How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14919
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1753 times
Contact:

Re: Age of universe

Post #4211

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #4209]
What other option is there?
The one you won't talk about because you claim it is irrelevant Oliver.
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14919
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1753 times
Contact:

Re: Eternal inflation

Post #4212

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #4210]
Actually, theism doesn't rule out anything.
This is true, but theists do rule things out. You have shown that to be the case in regard to (3), Oliver.
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3988 times

Re: Eternal inflation

Post #4213

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 5:52 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 1:56 am 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.
I no longer debate with you. You know why.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14919
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1753 times
Contact:

Re: Age of universe

Post #4214

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #4209]
The only thing claimed is God is not materially part of this universe.
UNsupported claims are simply opinions Oliver.

But I am curious. Your opinion above appears to imply that your idea of God is indeed material in nature, just not in this universe. Perhaps in some other universe? Is this what you are saying Oliver?
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Eternal inflation

Post #4215

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 6:15 am This is true, but theists do rule things out. You have shown that to be the case in regard to (3), Oliver.
What I mean is theists do not rule things out automatically based on preconceived assumptions. And if things do not conform to rational argumentation and evidence, then further things can be ruled out.
William wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 6:19 am [Replying to otseng in post #4209]
The only thing claimed is God is not materially part of this universe.
UNsupported claims are simply opinions Oliver.
This is just a logical inference. If what is material is our universe, then obviously without our universe there is nothing material.
But I am curious. Your opinion above appears to imply that your idea of God is indeed material in nature, just not in this universe. Perhaps in some other universe? Is this what you are saying Oliver?
I don't know what constitutes God. But from our standpoint, it is not the same stuff as anything in our universe. And further, it's immaterial to the debate.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Eternal inflation

Post #4216

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 6:18 amI no longer debate with you. You know why.
I have my guesses, but I don't know the real reason.

But if you make a claim, I'm free to counter that claim. If you don't want to engage in a debate with me, you are free to do so.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Laws of thermo

Post #4217

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Mon May 13, 2024 11:26 pmOur universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed
The argument the universe is eternal based on matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is a misunderstanding of the first law of thermodynamics.

The first law states:

"In general, the conservation law states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

"Within an isolated system, the total energy of the system is constant, even if energy has been converted from one form to another. (This is another way of stating the law of conservation of energy: that energy can not be created or destroyed but merely converted from one form to another.)"
https://www.britannica.com/science/laws ... modynamics

The law of conservation of energy (and matter) states:
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. In the case of a closed system the principle says that the total amount of energy within the system can only be changed through energy entering or leaving the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

The law only applies to an isolated or closed system. Obviously if a system is open and not isolated, matter/energy can enter and leave that system.

What is claimed is God created the system (universe) and added energy/matter into the universe. Even in a "naturalistic" explanation such as a multiverse, our universe would be created from something outside our universe.

So, the first law does not show our universe is infinite in age.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14919
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1753 times
Contact:

Re: Eternal inflation

Post #4218

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #4215]
What I mean is theists do not rule things out automatically based on preconceived assumptions.
Even if you were to elaborate, the statement is likely (and thus will remain) false.

Kalam cosmological argument is not flawed "because it starts with the assumption that the universe is a creation and its creator is immaterial", but the interpretation of the conclusions the premises point to is influenced by certain theists' interpretations and conclusions (despite their denials that this is the case - is in fact what is happening).
(Not all theists believe that is the case).

The Kalam's second premise is flawed, because it is unknown that material which was used to make the universe, was itself was created. It is only shown that logically the universe couldn't have been created without material.
This is a fair observation. It highlights a potential weakness in the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument by pointing out that the origin (if any) of the material used to create the universe is unknown, and the argument only shows that material is necessary for the universe's creation without proving the material itself was created.

(The observation underscores the uncertainty surrounding the origin of the material used in the creation of the universe and emphasizes that while the argument demonstrates the necessity of material for the universe's creation, it doesn't establish whether the material itself was created or even had an origin.)
And if things do not conform to rational argumentation and evidence, then further things can be ruled out.
But that isn't why you ruled out (3). You ruled it out because it didn't conform to what you think is "relevant" and even then, you did so without answering the questions put to you, because they were not "pertinent".
The only thing claimed is God is not materially part of this universe.
UNsupported claims are simply opinions Oliver.
If what is material is our universe, then obviously without our universe there is nothing material.
How is that obvious when know one knows what caused the singularity event or even what that cause constitutes?
Isn't your statement a great example of how theists rule things out automatically based on preconceived assumptions?

