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

[POI]

Actually, it is your video that presented the malformed question, which I never had asked - what was before the Big Bang? Of course there was no "before" the Big Bang because our time started with the BB, therefore there was no "before" since there was no time in existence.

Please rewatch the video, starting at 01:45. He speaks about the topic of 'quantum mechanics' in place of 'relativity'.

The main question I'm asking now is - is the universe finite in age or is it eternal?

The honest answer is, NO ONE KNOWS YET FOR SURE? At present, the hunch is 'eternal'. But not a baseless hunch. but instead, an informed hunch based upon discovery and inference. (i.e.):

http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ph ... %20forever.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/custo ... big-ideas/

In regard to the second article, when Allen Guth was asked, point/blank, did the universe have a beginning, Allen said, "likely not". This is not an "appeal to 'authority' argument, but instead pointing out that the folk(s) who are using the tools to make the actual headway/discoveries towards finding answers are stating it points to an eternal universe.

If the universe is finite in age, then it would have been created somehow. How did it arise? It'd have to have some origin that is not part of our universe. It cannot have been self-caused. So, from our perspective, it would be an ex nihilo creation.

Are you going on record to assert the universe IS finite and created?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4191]

The honest answer is, NO ONE KNOWS YET FOR SURE? At present, the hunch is 'eternal'. But not a baseless hunch. but instead, an informed hunch based upon discovery and inference. (i.e.):

The following is the position you hold, is it not?

(4) Real Uncreated Universe Theory: The material which makes up the current manifestation we call our universe is real and eternal.
Position (4) Holds that the stuff of the universe is eternal, and goes through cycles and that the current cycle is simply one of an endless chain of "one form or another" manifestations.
Most who hold position (4) think that minds/mindfulness are predominantly emergent through human brains and are the only minds that exist/are known to exist and that these minds are simply simulations that the human brain produces and are not real in any material sense of the word. Those who hold this position believe that the universe is real, but the mind is not.

Are you unsure if the position is true?

Why not simply answer Olivers question put to you, with something along the lines of
"I agree that this current manifestation had a beginning, but my argument is not about the age of this particular manifestation, but that the stuff of the universe is eternal and cycles eternally through beginnings - manifesting into something - and eventually ending and that all this is done without the requirement of mindfulness?"

Are you not going on record to assert the universe IS eternal and non-created?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4191]

The honest answer is, NO ONE KNOWS YET FOR SURE? At present, the hunch is 'eternal'. But not a baseless hunch. but instead, an informed hunch based upon discovery and inference. (i.e.):

The following is the position you hold, is it not?

(4) Real Uncreated Universe Theory: The material which makes up the current manifestation we call our universe is real and eternal.
Position (4) Holds that the stuff of the universe is eternal, and goes through cycles and that the current cycle is simply one of an endless chain of "one form or another" manifestations.
Most who hold position (4) think that minds/mindfulness are predominantly emergent through human brains and are the only minds that exist/are known to exist and that these minds are simply simulations that the human brain produces and are not real in any material sense of the word. Those who hold this position believe that the universe is real, but the mind is not.

Are you unsure if the position is true?

Why not simply answer Olivers question put to you, with something along the lines of
"I agree that this current manifestation had a beginning, but my argument is not about the age of this particular manifestation, but that the stuff of the universe is eternal and cycles eternally through beginnings - manifesting into something - and eventually ending and that all this is done without the requirement of mindfulness?"

Are you not going on record to assert the universe IS eternal and non-created?

Your response is quite baffling. This is why I spent so much time speaking about the topic of 'faith'. In this context, if we happen to study on what is revealed about this topic, to present a conclusion, with certainty, still requires "faith". But, as it currently stands, it would appear that to instead argue for a finite universe might require more faith than to instead assume an eternal one. Why? The more evidence we have, the less faith one needs. I can either stay completely agnostic, or chose a side. I'm going with the side which looks to lead us in this direction of eternal, lead by evidence. But, maybe you and otseng will get lucky, and some new discoveries will later shift the current realm of thought regarding this topic?

