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

[otseng]

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

There's only two options I can think of:
1. Universe is eternal and a closed system.
2. Universe is finite in age and an open system.

Do you agree? Is there a third option?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4220]
Exploring the Nature of Existence: A Dialogue on the Origin of the Universe

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.

Then is the Kalam (and you) speaking of the material the universe is made of or the universe itself when its states as a premise 2. The universe began to exist?

Premise 2 only depends on the age of the universe, not the origin of the material of the universe.

Then where does the idea that an immaterial God created the material ex nihilo come from, and why do those who believe this, use the Kalam to support their belief?

Are you referring to TCM?

Is that a rhetorical question?

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.

Is that truth or are you not telling it like it actually was?

It was ruled out for lack of evidence and also it was just a subset of the universe being real.

You ruled out the possibility of The Creator Mind, claiming that anything in God's mind must be imaginary. I presented counter-arguments to this point, but it seems these were not fully addressed in our discussion

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.

Unless, of course, The Creator Mind is material and eternal, and that is what the universe (and anything/everything else) is made from. This would provide a fair contender to explain why things exist, as it posits an eternal source that could account for the material reality we observe.

Or it could be created from something that has totally different properties? Possibly.

Explain how it is possible something would have "totally different properties" to the actual properties from which it is made of.

Or could it be created ex nihilo? This is what I hold to.

Yes but is it true? Why do you "hold" to it, is the question that remains without an answer. What is it about your particular belief/the belief of those who hold to such, that makes one defend this particular theory (1) above any other, as the best position to hold on the question of the universes existence?

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.

Which is more logically likely, and why?

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.

It is simply a room (A reality which can be/is being mindfully experienced) within the house (The mindfulness) of God. The "laws" of physics are simply an aspect of the nature of the particular room being experienced and one is only "bound" by such, when interacting within that room. Even so, according to theist mythologies, such "laws" are not necessarily "unbreakable" by those who are consciously connected to The Creator Mind - such as walking on water, or raising dead bodies back to life et al.

So why should the idea that TCM (The Creator Mind) not being "bound by our laws of physics" be equal to "TCM having to exist outside of the room TCM created"? Especially when one understands that all things created, exist as real things which can be mindfully experienced within TCM...
Why should this particular room be any different to any other room within the house?

I don't know what constitutes God. 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.

You mean "everyone on this planet"? (We don't know if there are any other beings in the universe). Now you are claiming that everyone on the planet doesn't know what constitutes "God" but "knows" that God is not made of the same material as the universe is made of?

Yet the idea that "God is mind and mind is material" allows everyone (who would mindfully accept such understanding) to know that all things which are made are made of from the same thing and since that thing is real, then all things made of that thing, must also be real - even if such things have a beginning and even if such things are only made to be temporary (and no matter how long in time such things exist for) and even if those things are thought of as established things - like this universe, or any other room in the house of TCM - (such as heavens or hells) these can be erased/replaced and this in itself does not mean they are somehow unreal while they exist.

Is the universe created or eternal? What position do you hold and what is your evidence?

The position I hold is that this universe (in its overall current form) is not eternal but is made of material which is eternal since the material it is made of, is TCM and TCM is eternal.

I have given evidence re logical reasons for why this is an acceptable idea. Further to that, the resurrection you have argued for (as evidence) supports that such material may change in appearance and function, but is still eternal in nature/composition.

Forms are not eternal but the material they are made of is, which is why it simply changes rather than disappears. Since it does not disappear, it cannot be said to have been created from "nothing" (ex nihilo) but can be easily enough understood to be created from "something" and that "something" material can be said to be The Creator Mind, unless one claims that TCM is "immaterial" - because that which is immaterial cannot be truthful said to actually exist as any real thing.

[otseng]

Then where does the idea that an immaterial God created the material ex nihilo come from, and why do those who believe this, use the Kalam to support their belief?

After one agrees the KCA is true, then one can go to the next step to consider the cause of the universe.

Is that truth or are you not telling it like it actually was?

We've argued this in-depth and I'll let readers assess it.

It was ruled out for lack of evidence and also it was just a subset of the universe being real.