Our universe is made of material, therefore if our universe didn't exist, then material wouldn't exist either?
This assumes that if our universe didn't exist, that NO universe would exist. It is like saying that without concrete, sand wouldn't exist.
Yet (re your beliefs) you are not arguing that if our universe didn't exist, God wouldn't exist, even that you appear to be unable to explain what even constitutes God.

So how can one with such beliefs claim that God is not material? How can one confidently claim that God is not the "sand" from which the "concrete" is made?

One cannot (with any honesty). Therefore, it is relevant to question the assertion that "without our universe, there would be no material existence" and challenge the assumption about the nature of existence and to point out the relevance of the role of preconceived beliefs in shaping perspectives on what constitutes God.
I don't know what constitutes God.
Then why say God is or isn't immaterial? Why claim God is not materially part of this universe if you don't even know what part of the whole God is?
But from our standpoint, it is not the same stuff as anything in our universe.
Whom are you referring to when you say "our"? Are you not referring to a certain type of theist, with those type of beliefs on such matters?

Clearly, you are showing with your replies, that one's "standpoint" is the same as ones preconceived assumption.
And further, it's immaterial to the debate.
Because it does not conform to one's standpoint?
But really Oliver...
...WHY is the question of what constitutes God "immaterial to the debate" when the subject of "God" is also argued to be the cause of the Universe? Isn't that a contradiction in itself?
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14919
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1753 times
Contact:

Re: Laws of thermo

Post #4219

Post by William »

Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed
The argument the universe is eternal based on matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is a misunderstanding of the first law of thermodynamics.
[Replying to otseng in post #4217]
The law only applies to an isolated or closed system.


It has not been established that our universe is an open system.

Obviously if a system is open and not isolated, matter/energy can enter and leave that system.
This adds another possible contradiction. If a system is open and not isolated because it appears energy can enter and leave said system, one would have to explain WHY it is not part of a greater system which is isolated and closed.
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Kalam cosmological argument

Post #4220

Post by otseng »

[Replying to William in post #4228]

The KCA states:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument
interpretation of the conclusions the premises point to is influenced by certain theists' interpretations and conclusions (despite their denials that this is the case - is in fact what is happening).
Exactly how is the KCA affected by anyone's worldview?
The Kalam's second premise is flawed, because it is unknown that material which was used to make the universe, was itself was created.
The KCA makes no claim about the material used to make the universe. I also have made no claim about the material used. The only thing I claim is it cannot be the same material as the universe. In other words, it cannot be self-caused.
It highlights a potential weakness in the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument by pointing out that the origin (if any) of the material used to create the universe is unknown, and the argument only shows that material is necessary for the universe's creation without proving the material itself was created.
Premise 2 only depends on the age of the universe, not the origin of the material of the universe.
But that isn't why you ruled out (3). You ruled it out because it didn't conform to what you think is "relevant" and even then, you did so without answering the questions put to you, because they were not "pertinent".
Are you referring to TCM? I asked multiple times for evidence and all you presented was your own interpretation of John 14, which I countered with how the hearers would have interpreted it. It was ruled out for lack of evidence and also it was just a subset of the universe being real.
If what is material is our universe, then obviously without our universe there is nothing material.
How is that obvious when know one knows what caused the singularity event or even what that cause constitutes?
I'm referring to "material" as to what we understand material to be with the same properties as things in our universe. We have no idea of the properties of anything outside of our universe. Could it be possible our universe was made from the exact same material that is outside our universe? Not likely, since that would mean our universe was self-caused. Or it could be created from something that has totally different properties? Possibly. Or could it be created ex nihilo? This is what I hold to.
This assumes that if our universe didn't exist, that NO universe would exist. It is like saying that without concrete, sand wouldn't exist.
There's really only two views:
1. The universe originated from preexisting stuff.
2. The universe originated out of nothing.

Then why say God is or isn't immaterial? Why claim God is not materially part of this universe if you don't even know what part of the whole God is?
Again, when I refer to material, I mean it to be stuff that follows the same laws of physics as our universe. Why should God be bound by our laws of physics? Rather, I believe God created the laws of physics.
But from our standpoint, it is not the same stuff as anything in our universe.
Whom are you referring to when you say "our"? Are you not referring to a certain type of theist, with those type of beliefs on such matters?
"Our" means everyone in our universe.
...WHY is the question of what constitutes God "immaterial to the debate" when the subject of "God" is also argued to be the cause of the Universe? Isn't that a contradiction in itself?
Because the question under debate is:
otseng wrote: Tue May 21, 2024 5:18 am Going on to the followup question - is the universe created or eternal?
So, instead of all these tangents you present, what position do you hold and what is your evidence?

Post Reply