Otseng, in all honestly, is presenting one of the last bastions for the theist, which is to ask about "the universe". The "god of the gaps" continues to get smaller and smaller with each and every new discovery. We have yet to find ANY mindful agency pulling the stings. My honest position, is that I am NOT a theoretical physicist; and even if I was, I cannot speak to the conclusion about whether or not the universe is eternal??? My response to otseng is to point out that the preponderance of the current evidence is leading the ones rigorously searching this stuff out to the conclusion of an eternal one, and not finite.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4193]

My honest position, is that I am NOT a theoretical physicist; and even if I was, I cannot speak to the conclusion about whether or not the universe is eternal???

Sure you can. My question is why you don't just assume the position for arguments sake rather than take on the agnostic position or "I don't know and there is not enough evidence to say is it is the case or not".

My response to otseng is to point out that the preponderance of the current evidence is leading the ones rigorously searching this stuff out to the conclusion of an eternal one, and not finite.

Even so, my suggestion was for you to explain the idea of an eternal universe (how it would work if it were true.) Do you disagree with my take on (4)?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #4194]

It's like asking me to argue for 'time' and 'gravity'. These are scientific theories in which I accept, and yet, I cannot speak to them either. The concept of time 'slowing down' as the rate of speed increases is beyond my level of common sense/logic, or any level of armchair philosophy for that matter.

[otseng]

Please rewatch the video, starting at 01:45. He speaks about the topic of 'quantum mechanics' in place of 'relativity'.

Here's what he said:

1:25
In quantum mechanics is there a Big Bang singularity before which there was nothing. And the answer is honestly we don't know.

1:32
We have models, we have theories that either have the Big Bang as the beginning or the Big Bang is just a phase the universe goes through. There could be an earlier phase of the universe. The universe could have been contracting and collapsing and then bounced back into what we think of as the Big Bang. Or there could have been a completely different universe almost unrelated to ours.

https://shorturl.at/Gb3v5

As typical, the answer given is "we don't know". Just like in basic philosophical questions that non-Christians have no answers for, we also see cosmologists have no answer to the age or origin of the universe.

The issue is more "I don't want to know" rather than "I don't know". People reject any idea that something might confirm the Bible, so they'd rather plead ignorance rather than confirm the Bible.

The main question I'm asking now is - is the universe finite in age or is it eternal?

The honest answer is, NO ONE KNOWS YET FOR SURE? At present, the hunch is 'eternal'. But not a baseless hunch. but instead, an informed hunch based upon discovery and inference. (i.e.):

Again, I'm asking for evidence, not what is your hunch. If you have no evidence the universe is eternal, then is it based on faith? What exactly are you referring to when you say discovery and inference?

http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ph ... %20forever.

Anybody can come up with a model. But what I'm asking for is evidence, which I don't see any in that article.

Here's what the article states:

The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain.

The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.

Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/custo ... big-ideas/

Does he actually present any evidence? I don't see any.

I find it very ironic scientists can continually come up with ad hoc ideas to support their naturalistic presupposition - dark matter, cosmic inflation, multiverse, and now eternal inflation. Is there any way we can detect any of these things? No. The idea of a multiverse even throws out what does it mean for something to be natural.

Are you going on record to assert the universe IS finite and created?

Of course. I already stated this at the outset:

What I claim is both science and the Bible support the position the universe had a beginning and was created.

[otseng]

Otseng, in all honestly, is presenting one of the last bastions for the theist, which is to ask about "the universe". The "god of the gaps" continues to get smaller and smaller with each and every new discovery.

As I've brought up earlier, many basic philosophical questions have been unanswerable.

As for science, what we find is the "science of the gaps" continues to grow. We are now in the world of an explosion of ad hoc explanations as I've mentioned earlier in order to avoid mentioning God.

We have yet to find ANY mindful agency pulling the stings

Depends on what you mean by "find". Do we have to empirically detect such a mindful agency? Or can we also use inferences?

