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

[otseng]

There is mathematical evidence of this being a possible thing.

Showing a video of a Mandelbrot zoom sequence is not evidence to support a cyclical universe.

Hinduism appears to be theologically similar to Christianity.

Not really. It is hard to pin down what is Hinduism, but for sure it is not a monotheistic religion.

It might be classified as a nontheistic religion.

Yes, I agree traditional Buddhism says nothing about any deities. But, it still makes claims about cosmology.

I say seem, because the Big bang event may only have been the beginning of this iteration of the universe. Perhaps the Buddhists are closer to the truth.

Of course, there's no evidence there have been prior instances of universes before ours. So, this is yet another belief in cosmology that is unsupported by any empirical evidence.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1471]

There is mathematical evidence of this being a possible thing.

Showing a video of a Mandelbrot zoom sequence is not evidence to support a cyclical universe.

It is evidence that infinite regress/progress is possible.

Hinduism appears to be theologically similar to Christianity.

Not really.

Yes, really.

It is hard to pin down what is Hinduism,...

Same with trying to pin down 'what is Christianity.'

...but for sure it is not a monotheistic religion.

It is as monotheistic as Christianity, in that YVHV does not work alone/without assistance.

But, it still makes claims about cosmology.

So do NDE experiencers, but that is not what makes them theists. Theists are GOD-specific and believe not only that we exist within a creation, but that a GOD created it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I ain't run off y'all. Life.

[Tcg]

Theists are GOD-specific and believe not only that we exist within a creation, but that a GOD created it.

Nope. Not even close. Theists are simply those who believe in gods. There are many who believe the universe has always existed and that god came later. Study a bit about Native American beliefs if you are interested in correcting your misunderstanding. It's weird the things some theists state about theism.


Tcg

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #1471]

There is mathematical evidence of this being a possible thing.

Showing a video of a Mandelbrot zoom sequence is not evidence to support a cyclical universe.

It is evidence that infinite regress/progress is possible.

I can as well make a video of myself being reincarnated to show my reincarnation is possible. So, no, it is not evidence of a cyclical universe.

A fundamental issue with a cyclical universe is entropy, which shows even if the universe was cyclical, it could not have been eternal.

A cyclic universe needs no beginning. It always was, always is, and always will be. But the model isn’t without its problems. One of the main ones is the problem of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, and according to the laws of thermodynamics can never decrease. In a simple cyclic universe model, the entropy of any given universe must be at least a little greater than its parent universe. So if universes cycle to an infinite past, the current universe would have infinite entropy, which it doesn’t. So there must have been some initial universe with low entropy, and we’re back to the beginning.

https://www.universetoday.com/157105/ev ... somewhere/

New research highlights a troubling problem with concepts of a cyclical universe that experiences infinitely alternating periods of rapid expansion and contraction, known as 'bouncing universe' models.

These bouncing universe models suggest the cosmos has no beginning, eliminating the need for a troubling singularity prior to the initial period of rapid inflation  — commonly known as the Big Bang —  needed by 'beginning of time' models.

University at Buffalo researchers say a newly suggested bouncing universe recipe that attempts to deal with the problem of entropy  —  the measure of unusable energy in the universe, which can only increase  —  suffers from a problem that has plagued previous models of endless inflation and contraction. It still needs a beginning.

https://www.space.com/bouncing-universe-big-bang

However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase. This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it.

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

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1475]

I can as well make a video of myself being reincarnated to show my reincarnation is possible.

No you can't.

So, no, it is not evidence of a cyclical universe.

I did not say it was a cyclic universe. I said that infinite regress/progress is a thing.

A fundamental issue with a cyclical universe is entropy

Entropy is an issue with the current models of the universe anyway, is it not?

[AquinasForGod]

This depends in what sense the bible is inspired and in what sense it is authoritative.

So firstly, the bible is a collection of books, so when we say the bible is inspired, do we mean the canon is inspired or do we mean every book in the bible is individually inspired?

I would go with the first. God inspired the Canon and for a reason, not because every book in the Canon is literal either. God knew this collection of books would serve the purpose of serving as one of the tools that grow his church on earth into the most popular religion ever seen. I have a few more things to say about each book being inspired, but first I wanted to talk about being authoritative.

Different books in the bible serve different purposes. The way in which they are authoritative is different. For example, the laws in the OT are not all authoritative anymore. Some of the rules were temporary. Some rules were only for Jews. Some were ritualistic. The only rules that have eternal authority are those that follow the natural law, and by natural law I do not mean according to nature but I mean natural law as found in scholasticism. So laws like do not murder are forever because it is the human nature to be alive and free. So in this way the Torah was authoritative for all time, but all the laws in it were not authoritative for all time.