You ruled out the possibility of The Creator Mind, claiming that anything in God's mind must be imaginary. I presented counter-arguments to this point, but it seems these were not fully addressed in our discussion.

We've spent a considerable amount of time addressing things. Again, readers can go through it and judge for themselves.

Unless, of course, The Creator Mind is material and eternal, and that is what the universe (and anything/everything else) is made from.
Explain how it is possible something would have "totally different properties" to the actual properties from which it is made of.

Feel free to start different threads to debate those.

There's really only two views:
1. The universe originated from preexisting stuff.
2. The universe originated out of nothing.

Which is more logically likely, and why?

This is also an interesting debate, but out of scope for this thread.

Is the universe created or eternal? What position do you hold and what is your evidence?

The position I hold is that this universe (in its overall current form) is not eternal but is made of material which is eternal since the material it is made of, is TCM and TCM is eternal.

OK, then we hold the same position the universe was created. Where we differ is how it was created by God, but that is really getting off base from the point of this thread.

[POI]

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.

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.

First, "Wikipedia" is not considered scholarly in the world of academia. In the world of theoretical physics and cosmology, peer review is a thing and "Wiki" does not count.

Second, I've demonstrated scholarly source(s) state the universe (might) be eternal.

Third, I've already stated 'we' do not know yet, as it is not scientific theory, like evolution, gravity, cell, germ, etc... (Hence, cross your fingers).

Forth, a scientific 'hunch' is not based upon 'armchair philosophy', or to 'deny' creation, or based upon a whim. Evidence is followed wherever it leads.

Fifth, if the provided 'hunch' did not conflict with your position of 'creationism', you might likely accept it without inquiring a deep dive.

Sixth, the two links in post 4191 can be addressed further. But regardless, the summation/conclusion(s) still suggests that the ongoing evidence points to an eternal universe.

Seventh, outside of, 'we do no know yet', is there actual evidence for some 'supernatural' agency?

[POI]

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.

Inference, in scientific academia, currently leads 'science' to the possible conclusion of an eternal universe. Such a result conflicts with 'creationism'.

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.

Otseng, this is what 'religion' is for, not 'science'. Not only does 'religion' already assume 'goddidit', but anything which is not yet resolved by 'science' also means 'goddidit.' And yet, in the thousands of years 'religion' has had to demonstrate that 'goddidit', have they? No. This is where the 'god of the gaps' gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

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

You say 'science' leads one towards a potential god, where I instead say 'science' leads one away from any potential god. Your rationale is the 'science of the gaps' where, alternatively, my rationale is 'god of the gaps.' The proverbial fork in the road is what we've got here... Are these proverbial path(s) we both have opted to take driven by unbiased and rational reasoning, or, instead by other means and factors? Kinda rhetorical I guess.....

That's a lot of faith in the science of the gaps.

Has the 'supernatural' been imperially demonstrated? I doubt it. As I've already expressed, we all have to apply 'faith' in one capacity or another. I've already expressed this when discussing the 'simulation' topic. "Science" works. It is testable and repeatable. 'Religion', not-so-much.

But, my bet is science will never be able to explain the origin of the universe.

According to what standard? We have countless people who still say the very same thing about evolutionary biology, via 'origin of species.'

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.

So, it's not the 'Shroud' after all?

[otseng]

First, "Wikipedia" is not considered scholarly in the world of academia. In the world of theoretical physics and cosmology, peer review is a thing and "Wiki" does not count.

As long as a reputable site is cited on this forum, it doesn't matter what is the source. As for the definitions of the laws of thermo, it doesn't matter what source I cite, they are pretty much all the same. So, attacking Wikipedia is not a valid argument.

Second, I've demonstrated scholarly source(s) state the universe (might) be eternal.

Per your guidelines, a YouTube video is not a scholarly source. But what is more relevant is there is no evidence presented in the video, but just speculation.

Third, I've already stated 'we' do not know yet, as it is not scientific theory, like evolution, gravity, cell, germ, etc... (Hence, cross your fingers).

Yes, we've already covered science of the gaps.

