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]

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...

Yes, I was going to make a new topic about this, but I do not think otseng has the time to do anything other than moderate and also address this topic? I think when we peel back all the onion layers, this is basically what it all boils down to?

Otseng claims the "science of the gaps is growing larger." While I claim the 'god of the gaps' is getting smaller. Is it one or the other, or, is it maybe both? And, is either/or even relevant?

This is all rhetorical, and worthy of its own topic. At the end of the day, none of us become believers, or stop being believers, due to a lot of this back and forth here in this thread.

But yes, I would like to know what 'inferences' counts towards 'goddidit'?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4201]
Re Double Standard (DS).

I would like to know what 'inferences' counts towards 'goddidit'?

Those inferences have been given by Oliver and (in his mind) count as "relevant" (re 1) and apparently do not require proof in the same way that (2) (3) or (4) do, because "the Bible" (or at least, modern Christian interpretation thereof.)

1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by an immaterial creator outside of our universe.

The DS being that an immaterial creator (God) can be inferred as being behind the Big Bang Event and that is an "acceptable" inference.

Whereas the same who accepts that inference, demands proof for all inferences of the other positions...those being...
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology. (similar to (1) but without the "immaterial" creator)
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real (material).
4 Real Uncreated Universe Theory: Our 'universe' is real and the material it consists of is eternal, and goes through cycles and that the current cycle is simply one of an endless chain of "one form or another" manifestations.


Go figure....

[William]

[Replying to Alana in post #4203]

Those things mentioned have largely been addressed throughout the thread Alana.
The focus is presently on whether the Bible infers at all that we should trust in the concept that The Creator of the universe is an immaterial entity and whether this concept is more relevant (or the only relevant) besides the other 3 theories mentioned.

Altogether the four theories are.

1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by an immaterial creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind and everything that exists is real (material).
4 Real Uncreated Universe Theory: Our 'universe' is real and the material it consists of is eternal, and goes through cycles and that the current cycle is simply one of an endless chain of "one form or another" manifestations.

[otseng]

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

Therefore, "goddidit"?

If there's only two options on the table:
1. God did it
2. I don't know

and the evidence and arguments support (1), then (1) is an entirely reasonable position to hold.

Getting off my soapbox now.

Going off on a diatribe is not providing a rational defense of your position that the universe is eternal. At this point, we'll have to conclude there is no evidence to support the position that the universe is eternal, but only based on a "hunch".

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?

Since the universe is finite in age, then it must have a cause. It cannot have been self-caused, so some external agent must have caused the universe. At this point, this external agent can be a generic god, could be a Deist God or a Theist God. But at a minimum, we know such a god has the ability to create a universe.

[POI]

If there's only two options on the table:
1. God did it
2. I don't know

and the evidence and arguments support (1), then (1) is an entirely reasonable position to hold.

Seems you apply a double standard. Just as we have no empirical evidence for the 'universe' (yet), you admit we have no empirical evidence for a god(s) (yet). Yet, 'science' follows the evidence where it leads, which currently provides inference(s) to suggest the universe is eternal. Hence, according to your own standard, stating the universe is eternal would be a reasonable position for 'science' to hold. Why is this methodology NOT good enough for "science", regarding the "universe", but IS good enough for otseng, regarding "god"?

Going off on a diatribe is not providing a rational defense of your position that the universe is eternal. At this point, we'll have to conclude there is no evidence to support the position that the universe is eternal, but only based on a "hunch".

Did you miss my point? Here is what you said:

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.

Your claim then is basically that all of 'science' is in cahoots and is in pure denial to an actual reality. Meaning, they see the true writing on the wall -> an invisible and supernatural agency is the cause. Scientific inference(s) are really leading them to an invisible supernatural agency out there somewhere, and they opt to all collectively ignore it.

