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

[otseng]

Do you reject hearsay accounts regarding all other religious texts?

If you (or anyone else) wants to present those and argue for them, we can debate those.

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.

If someone is not telling the truth, it is only determined by presentation of evidence and argumentation.

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 thread allows for "errors" and "discrepancies" since inerrancy is not assumed. So, this charge is not relevant in this thread.

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

It's actually not a problem since inerrancy is not assumed in this thread. And it's interesting that even though I've repeatedly pointed this out, skeptics repeatedly goes back to this.

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.

I've presented many articles to support fine-tuning. If you suggest "oneotomy" as an alternative, please present your evidence and argument.

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

Please present the details of that and we can include that here.

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

Yes.

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.

Again, it is irrelevant. A theory is not rejected because one cannot explain the prior origin, the Big Bang theory being the prime example of this. Do you claim to know how the Big Bang started? If you do not know how the BB started, then we can likewise throw out the BBT.

As for the universe having an infinite past, I'll get back to that when I continue discussing entropy.

... need to go now and will respond to the rest later.

[otseng]

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.

So, we have two claims on the table then. My claim is that God is the cause of the BB and your claim is that you don't know what or how the BB got started.

Since these are the only two options to choose from, it is entirely rational to choose the former.

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

Let me repeat one of the many examples I presented - the flatness problem. In order for the universe to be flat, "the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 10^62 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value." Something has to account for the precision required for the universe to be flat. How would you explain this observation?

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.

I'm simply applying basic logic, not affirming God exists in this statement.

As for establishing God created the universe, that's what we are discussing regarding cosmology and Genesis.

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.

If the only rational explanation accounts for all the observations we see, why should it be rejected if it has religious connotations?

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

What notions are you referring to and what is the evidence to support them?

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.

Don't know what you getting at here. All the evidence I've been presenting are accepted by scientists. And what I'm doing is comparing all the possible explanations of what we observe. If a creator accounts for all the observations and there is no viable alternative materialistic explanation to explain for all the observations, then it is entirely rational to accept a creator.

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

What are my a priori assumptions?

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.

Unless you can present a viable naturalistic explanation for all the problems we see in cosmology, my claim still stands.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1482]

JK: 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.

If the only rational explanation accounts for all the observations we see, why should it be rejected if it has religious connotations?

Agreed. One can still reject any and all religious connotations and still accept existing in a created thing.

[JoeyKnothead]

So, we have two claims on the table then. My claim is that God is the cause of the BB and your claim is that you don't know what or how the BB got started.

Since these are the only two options to choose from, it is entirely rational to choose the former.

We're not considering explanations for which we're unaware.

You also fail to address any possibility of the universe existing in a prior form (singularity).

Instead, you invoked a sentient entity of unimaginable power.

I invoke merely an observation that the universe exists, and make no claims beyond that observation.

Let me repeat one of the many examples I presented - the flatness problem. In order for the universe to be flat, "the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 10^62 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value." Something has to account for the precision required for the universe to be flat. How would you explain this observation?

I don't make claims in this regard, so I'm not bound to explain such.

Can you do any math at all regarding the possibility of this sentient, all powerful entity being involved?

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

I'm simply applying basic logic, not affirming God exists in this statement.

As for establishing God created the universe, that's what we are discussing regarding cosmology and Genesis.

My point stands. "If" does not establish truth.

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.

If the only rational explanation accounts for all the observations we see, why should it be rejected if it has religious connotations?

How have you established that proposing a god did anything is a rational argument?

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

What notions are you referring to and what is the evidence to support them?

The proposed singularity. I only present it as a postulation of experts.

My point is that where you see God...universe, there"'something an alternate explanation in singularity... universe.

I mention such in light of your previous "universe had a beginning is incontrovertible" notion.

Don't know what you getting at here. All the evidence I've been presenting are accepted by scientists. And what I'm doing is comparing all the possible explanations of what we observe. If a creator accounts for all the observations and there is no viable alternative materialistic explanation to explain for all the observations, then it is entirely rational to accept a creator.

Rational to conclude a sentient, immensely powerful entity created an entire universe?



Or that we don't know if the universe even had a beginning, much less what set things in motion?

