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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1584]

More about what it means to be isotropic, but not homogeneous...

The typical definitions I've always seen to distinguish these terms are similar to this (from here):

"The Copernican principle, when applied to cosmology and the structure of the Universe, basically asks the question of whether the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous. These two terms are not equivalent and have a special meaning to cosmology. Isotropy means there are no special directions to the Universe, homogeneous means there are no special places in the Universe.

Again, while these two definitions appear similar, they describe very different properties to the Universe as a whole. For example, if the Universe is isotropic then this means you will see no difference in the structure of the Universe as you look in different directions. When viewed on the largest scales, the Universe looks the same to all observers and the Universe looks the same in all directions as viewed by a particular observer. Homogeneity, when viewed on the largest scales, means that the average density of matter is about the same in all places in the Universe and the Universe is fairly smooth on large scales."

They show some diagrams below the above quote and the one labeled Isotropic Not homogeneous represents the concentric circles you describe.

This can be possible in a non-homogeneous environment if things are happening concentrically and we are at the center.

For example, imagine a series of concentric circles. Each circle is contained in the next larger circle. All the circles have the same location for the center. Sorta like a cross section of a tree trunk. Let's say each circle is semi-transparent and have a different color. From the perspective from the center of the circle looking outward, the color would be uniform. However, it is not homogeneous since each circle is a different color.

Right ... this would be isotropic but not homogeneous, but to see the same color in all directions would require the viewer to be at the center or else the net result of the color layering with distance would skew the resulting color seen by the observer (ie. it would have a direction so not be isotropic). I haven't read all 158 pages of this thread but remember seeing some discussion of Earth being at the literal center of the universe (I'll go back to try and find that dialog).

We know it isn't at the center of our galaxy (by some 26,000 light years), or at the center of our solar system (the sun occupies that spot), but what observations exist (or could exist) to show that Earth is at the center of anything on the scale of our universe? We appear to be a completely insignificant planet orbiting a common star in the suburb of one galaxy among billions or trillions. What did happen here is the deveopment of life, and eventually (after a few billion years of evolution) sentient life and the ability to ponder how important humans are in the scheme of things. But I don't see how that would relate to Earth's posiiton in the universe as a whole, or put it at the center.

[otseng]

what observations exist (or could exist) to show that Earth is at the center of anything on the scale of our universe?

There was a long discussion on this, but here is my summary post:

Here is the summary of my logic in arguing we are at/near the center of the universe:
1. We observe the CMBR to be uniform in its origination and detection.
2. The CMBR is the earliest remnant we can detect of the Big Bang.
3. If the universe is Euclidean and spherical, then the only place we can detect a uniform CMBR is near the center of the universe. If we were closer to the edge of the sphere, we would detect a non-uniform CMBR.

I also believe cosmologists indirectly realize this and cannot accept we're at the center of the universe. It is a reason cosmologists have introduced a non-Euclidean universe and inflation theory.

[DrNoGods]

what observations exist (or could exist) to show that Earth is at the center of anything on the scale of our universe?

There was a long discussion on this, but here is my summary post:

Here is the summary of my logic in arguing we are at/near the center of the universe:
1. We observe the CMBR to be uniform in its origination and detection.
2. The CMBR is the earliest remnant we can detect of the Big Bang.
3. If the universe is Euclidean and spherical, then the only place we can detect a uniform CMBR is near the center of the universe. If we were closer to the edge of the sphere, we would detect a non-uniform CMBR.

I also believe cosmologists indirectly realize this and cannot accept we're at the center of the universe. It is a reason cosmologists have introduced a non-Euclidean universe and inflation theory.

I think this article does a good job of summarizing the question:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ... entre.html

It ends with this:

"In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?"."

Given the vastness of the universe and Earth's (and all of its contents) insignificant role in 99.9999... percent of it, it is hard to imagine that we are at the center, or that it was all designed just for us humans.

[otseng]

I think this article does a good job of summarizing the question:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ... entre.html

It ends with this:

"In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?"."

Here is what the article states:

A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."

The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly—otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .

The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.
Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ... entre.html

The model it is introducing is a non-Euclidean geometry of the universe. What is the evidence that the universe is non-Euclidean?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1588]

The model it is introducing is a non-Euclidean geometry of the universe. What is the evidence that the universe is non-Euclidean?

I don't think they are offering any sort of model (non-Euclidean or Euclidean) but simply explaining the common balloon analogy to illustrate how space (skin of balloon) is what is expanding and carrying the galaxies (dots) with it. Then in your head you have to carry that analogy to 3 dimensions from the 2 dimensions of the balloon surface. It may be more a correct analogy if the balloon were a very thin plane that when blew up only expanded in its flat 2D plane, but that would ruin what is meant to be a simple analogy that anyone can follow because everyone knows what a balloon is. But as they point out there can be problems with such a simple analogy if someone thinks of the balloon as a 3D object rather than just its skin.

What I took from the article is that there is a lot that is still unknown, including whether or not the universe has a center, and if so where it might be (or even what the concept of a center means if the universe is infinite in extent).

[otseng]

I don't think they are offering any sort of model (non-Euclidean or Euclidean) but simply explaining the common balloon analogy to illustrate how space (skin of balloon) is what is expanding and carrying the galaxies (dots) with it. Then in your head you have to carry that analogy to 3 dimensions from the 2 dimensions of the balloon surface.