Many of the laws were authoritative to the Jews only and only at that time. Some laws were only for females and only for that time for they are not natural laws.

Then there are the stories that were authoritative only in the sense of teaching a moral lesson, like Noah's flood. Genesis is not a science book and should not be read as such. It is not a history book.

Then we have books like the gospels which serve as eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life. It is how we learn that he died and was resurrected. They were inspired directly by the holy spirit as Jesus said, "I will send you another comforter and he will bring to your remembrance all things."

The gospels are authoritative in a few ways. One in when Jesus gives commandments for everyone, like love one another. It is authoritative also in the sense that these are honest eye witness accounts, which the holy spirit helped them remember, but they are still telling it via their subjective human filtering. Luke however is going by others' accounts. He was more like a journalist.

[otseng]

I did not say it was a cyclic universe. I said that infinite regress/progress is a thing.

Here's the context of what you replied:

Hinduism believes in an infinite universe through infinite cycles of universes.

There is mathematical evidence of this being a possible thing.

The context is infinite cycles of universes.

Of course infinite regress is a "thing". But if all you are showing is that it is a "thing", then we can move on since it is not relevant to an infinite cyclical universe.

Entropy is an issue with the current models of the universe anyway, is it not?

It's a different problem, but for discussion now is whether there could be an infinite cycle of universes.

[otseng]

Let's go on a side trail here and discuss what is entropy. And then later will discuss entropy and the universe.

In the classical sense, entropy is a thermodynamic term associated with molecular disorder.

entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system.

https://www.britannica.com/science/entropy-physics

a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy

In the general sense, entropy is applied to other disciplines and is associated with the amount of disorder in a system.

Entropy is a scientific concept as well as a measurable physical property that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty. The term and the concept are used in diverse fields, from classical thermodynamics, where it was first recognized, to the microscopic description of nature in statistical physics, and to the principles of information theory. It has found far-ranging applications in chemistry and physics, in biological systems and their relation to life, in cosmology, economics, sociology, weather science, climate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication.

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

The term entropy is now used in many other sciences (such as sociology), sometimes distant from physics or mathematics, where it no longer maintains its rigorous quantitative character. Usually, it roughly means disorder, chaos, decay of diversity or tendency toward uniform distribution of kinds.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Entropy

Going back to thermodynamics, there are three laws of thermo.

The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system's internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.

The third law of thermodynamics states that a system's entropy approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses), the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero.[2]

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

The idea of entropy can be hard to grasp because what does it mean to measure disorder? There is no way to empirically measure entropy. An "entropy meter" does not exist, unlike a thermometer or a photometer. Entropy can be calculated, but not directly measured in a system.

Also, what does disorder mean at a molecular level? Associating disorder with entropy is conceptually confusing, so another way to look at is energy dispersal.

The interpretation of entropy as a measure of energy dispersal has been exercised against the background of the traditional view, introduced by Ludwig Boltzmann, of entropy as a quantitative measure of disorder. The energy dispersal approach avoids the ambiguous term 'disorder'. An early advocate of the energy dispersal conception was Edward Armand Guggenheim in 1949, using the word 'spread'.

In this alternative approach, entropy is a measure of energy dispersal or spread at a specific temperature. Changes in entropy can be quantitatively related to the distribution or the spreading out of the energy of a thermodynamic system, divided by its temperature.

Some educators propose that the energy dispersal idea is easier to understand than the traditional approach. The concept has been used to facilitate teaching entropy to students beginning university chemistry and biology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_( ... dispersal)

[JoeyKnothead]

Sorry for the delay...

...

Do you accept all hearsay accounts, or just those that paint your preferred god in its best light?

As I've studied the Bible more and more, I find the accounts remarkably reliable and paints God in a light that gets brighter. We've touched on some of this already in this thread and we'll cover more areas later on in this thread.

Of course.

You accept the hearsay accounts for your favored god.

Do you reject hearsay accounts regarding all other religious texts?

Because that particular group can't show they speak truth regarding fanciful, often contradictory claims.

...
You cannot dismiss an argument because it comes from Christians, just like I cannot dismiss an argument because it comes from a skeptic. What should be the grounds of debate is evidence and logical argumentation.

I can certainly, and with a rational basis, dismiss the claims and arguments of folks who've shown a repeated inability to show they speak truth.

Trustworthiness is a thing.

In light of the many errors, discrepancies, and downright dooficitous claims in the Bible, any and all claims within should be taken with a grain of salt - unless and until those claims are shown to be truthful.

This is not a problem of the disbelievers, but a problem of religious, or supernatural claims.

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

On the broad scope, there are only two explanations for fine-tuning - random chance or some entity that purposely created it this way.