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

What are my a priori assumptions?

Really? It's obvious your belief in a god you can't show exists is driving your arguments.

Unless you can present a viable naturalistic explanation for all the problems we see in cosmology, my claim still stands.

Why do so many theists think if other notions can't be shown to be true, the theist's notions magically become true?

Nevermind, I think I answered my own question.

[otseng]

We're not considering explanations for which we're unaware.

Yes, we're not considering explanations that we do not currently know about.

You also fail to address any possibility of the universe existing in a prior form (singularity).

It is not my burden to refute something you do not even claim to be true.

Instead, you invoked a sentient entity of unimaginable power.

Yes, of course.

I don't make claims in this regard, so I'm not bound to explain such.

Sure, you have such a right. But, how can you then say you don't make any claims to any materialistic explanation, but then also make the claim any extranatural explanation is wrong?

Can you do any math at all regarding the possibility of this sentient, all powerful entity being involved?

No. However, we're not applying math here, but simply logic.

How have you established that proposing a god did anything is a rational argument?

It's a rational argument because really the only explanation on the table is a creator to explain the origin and design of the universe. There has been no other viable naturalistic explanation that has been placed on the table. If you do have another explanation, please present it.

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

What notions are you referring to and what is the evidence to support them?

The proposed singularity. I only present it as a postulation of experts.

The singularity is part of the BBT, not before it.

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang ... heory.html

Rational to conclude a sentient, immensely powerful entity created an entire universe?

Of course.

Or that we don't know if the universe even had a beginning, much less what set things in motion?

If there's no beginning, are you saying the universe is eternal in age?

Really? It's obvious your belief in a god you can't show exists is driving your arguments.

No, my assumption is God could exist, not God does exist.

For skeptics, their assumption is God cannot exist.

Why do so many theists think if other notions can't be shown to be true, the theist's notions magically become true?

It's simple logic. One explanation has to be true and the others false. If there are no viable naturalistic explanations, the alternative is an extranatural explanation. Note, as I've repeatedly pointed out, modern cosmology has already accepted extranatural explanations. So, if you discount all extranatural explanations, then you pretty much reject much of modern cosmology.

[brunumb]

It's simple logic. One explanation has to be true and the others false. If there are no viable naturalistic explanations, the alternative is an extranatural explanation. Note, as I've repeatedly pointed out, modern cosmology has already accepted extranatural explanations. So, if you discount all extranatural explanations, then you pretty much reject much of modern cosmology.

How can we tell if all naturalistic explanations have been considered? I don't know of any extra-natural explanations that have been accepted by modern cosmology. Could you please share an example here.

[JoeyKnothead]

We're not considering explanations for which we're unaware.

Yes, we're not considering explanations that we do not currently know about.

So we shouldn't claim to know what happened prior to the Big Bang.

You also fail to address any possibility of the universe existing in a prior form (singularity).

It is not my burden to refute something you do not even claim to be true.

I'm just pointing out that you've not shown there's incontrovertible evidence for the universe having been "created" by some sentient, ultra powerful entity - claims of which beg the question of its origins.

Instead, you invoked a sentient entity of unimaginable power.

Yes, of course.

While presenting faulty arguments to this regard.

I don't make claims in this regard, so I'm not bound to explain such.

Sure, you have such a right. But, how can you then say you don't make any claims to any materialistic explanation, but then also make the claim any extranatural explanation is wrong?

I don't say your god claim is wrong.

I say you can't show your claim is truth.

Can you do any math at all regarding the possibility of this sentient, all powerful entity being involved?

No. However, we're not applying math here, but simply logic.

Then why bother with all that math before?

You presented that math when it seemed to support your position, but now dismiss math when it can't or doesn't?

How have you established that proposing a god did anything is a rational argument?

It's a rational argument because really the only explanation on the table is a creator to explain the origin and design of the universe. There has been no other viable naturalistic explanation that has been placed on the table. If you do have another explanation, please present it.

What you've got here is the classic theist tactic of "If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right."

I contend such a notion is faulty, in that it merely places a god - that can't be shown to exist - into a gap in our knowledge. We do not now, and may well never know whether the universe has always existed, or not.