'Science', in stating "they do not know (yet)", is stating this because they cannot currently apply theoretical knowledge, like 'science' can with evolutionary theory and many other theoretical topics. The debate is over on these topics, even though theists will continue to push back with 'debate' anyways, because it either does not jive with their understanding of the Bible, and/or they are purely ignorant to what the scientific theory states.

The way I see it, all of the onion layers have been peeled back. The purpose of this entire topic has been revealed. Using my inference here, your position looks to hold that anyone who's own inference(s) do not lead them to a (god), regarding the (yet-to-be-discovered) topics you list, is instead purely in denial, as evidence by your quoted statement above.

Alternatively, 'I don't know' is a rational and reasonable position for 'science' to hold and is not instead one of denial and/or (self)deception.

Since the universe is finite in age, then it must have a cause. It cannot have been self-caused, so some external agent must have caused the universe. At this point, this external agent can be a generic god, could be a Deist God or a Theist God. But at a minimum, we know such a god has the ability to create a universe.

Then I guess 'science' is in cahoots, and in complete denial. They never thought about any of this Otseng. "Armchair philosophy" is not going to solve the not-yet-solved, but it's likely "science" will.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4205]

Good points POI.

This appears to be the case re Kalam as well.

Premise 1 has it that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I know of no thing which begins to exist which doesn't have a cause so until I have such knowledge, I can accept premise 1.

However, I do not accept Premise 2 (the universe began to exist.)

There is no scientific evidence that material (which is what the universe consists of) had a beginning. Even the Big Bang Theory does not claim the singularity was immaterial.

The problem with the Kalam is that it relies on the scientific opinions of Christians, (the Friedman-Lemaitre model)) so is based primarily on opinions of scientists who have been influenced by the idea that "There exists a creator (God) and God is immaterial".

THis is why they come to their "conclusions" that "literally nothing existed before the singularity"...

Now I don't think Christians are purposefully being deceptive but simply rely on the presumptions of their scientists and doing so without question...(which is kind of self deceiving but (benefit of doubt) unconsciously so for the most part.)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #4205]

Good points POI.

This appears to be the case re Kalam as well.

Premise 1 has it that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I know of no thing which begins to exist which doesn't have a cause so until I have such knowledge, I can accept premise 1.

However, I do not accept Premise 2 (the universe began to exist.)

There is no scientific evidence that material (which is what the universe consists of) had a beginning. Even the Big Bang Theory does not claim the singularity was immaterial.

The problem with the Kalam is that it relies on the scientific opinions of Christians, (the Friedman-Lemaitre model)) so is based primarily on opinions of scientists who have been influenced by the idea that "There exists a creator (God) and God is immaterial".

THis is why they come to their "conclusions" that "literally nothing existed before the singularity"...

Now I don't think Christians are purposefully being deceptive but simply rely on the presumptions of their scientists and doing so without question...(which is kind of self deceiving but (benefit of doubt) unconsciously so for the most part.)

I agree. The real options here are:
The stuff from which the universe was made already existed
The stuff from which the universe was made began to exist.

The subsequent questions being in either case, how? Natural or divine means? Theism rules out a natural cause with various verbal tricks like 'Nothing comes from nothing' which is arguable, as virtual particles shows that the basic stuff can come from a nothing as much nothinglike to not need creating.

While there are still problems in proposing an mechanism, the principal semantic trick and the assumption on which Kalam is based no longer works as an unarguable assumption.

Aside from Kalam not establishing whether the 'cause' of the universe (or rather, of the cosmic Stuff from which it was made) was intelligent or not, it is no longer an unarguable premise or Given that an uncreated cosmos of Nothing cannot produce the particles from which a universe BB even can assemble. Like abiogenesis or indeed that other gap for God, consciousness, there mere existence of a half -hypothesis that does not require intelligent creation means that the Gaps for god are no longer the Only Possible theories. And the necessity for gaps for God arguments to have any clout at all is the overriding need to make any Natural Explanation (capitals signify the basic arguing points of such debates) "Impossible".