False dichotomy.

You need to bring up alternative explanations to show it's a false dichotomy.

You're presupposing fine tuning is a thing. None, not any, nobody can show there's "fine tuning" going on. I retract the dichotomy claim, and replace it with a oneotomy.

There was a whole trial about this, and the cdesignpropentists lost.

As well, you've not shown, nor will you ever show the universe couldn't have always existed in some form prior to the BB.

It's not up to me to support that since I've never made that claim. Now, if you want to make that claim, please provide your arguments for it and I'll then present my refutation.

Plenty fair.

I remind the observer that in assuming the universe was "created", there's an implication the universe can't have always existed.

Then, in supporting the "universe was created" claim, we'll hear all about how this 'creator' "always existed". This argument - as we so generously call it - merely claims what can't be observed, can't be proven, and relies solely on... on... well dangit, this creator always existed but don't you dare say the universe could have always existed.

I don't propose to know the prior conditions of a universe that many authorities consider to be some 14 billion years old.

Right, according to the BBT, the universe started around 14 billion years ago. This means our universe had a beginning.

No, it means we're observing an expansion from a previous form, most often called initial singularity. I make this point simply to show there's controversy regarding a "created" universe.

Yes, I made the claim the universe had a beginning and that this is an inconvertable fact, which you disagreed with. We can go over sources which attest to this, but as you've already mentioned, the universe started around 14 billion years aso, so I see no point posting additional sources to support this.

Incontrovertible fact?

Really?

See above reference to the singularity.

When did the BB begin?

Beats me.

Well then the argument stands that the universe had a beginning.

No, the argument stands that I don't purport to know when the BB began, nor do I purport to know the conditions proor to it, and you wanna carry on as if it was your God's doings.

We can dismiss the entirety of cosmological science, and fine tuning still hasn't been shown to be the case.

When did gods begin having the ability to produce viable offspring through breeding with married middle eastern women?

If God created the universe, there is nothing outside of his power to do within the universe.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth. You'll never show that humans procreating with gods produce viable offspring, simply for the fact you'll never show a god ever hooked up with a woman to've produced such offspring.

Arguments should stand or fall on their merits, not on who's the one telling em. If a world renowned expert in mammals told me a duck was one of em, I wouldn't set to making fur outta feathers.

Exactly. So, why be dimissive if a Christian says something?

My point here, though unclear, regards controversial claims. I was meaning "don't just accept", but had the wrong words. Retractions where applicable.

Or I'm just making excuses for my errors. Either way, that's point otseng.

Where you see design, I see stuff acting according to its properties. I contend mine is the more rational position.

It's the properties themselves that need the explaining. Let's put it this way, suppose I play a chess game against a computer and it always beats me. The design is not in the game itself, but in the computer program that is playing the game. There was a mind that created the computer program to be able to play so well. Likewise, God designed the properties of chemistry to lead to complexity we see in life and everything required to support life. Maybe we can have a deep dive into this later.

You're assuming a god you can't show exists has him a mind ya can't show he does, and did him a thing ya can't show he did.

Yours is entirely an argument based on speculations, built on assumptions, and filtered through the sieve of religious explanations for gaps in our knowledge.

I just doubt their ability to show they speak truth about it.

I think we just might have to get into the book then.

Sure.

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

Remember, you said...

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 smaller. There's nothing in the BB theory that refutes my contention here.

So...

You cannot say "NO!" to my claim and also say you don't know.

No, in the sense that we are seeing an expanding universe - and don't know the properties of the universe prior to that expansion. So the onus is on those who claim to know.

...Snip agreement...

The mere act of challenging a claim need not be considered a rejection of that claim.

I'm confused with your position on the claim there is a beginning to the universe. From what I can distill, it's "Even though scientists claim there's a beginning to the universe, there's no way that can be. I have no idea what the alternative is, but it sure ain't some creator god that did it."

I'm saying that we currently do not know the conditions prior to the BB. We've got some notions, but nothing confirmable.

...
Our fundamental assumptions on interpreting evidence can lead us down the wrong path. Our a priori beliefs are often hard to see unless confronted and challenged.

As we've seen, there are many problems with modern cosmology, even to the point that it becomes unscientific.
...snip definition...

So we toss out anything, and everything borne of scientific inquiry in this matter. That still doesn't make "God did it" any more viable.

What is fundamentally wrong with modern cosmology that it even has to resort to ideas that have no evidence to support them? I believe it lies with wrong a priori beliefs.

And I say it's you doing all the a prioriing.

Regardless, we can scrub history of our entire collection of cosmological understanding, but that doesn't lead to gods, fine tuning, or any other such religious based claims being true by default.