Forth, a scientific 'hunch' is not based upon 'armchair philosophy', or to 'deny' creation, or based upon a whim. Evidence is followed wherever it leads.

And exactly what evidence is there that the universe is eternal?

Fifth, if the provided 'hunch' did not conflict with your position of 'creationism', you might likely accept it without inquiring a deep dive.

No idea what you mean. What arguments should be based on is logical reasoning and evidence. Have you provided these and not just providing a "hunch"?

Sixth, the two links in post 4191 can be addressed further. But regardless, the summation/conclusion(s) still suggests that the ongoing evidence points to an eternal universe.

I've already addressed those here:

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.

Seventh, outside of, 'we do no know yet', is there actual evidence for some 'supernatural' agency?

Yes, from the current discussion on the creation of the universe. Since the evidence points to a finite universe, then the universe must have had a supernatural origin.

[otseng]

Inference, in scientific academia, currently leads 'science' to the possible conclusion of an eternal universe. Such a result conflicts with 'creationism'.

If inference is not based on any evidence, then it is merely speculation. I have yet to see any evidence presented the universe is eternal.

Otseng, this is what 'religion' is for, not 'science'. Not only does 'religion' already assume 'goddidit', but anything which is not yet resolved by 'science' also means 'goddidit.'

I'm not using "religion" to argue my point, but logical reasoning. The problem is not my reasoning, but the conclusion has religious implications which is contrary to the materialistic assumption of skeptics.

You say 'science' leads one towards a potential god, where I instead say 'science' leads one away from any potential god.

No, I'm not claiming "science" per se leads to a god. But I do claim logical reasoning supports God.
Science also does not "lead one away" from God either. Rather, modern science assumes God cannot be offered as an explanation.

Your rationale is the 'science of the gaps' where, alternatively, my rationale is 'god of the gaps.' The proverbial fork in the road is what we've got here... Are these proverbial path(s) we both have opted to take driven by unbiased and rational reasoning, or, instead by other means and factors? Kinda rhetorical I guess.....

And the basis to get to the truth is logical reasoning and evidence and I'll soon be summarizing why the universe is finite in age and was created.

Has the 'supernatural' been imperially demonstrated? I doubt it.

Not sure what you mean by "imperially". I assume you mean "empirically". Not even "science" can back up all its claims empirically. So it's a double standard that theists must back up all their claims empirically.

"Science" works. It is testable and repeatable.

And how is the idea the universe is eternal testable and repeatable?

We have countless people who still say the very same thing about evolutionary biology, via 'origin of species.'

Well, if you want, we can discuss evolutionary biology next.

So, it's not the 'Shroud' after all?

There are many ways to falsify Christianity for me. And now I've offered two to you - the Turin Shroud and the origin of the universe.

[POI]

First, "Wikipedia" is not considered scholarly in the world of academia. In the world of theoretical physics and cosmology, peer review is a thing and "Wiki" does not count.

As long as a reputable site is cited on this forum, it doesn't matter what is the source. As for the definitions of the laws of thermo, it doesn't matter what source I cite, they are pretty much all the same. So, attacking Wikipedia is not a valid argument.

Second, I've demonstrated scholarly source(s) state the universe (might) be eternal.

Per your guidelines, a YouTube video is not a scholarly source. But what is more relevant is there is no evidence presented in the video, but just speculation.

Third, I've already stated 'we' do not know yet, as it is not scientific theory, like evolution, gravity, cell, germ, etc... (Hence, cross your fingers).

Yes, we've already covered science of the gaps.

Forth, a scientific 'hunch' is not based upon 'armchair philosophy', or to 'deny' creation, or based upon a whim. Evidence is followed wherever it leads.

And exactly what evidence is there that the universe is eternal?

Fifth, if the provided 'hunch' did not conflict with your position of 'creationism', you might likely accept it without inquiring a deep dive.

No idea what you mean. What arguments should be based on is logical reasoning and evidence. Have you provided these and not just providing a "hunch"?

Sixth, the two links in post 4191 can be addressed further. But regardless, the summation/conclusion(s) still suggests that the ongoing evidence points to an eternal universe.

