing within a creation, therefore - since that is otseng's position - I see it adds support to his theistic leanings, rather than your or JK's nontheistic leanings.

Rather than further frivolous loop-de-looping with you, I bid thee a fair weekend...

[brunumb]

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 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Late tag edits...

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1441]

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.

I can accept that YHVH may have also been designed and this does not change anything re us and this universe being designed.

I've yet to meet anyone who can show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the universe is designed.

The current science supports intelligent design Joey.

Then surely you can show us where, beyond a reasonable doubt, the science supports such a conclusion.

Unfortunately the epoch where so many scientists were on the bandwagon pronouncing GOD was dead, did its damage in that new information is regarded as untouchable by those who invested their belief in those declarations.

That approaches calling folks stubborningly opposed to accepting what they know to be true.

I reject God claims due to the failure of such claimants to show they speak truth. If they wanna blame their failures on me that's their problem.

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.

"Spacetime is Doomed" is a real thing Joey - and perhaps in that it supports the implication that our reality isn't as real as we think it is and that it also implies that GOD is not yet as dead as the nontheists have been declaring this past couple of hundred years - it appears the news is too devastating for so many nontheists that they refuse to even view the evidence - perhaps because they are not really wanting evidence supporting any implying that we exist within a creation.

I encounter reality every time I stub my toe.

Present the evidence you think supports your contentions and let's see if they hold up to scrutiny.

Because of the lack of evidence Joey - the question of "who created the creator?" is not able to be answered, even that we were to accept we exist within a creation.

Such is a problem for the claimant.

I see no reason to reject the one [we exist with a creation] simply because the other [who created the creator] cannot presently be answered.

I see no reason to accept either proposition.

When one claims there's a creator of the universe, I challenge that claims, and any following claims about it.

I think some folks confuse challenging claims with being antiposed to such claims. That need not be the case, and certainly shouldn't be the assumption.

I don't know. Therefore I I don't make claims regarding the prior history of the universe.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1446]

Right. Window of opportunity..clever.

I am inclined to agree with you on that.

The video I linked needs to be viewed before one can make a case against it, or claim it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
From the video link;

Einstein's theory of relativity appears to break down at very small space (10 to the -33 m) and time (10-43 seconds). Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and popular science author and argues that there is no such thing as space time in physics, and that all physical events are ultimately conscious.

This video is a fascinating look at one of the leading minds in cognitive science , and his argument that physical events are ultimately conscious.

Hoffman discusses the problems with the popular idea of space and time being fundamental aspects of the universe, and argues that these concepts are instead results of our own understanding (or lack there of) and experience.

I think it is supportive evidence for us existing within a creation, therefore - since that is otseng's position - I see it adds support to his theistic leanings, rather than your or JK's nontheistic leanings.

Rather than further frivolous loop-de-looping with you, I bid thee a fair weekend...

The only too familiar theistic fallacy of equivocation (what we are in had to come from somewhere ..call it creation....it needs a creator...fiddle in "Intelligent").

Fallacy and flummery, I bid you and your collapsible god apologetic a great weekend.

As to the video, I saw nothing in that to support an intelligent creator, ball back in your court to explain why doubt and confusion about the basics of reality supports a god -claim. Oh... ...and it rather betrays where your 'Agnosticism' stands that you are on Otseng's side of the barriers. It rather supports my contention that 'agnosticism' means 'irreligious theism', which is what My model says. Tacitly, you are supporting me. It's been said before - a theist pretending to be 'agnostic' will give themselves away, eventually.