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

What notions are you referring to and what is the evidence to support them?

The proposed singularity. I only present it as a postulation of experts.

The singularity is part of the BBT, not before it.

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).
https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang ... heory.html

From your source...

"The Big Bang as the initial singularity is only a speculation," Silva Neves told Space.com.

Your own researcher says he's speculating.

As I contend you're doing you some of it too.

Rational to conclude a sentient, immensely powerful entity created an entire universe?

Of course.

I'll leave that'n for the observer to ponder, as we move to the other bit of it...

Or that we don't know if the universe even had a beginning, much less what set things in motion?

If there's no beginning, are you saying the universe is eternal in age?

I'm saying I don't know.

You're contending the universe was created, implying there was a time when the universe didn't exist, up until good ol' God came along, and decided he'd create it.

So my position regarding the matter is that the most rational answer is, "Beats me, let's go fishing."

Really? It's obvious your belief in a god you can't show exists is driving your arguments.

No, my assumption is God could exist, not God does exist.

Ah. I don't think I've ever seen you allow for that.

In return, though I doubt the possibilty, I can't deny gods could exist.

For skeptics, their assumption is God cannot exist.

See above, but I think there's better explanations for why folks hold god belief. Probably not a topic for this OP, unless you want me to fess it.

Why do so many theists think if other notions can't be shown to be true, the theist's notions magically become true?

It's simple logic. One explanation has to be true and the others false. If there are no viable naturalistic explanations, the alternative is an extranatural explanation. Note, as I've repeatedly pointed out, modern cosmology has already accepted extranatural explanations. So, if you discount all extranatural explanations, then you pretty much reject much of modern cosmology.

As I've said before, we can reject the entire accumulated set of cosmological thinking, but that doesn't make "Goddidit" magically the truth.

There's some stuff we just don't know. And that's okay.

[otseng]

It's simple logic. One explanation has to be true and the others false. If there are no viable naturalistic explanations, the alternative is an extranatural explanation. Note, as I've repeatedly pointed out, modern cosmology has already accepted extranatural explanations. So, if you discount all extranatural explanations, then you pretty much reject much of modern cosmology.

How can we tell if all naturalistic explanations have been considered? I don't know of any extra-natural explanations that have been accepted by modern cosmology. Could you please share an example here.

What I mean in accepted is not in the sense that it has been accepted as the definitive solution to problems we see in cosmology, but accepted as a possible solution.

Examples include:
- Multiverse to explain fine-tuning
- Inflation and curvature of space to explain not being in center of universe
- Cyclical universe to explain origin of universe
- Dark energy and dark matter to explain apparent young age of universe

As for if there are other possible naturalistic explanations, please propose those and we can debate them.

[otseng]

I'm just pointing out that you've not shown there's incontrovertible evidence for the universe having been "created" by some sentient, ultra powerful entity - claims of which beg the question of its origins.

There will never be any empirical evidence for what started the universe, whether it is God or a cyclical universe or any other explanation yet to be proposed. We cannot solely rely on empirical evidence to always determine truth. Again, as I've pointed out, cosmologists already invoke extranatural explanations.

While presenting faulty arguments to this regard.

Please show the specific flaw in my logic.

I say you can't show your claim is truth.

I don't claim it is truth either. All I claim is it is a rational belief.

Then why bother with all that math before?

You presented that math when it seemed to support your position, but now dismiss math when it can't or doesn't?

Supporting a position does not include a single discipline, but involves many disciplines, math just being one of them.

And I'm not dismissing math. Actually, I believe God is a mathematician. We of course see this in fundamental physics.

Regarding the fine-structure constant, Feynman said:

It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by humans. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed His pencil."

Pauli said:

When I die my first question to the Devil will be: What is the meaning of the fine structure constant?

We also see math in the Bible. Jews have been studying the Tanakh for thousands of years and have discovered mathematical codes embedded througout the Hebrew Bible. This is studied in the field of Biblical gematria. As a matter of fact, the Greek word geometry is related to the Hebrew word gematria.

What you've got here is the classic theist tactic of "If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right."