I've already addressed those here:

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.

Seventh, outside of, 'we do no know yet', is there actual evidence for some 'supernatural' agency?

Yes, from the current discussion on the creation of the universe. Since the evidence points to a finite universe, then the universe must have had a supernatural origin.

"Wiki" can be edited, this is why I do not care for it.

In reading your responses, the double standard is clear. You have no actual evidence for the 'supernatural'. "We are not quite sure yet" does not equal supernatural. And yet, we do have evidence for the natural. "Naturalism" is all we can currently demonstrate. The time to start believing in the supernatural is when the "supernatural" has actually been demonstrated. Pinning your hopes on one of the last bastions for the 'god of the gaps' does not demonstrate 'supernaturalism'.

[POI]

If inference is not based on any evidence, then it is merely speculation. I have yet to see any evidence presented the universe is eternal.

What is your standard for "evidence"? Scientists have tools and know how to use them. Do you have the same tools and know how to use them? Here is what 'science' says:

"Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures."

What exactly is your pushback here?

a) they are using the tools wrong
b) they are lying to deny an obvious conclusion of 'supernaturalism'
c) other

I'm not using "religion" to argue my point, but logical reasoning. The problem is not my reasoning, but the conclusion has religious implications which is contrary to the materialistic assumption of skeptics.

Then I disagree with your reasoning. EVEN IF 'supernaturalism' was demonstrated to exist, which it hasn't, "we do not know yet" does not automatically equal 'naturalism or supernaturalism'. We simply do not know yet.

I assume you mean "empirically". Not even "science" can back up all its claims empirically. So it's a double standard that theists must back up all their claims empirically.

What evidence, at all, demonstrates the supernatural? Let's start there. If you can demonstrate the supernatural, then we can add it into the realm of possibilities for the few remaining 'god of the gaps' arguments.

And how is the idea the universe is eternal testable and repeatable?

If you have the same tools and know how to use them, then your result would be the same as NASA's I reckon.

Well, if you want, we can discuss evolutionary biology next.

You deny evolutionary theory, but accept all other scientific theories?

[William]

For the past 70 pages, we've been discussing ethics and I argued Christianity offers a justification for objective moral values, whereas atheism does not. And we find a similar situation in other areas of philosophy as well, in which Christianity better addresses major philosophical issues and questions better than other worldviews.

Here is one such list of philosophical questions:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Is our universe real?
3. Do we have free will?
4. Does God exist?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can you really experience anything objectively?
7. What is the best moral system?
https://gizmodo.com/8-great-philosophic ... ve-5945801

Unlike the article which states, "These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension", Christianity does offer answers to these questions:

1. Because God created everything.
2. Yes, we are not part of a simulation.
3. Yes, we freely decide between choices.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Christianity offers one of the best moral systems.

Christianity is a many-headed entity and doesn't appear to have any particular meaningful or central/foundational philosophy which is agreed on by all those calling themselves Christians.

The belief that a mindful entity created this universe and placed consciousness into that, is no different in principle from the idea of Simulation Theory and rather than address that observation, Christians turn a blind eye to the obvious similarities and remain in denial.

It appears many Christians are content with upholding the illusion of truthfulness rather than having actual truthfulness set them free from said illusions.

Christians blowing their trumpets of self importance attempting to uphold a dying thing and declare it "living" and not only alive and well but "the best"... and perhaps it is the best thing for upholding delusional aggrandising and giving those so inclined, a platform to peddle declarations from.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A: Because everything exists within The Creator Mind

2. Is our universe real?

A: Everything that exists is real.

3. Do we have free will?

A: Only within the confines of our human experience.

4. Does God exist?

A: Many Gods exist within The Creator Mind.

5. Is there life after death?

A: The many thousands of reports coming from people who have had Near Death Experiences confirm that there is no "death" that is real. Life goes on and "death" is really a mindful transition between the different experiences which are available within The Creator Mind.

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

A: Mindfulness experiences objects. The real question to be asking is whether one can experience objective things truthfully.

7. What is the best moral system?

A: Any based in actual truth.