In their surface of a balloon analogy, it is describing a non-Euclidean model. What that means is in a curved non-Euclidean geometry, if you go straight far enough, you will return back to where you started. Like on the surface of a sphere, if you go straight, you will eventually return back to the point of origin. In a Euclidean model, if you go straight, you will never return back to the point of origin.

What I took from the article is that there is a lot that is still unknown, including whether or not the universe has a center, and if so where it might be (or even what the concept of a center means if the universe is infinite in extent).

Based on our observations and assuming a Euclidean universe, it is logical to infer we are at the center of the universe.

Here is the summary of my logic in arguing we are at/near the center of the universe:
1. We observe the CMBR to be uniform in its origination and detection.
2. The CMBR is the earliest remnant we can detect of the Big Bang.
3. If the universe is Euclidean and spherical, then the only place we can detect a uniform CMBR is near the center of the universe. If we were closer to the edge of the sphere, we would detect a non-uniform CMBR.

What evidence is there to counter this and support that we are not at the center of the universe?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1590]

In their surface of a balloon analogy, it is describing a non-Euclidean model. What that means is in a curved non-Euclidean geometry, if you go straight far enough, you will return back to where you started. Like on the surface of a sphere, if you go straight, you will eventually return back to the point of origin. In a Euclidean model, if you go straight, you will never return back to the point of origin.

This is why the balloon analogy can be confusing. It is meant to illustrate that space expands but the masses within it do not and simply are carried along with the expansion. The roundish shape of the balloon isn't part of the analogy ... only its skin. And of course if you actually drew dots on a balloon and blew it up, the dots would expand as well.

A better analogy is an imaginary "flat" balloon that can only expand in 2 dimensions, and instead of drawing dots on it you'd place small, magnetic disks (with another imaginary assumption that the balloon skin were magnetic to hold them). Then when this imaginary 2D balloon is "blown up" the planar surface expands and the disks ride with it, but the disks not expand themselves. Now extend this into 3 dimensions. This maintains a Euclidean model, but of course the simple, everyday balloon analogy is gone.

What evidence is there to counter this and support that we are not at the center of the universe?

If the universe extends infinitely in all directions (one idea that is still on the table according to the paper referenced in post 1587), then it would not matter where an observer is in it. Everything would look the same from any observation point and that observer would think they are at the center. They would see a uniform CMBR profile from any point within the universe, but in this case there would be no actual "center" of the universe. But if it isn't infinite, our observations may be over such a small fraction of it that it appears infinite and you'd end up with the same scenario. If it is finite and we've seen most/all of its extent, then I can see the argument that we may be near the center. But that is the problem speculating on unsolved problems ... there are multiple possibilities and we just don't know the correct answer yet.

[otseng]

A better analogy is an imaginary "flat" balloon that can only expand in 2 dimensions, and instead of drawing dots on it you'd place small, magnetic disks (with another imaginary assumption that the balloon skin were magnetic to hold them). Then when this imaginary 2D balloon is "blown up" the planar surface expands and the disks ride with it, but the disks not expand themselves. Now extend this into 3 dimensions. This maintains a Euclidean model, but of course the simple, everyday balloon analogy is gone.

If it was a "flat balloon", yes, it would be Euclidean. But that does not help with not having a center. A "flat balloon" would still have a center. Only on a surface of a sphere would there be no center.

What evidence is there to counter this and support that we are not at the center of the universe?

If the universe extends infinitely in all directions (one idea that is still on the table according to the paper referenced in post 1587), then it would not matter where an observer is in it.

I'm asking for evidence, not for an ad hoc explanation or hypothetical scenario like the universe is infinite in size.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1592]

A "flat balloon" would still have a center.

Unless the flat balloon were infinite in extent.

I'm asking for evidence, not for an ad hoc explanation or hypothetical scenario like the universe is infinite in size.

But we don't know if the universe is infinite in size any more than we know that it isn't. So neither assumption is more valid than the other. Since no definitive answer to that question exists yet, ad hoc and hypothetical scenarios are necessary until there is some evidence to support one explanation over the other, and we don't have that evidence yet as far as I know. The universe could be finite, but so large that all of our observations (eg. of CMBR) are the same as if it were infinite (ie. we have not observed far enough to make that call).

[otseng]

But we don't know if the universe is infinite in size any more than we know that it isn't. So neither assumption is more valid than the other.

It's very reasonable to conclude the universe is finite in size since it is finite in age. How could the universe be infinite in size if it originated from a singularity a finite number of years ago (~ 13.7 billion years)? Even if it expanded at a finite speed that is faster than the speed of light, the size would still be finite,

Since no definitive answer to that question exists yet, ad hoc and hypothetical scenarios are necessary until there is some evidence to support one explanation over the other, and we don't have that evidence yet as far as I know.

The white hole model flows from our observations without the need to introduce a multitude of ad hoc additions. If we take our observations at face value and don't introduce extraneous hypothetical explanations, I believe the white hole model makes sense.

To recap the white hole model so far. We assume the entire universe started in a small volume. By definition, this would be a white/black hole. During the expansion of the universe, the event horizon would collapse as matter/energy moves apart. This would cause gravitational red-shifting. The isotropic nature of the redshifting is due to us being at/near the center of the universe.

On the whole, the explanation is reasonable. But there is of course one giant problem with this that secularists will not accept and that is we occupy a privileged position in the universe. But, since I've already presented evidence to support this and no counter evidence has been presented, this also is reasonable to hold.