My tactic is used in courtrooms all across the world. Each side presents a scenario to explain what happened. Then a decision is made on which explanation is more reasonable to account for all the evidence.

I contend such a notion is faulty, in that it merely places a god - that can't be shown to exist - into a gap in our knowledge.

There's no gap in our knowledge if God does explain what we observe. That gap you are talking about is a gap in any naturalistic explanations to what we observe.

From your source...

"The Big Bang as the initial singularity is only a speculation," Silva Neves told Space.com.

Your own researcher says he's speculating.
As I contend you're doing you some of it too.

Well, I presented evidence to back up my claim that the singularity is part of the BBT. Instead of just contending it's all speculation, you need to present counter evidence.

But, here's more sources:

The big bang theory is a model of the universe which makes the striking prediction that the universe began a finite amount of time in the past at the so called "Big Bang singularity."

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015P ... L/abstract

The Big Bang theory, which assumes general relativity to be true, is the modern cosmological model of the history of the universe. It also contains a singularity. In the distant past, about 13.77 billion years ago, according to the Big Bang theory, the entire universe was compressed into an infinitely tiny point.

https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Or that we don't know if the universe even had a beginning, much less what set things in motion?

If there's no beginning, are you saying the universe is eternal in age?

I'm saying I don't know.

Well, I'm saying I do know and it is finite in age. If you don't claim to know if it is infinite in age, then you do not have any valid reason to dispute the universe had a beginning.

You're contending the universe was created, implying there was a time when the universe didn't exist, up until good ol' God came along, and decided he'd create it.

Of course.

So my position regarding the matter is that the most rational answer is, "Beats me, let's go fishing."

Sure, you're entitled to believe that. But, it's not the "most rational answer".

In return, though I doubt the possibilty, I can't deny gods could exist.

That's a good start. As for the possibility that God exists, with all the evidence pointing to it, I believe it's a very rational position to hold.

There's some stuff we just don't know. And that's okay.

Interestingly, this has been the skeptics conclusion in other areas we've debated in this thread so far. I've presented the tower of Babel to account for the origin of languages and the skeptics conclusion is we don't know what is the origin of languages. I've presented the global flood to account for geological evidence, and the skeptics don't really know how certain geological formations came about.

The common theme for skeptics seems to be, I don't know what is the answer, but I know for sure it is not the Bible and God.

[otseng]

Continuing with post 1483 on entropy...

The second law of thermodynamics states:

The second law may be formulated by the observation that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease, as they always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium where the entropy is highest at the given internal energy. An increase in the combined entropy of system and surroundings accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, often referred to in the concept of the arrow of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamics

The second law states that there exists a useful state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy delta S is equal to the heat transfer delta Q divided by the temperature T.

delta S = delta Q / T

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo2.html

The Second Law is concerned with Entropy (S) which is produced by all processes and associated with the loss of ability to do work. The Second Law states that the entropy of the universe increases.

For energy to be available there must be a region with high energy level and a region with low energy level. Useful work must be derived from the energy that flows from the high level to the low level.

100% energy can not be transformed to work
entropy can be produced but never destroyed

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/law- ... -d_94.html

So, the second law of thermo means in a closed system, entropy will always be increasing and can never decrease. And in any closed system, given enough time, it will reach maximum entropy and no more further work is possible. If the universe is a closed system, then this would also apply to the universe. Given enough time, eventually the universe will have maximum entropy and would reach "heat death".

The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae181.cfm

The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)[1] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and will, therefore, be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

Even if the universe were to somehow collapse and start another Big Bang, entropy would still have to increase. So, eventually, the cycle of Big Bangs would have to stop and end up in a final heat death.

On a smaller scale, we see this in the impossibility of creating a perpetual motion machine. The reason it's impossible to create any closed system to do work forever is because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Before the establishment of the second law, many people who were interested in inventing a perpetual motion machine had tried to circumvent the restrictions of first law of thermodynamics by extracting the massive internal energy of the environment as the power of the machine. Such a machine is called a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind". The second law declared the impossibility of such machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamics

So, based on the second law of thermo, it would be impossible for the universe to have experienced infinite cycles in the past since we are not currently at heat death.