As soon as any kind of Natural Explanation becomes a "possibility", the gaps for God arguments cease to be the Better Explanation (never mind "only possible explanation") that Theism requires.

[otseng]

Seems you apply a double standard. Just as we have no empirical evidence for the 'universe' (yet), you admit we have no empirical evidence for a god(s) (yet). Yet, 'science' follows the evidence where it leads, which currently provides inference(s) to suggest the universe is eternal. Hence, according to your own standard, stating the universe is eternal would be a reasonable position for 'science' to hold. Why is this methodology NOT good enough for "science", regarding the "universe", but IS good enough for otseng, regarding "god"?

The charge of a double standard does not apply to me. As a matter of fact, you're affirming my position that it is entirely reasonable to use inference and conclusions do not have to be limited by direct observation or measurements. The charge of a double standard would be to those that deny the possibility God can exist because we cannot directly see or measure God.

Your claim then is basically that all of 'science' is in cahoots and is in pure denial to an actual reality. Meaning, they see the true writing on the wall -> an invisible and supernatural agency is the cause. Scientific inference(s) are really leading them to an invisible supernatural agency out there somewhere, and they opt to all collectively ignore it.

Science is a valuable tool, but it is not the end all to know reality. Because one of its basic assumptions is the supernatural cannot be entertained, it totally discounts God as a possible explanation. But what we see is there are many areas where science cannot explain something (like the origin of the universe) and is stuck with "I don't know" since it automatically rules out God.

The way I see it, all of the onion layers have been peeled back. The purpose of this entire topic has been revealed. Using my inference here, your position looks to hold that anyone who's own inference(s) do not lead them to a (god), regarding the (yet-to-be-discovered) topics you list, is instead purely in denial, as evidence by your quoted statement above.

The purpose of this topic is addressing original question: "Is it possible our known universe is eternal? If not, why not?"

Why is this question even posed and you fail to provide any support for it? What exactly is your intention in stating this?

Alternatively, 'I don't know' is a rational and reasonable position for 'science' to hold and is not instead one of denial and/or (self)deception.

Would "I don't know" be accepted by a skeptic to be a rational and reasonable position if a Christian said this to defend their belief in God or the Bible? I highly doubt it. Who then would be the one to have a double standard?

Then I guess 'science' is in cahoots, and in complete denial.

It is not "science" that is in denial, but people who appeal to "science" as a way to reject God.

"Armchair philosophy" is not going to solve the not-yet-solved, but it's likely "science" will.

That's a lot of faith in the science of the gaps. But, my bet is science will never be able to explain the origin of the universe. And I would also add that if science is able to provide a viable naturalistic explanation, then it'll falsify the Bible for me. And I'm willing to wager this forum on the bet and shut it down when that day comes.

[otseng]

However, I do not accept Premise 2 (the universe began to exist.)

There is no scientific evidence that material (which is what the universe consists of) had a beginning.

If the universe is finite in age, then it began to exist. The only other option is the universe is eternal. What other option is there?

The problem with the Kalam is that it relies on the scientific opinions of Christians, (the Friedman-Lemaitre model)) so is based primarily on opinions of scientists who have been influenced by the idea that "There exists a creator (God) and God is immaterial".

The only thing claimed is God is not materially part of this universe. This is opposed to pantheism where God and the universe is the same thing.

"pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[otseng]

The real options here are:
The stuff from which the universe was made already existed
The stuff from which the universe was made began to exist.

Yes. And so there's two fundamental options to allow for this - either the universe is eternal in age or it is finite in age.

Theism rules out a natural cause with various verbal tricks like 'Nothing comes from nothing' which is arguable, as virtual particles shows that the basic stuff can come from a nothing as much nothinglike to not need creating.

Actually, theism doesn't rule out anything. Something can be explained naturalistically or it can be explained supernaturalistically. It would be the skeptics that are ruling out possible explanations because they automatically rule out the supernatural.