My honest position, is that I am NOT a theoretical physicist; and even if I was, I cannot speak to the conclusion about whether or not the universe is eternal??? My response to otseng is to point out that the preponderance of the current evidence is leading the ones rigorously searching this stuff out to the conclusion of an eternal one, and not finite.

Again, what evidence are you referring to the universe is eternal?

[POI]

[/quote]
Here's what he said:

1:25
In quantum mechanics is there a Big Bang singularity before which there was nothing. And the answer is honestly we don't know.

1:32
We have models, we have theories that either have the Big Bang as the beginning or the Big Bang is just a phase the universe goes through. There could be an earlier phase of the universe. The universe could have been contracting and collapsing and then bounced back into what we think of as the Big Bang. Or there could have been a completely different universe almost unrelated to ours.

You did not start at 01:45. But that's okay, don't bother. Looks like we have much bigger fish to fry here.... I'll address below as the crux of everything in this topic is finally fully revealed.

As typical, the answer given is "we don't know".

Therefore, "goddidit"?

Just like in basic philosophical questions that non-Christians have no answers for, we also see cosmologists have no answer to the age or origin of the universe.

Therefore, 'goddidit'?

The issue is more "I don't want to know" rather than "I don't know". People reject any idea that something might confirm the Bible, so they'd rather plead ignorance rather than confirm the Bible.

Honestly, for me otseng, if we were to find out that some magical and completely invisible singular being created everything, the Bible would now probably be one of the last books I would turn to for THE answers, unless, Jesus himself popped out from behind the bushes and said, 'here I am, worship me'. Which, ironically, many of the Christian 'doomsdayers' already come here to threaten us skeptics about, by saying stuff like, "someday you'll realize the truth", or, as the Bible says (paraphrased) - "One day, every eye will see, and every tongue will confess." Well, in the meantime, we will get on with reality, which looks to likely not have any god in it, let alone the Christian god.

Religion, not exclusive to Christianity, is probably one of, if not the biggest reason, we are so behind in "science". We still have far more to discover, verses what we have discovered. And for the countless things for which have been 'resolved', there has yet to be any magical and invisible agency pulling the stings; contrary to what people once thought about those now 'resolved' topics. The "god of the gaps" continues to shrink, to the point of where it is now. But keep your fingers crossed otseng... You still have a few unresolved topics to bring to skeptics.

If not for "science", think where we would still be? Is 'science' always a good thing? Maybe not... However, we still do not have a cure for the common cold, cancer, Lupus, MS, Alzheimers, diabetes, etc etc etc. Maybe we should just wave our hands up in the air and state, "evil is the cause." 'Science" does not know if we can ever cure them, but 'science' will still try. Further, what mechanism will solve these "I don't knows" - (science or religion)? Maybe we should just all get on our knees and pray for a cure... And guess what, when/if 'science' does resolve these "I don't knows", do you think we will reveal anything supernatural about it all? 'Faith', at this point, tells me no. So yea, we DON'T know yet the origins of the universe, if any. But, 'science' will still continue to investigate.

I could say much more, but I think you get the gist. Getting off my soapbox now.

[POI]

Depends on what you mean by "find". Do we have to empirically detect such a mindful agency? Or can we also use inferences?

Since you agree there is no empirical detection, what 'inferences' do you have in mind?

[William]

Depends on what you mean by "find". Do we have to empirically detect such a mindful agency? Or can we also use inferences?

Since you agree there is no empirical detection, what 'inferences' do you have in mind?

Inferences are interesting. Both the Christian otseng and the atheist POI reject the use of inferences for (3) demanding outright proof.
The double standard from the Christian is noted with the expression "The issue is more "I don't want to know" rather than "I don't know" regarding inferences which don't "fit" (are claimed to being "irrelevant") with the beliefs of (1) being defended.
"Do we have to empirically detect such a mindful agency? Or can we also use inferences?" is argued by the very same who demands such evidence concerning (3).

POI claimed (4) as the best position, and yet cannot defend it because of the inferences which have to accompany doing so - and so takes an agnostic stance (it could be but I don't want to infer that it is).

Interesting dynamics...