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

[otseng]

But ignoring the acceleration in the expansion, and considering only the expansion itself, I would think that if the expansion were not uniform that it would impact redshifts but may not alter the path of the light.

I would say this would be another ad hoc addition if this were the case. So, even if the expansion was not uniform, it would still be able to only result in "carrying its contents" in a direction away from our observation (earth), yet not "carry it contents" in any other direction which might cause the light path to deviate.

But I don't know of any observations that suggest the expansion in spacetime is not uniform in all directions,

Of course. But this would imply absolute uniform expansion at every point in the universe.

or that dark energy could act differently at one point in the universe compared to another

Yes. And this would require the need for some mechanism to synchronize the rate of expansion at all points in the universe.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1545]

Of course. But this would imply absolute uniform expansion at every point in the universe.

If dark energy is the cause, and it acts the same everywhere, would this not be the expected result? Until we learn what it actually is, or if it exists at all, we can only speculate and make hypotheses on how it might behave.

Yes. And this would require the need for some mechanism to synchronize the rate of expansion at all points in the universe.

Why would that be necessary? There is nothing that synchronizes gravity but it appears to pervade the universe and act the same everywhere. I'd think dark energy could be exactly the same in that it has certain properties that are inherent in whatever dark energy is, so it can act the same everywhere without any external mechanism or synchronization. If the result of its action is equivalent to a negative gravity, then maybe it is analogous to gravity and acts identically everywhere, without any external inputs of any kind.

[otseng]

If dark energy is the cause, and it acts the same everywhere, would this not be the expected result?

Yes, I stated this assumption in post 1536 that it acts the same everywhere:

- dark energy is causing each point to expand throughout the entire universe at exactly the same rate with zero deviation

There is nothing that synchronizes gravity but it appears to pervade the universe and act the same everywhere.

I agree the law of gravity is universal. But that doesn't mean a universal law exists for dark energy. Rather, it would be an ad hoc explanation that a law could probably exist that results in uniform expansion due to dark energy.

So, either the ad hoc explanation needs to be introduced for the non-uniform expansion that allows for light to be red-shifted and still travel in a straight line or for a universal law that explains absolute uniform expansion.

I argue the explanation as I proposed in post 1539 is more parsimonious than the cascade of ad hoc explanations seen in the proposal of the expansion of the space-time fabric. There is no need to hypothesize space and time being a single entity, the existence of a space-time fabric, stretching of the fabric, existence of dark energy, and a law regulating uniformity of the dark energy expanding the fabric.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1547]

I agree the law of gravity is universal. But that doesn't mean a universal law exists for dark energy. Rather, it would be an ad hoc explanation that a law could probably exist that results in uniform expansion due to dark energy.

I'd think, given that we don't know what dark energy actually is or exactly how it works, it is equally valid to postulate that it results in uniform expansion, or nonuniform expansion. The Giai mission is gathering data within the Milky Way that may shed some light on this, and other observations of distance galaxies by Hubble, Webb, etc. can add to this. But until we know more about what dark energy is and how it works, it remains an ad hoc hypothesis.

So, either the ad hoc explanation needs to be introduced for the non-uniform expansion that allows for light to be red-shifted and still travel in a straight line or for a universal law that explains absolute uniform expansion.

In the absence of massive objects in the line of sight, I don't see how even nonuniform expansion would impact the ability of light to travel in a straight line. The light would experience different redshifts along its path and we'd only see the end result, confusing measurements of the Hubble constant, etc. But a nonuniform expansion of spacetime alone (absent mass) would not necessarily cause light to not travel in a straight line. Using the escalator analogy again, a person trying to walk up (at a constant stepping rate) the down escalator would reach the top in a certain time. If the escalator sped up and slowed down during the process, the time to reach the top may be different. But the person could still walk in the center of the steps without deviation.

I argue the explanation as I proposed in post 1539 is more parsimonious than the cascade of ad hoc explanations seen in the proposal of the expansion of the space-time fabric. There is no need to hypothesize space and time being a single entity, the existence of a space-time fabric, stretching of the fabric, existence of dark energy, and a law regulating uniformity of the dark energy expanding the fabric.

But gravitational redshift requires massive objects along the line of sight, and we know that happens from gravitational lensing. However, it only explains a narrow set of possible redshifts. Within a galaxy, the average distance between stars is something like 5-10 light years, compared to the diameter of an average star like our sun of 1.4 million km which is only 0.00000015 light years. And the average distance between galaxies is about 1 million light years:

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/9780735421141_001

Catching a gravitational lensing situation is more common the more distant the object, because of the greater probability of having massive objects (galaxies in this case) along the line of sight. There is a lot of nothing (as far as massive objects) out there, so many distant objects (ourside of our galaxy) should be observable without any gravitational redshift effects.

[otseng]

But until we know more about what dark energy is and how it works, it remains an ad hoc hypothesis.

Agreed.

In the absence of massive objects in the line of sight, I don't see how even nonuniform expansion would impact the ability of light to travel in a straight line.

It goes back to my earlier question, "If the expansion of the fabric at each point due to dark energy was not uniform, would the fabric still be flat and distortionless?" I cannot see how non-uniform expansion of the fabric would result in a flat fabric and be perfectly distortionless. And we do know that gravity distorts the fabric and light bends because of the distortion in the fabric.

Using the escalator analogy again, a person trying to walk up (at a constant stepping rate) the down escalator would reach the top in a certain time.

This is only in one dimension. Expansion of the space-time fabric must be in 3 dimensions. So, the hypothetical escalator would apply in all dimensions, not just in one dimension. It would be this escalator movement that is not along the axis of the observer and the source that would be causing the light to deviate from a straight path.

There is a lot of nothing (as far as massive objects) out there, so many distant objects (ourside of our galaxy) should be observable without any gravitational redshift effects.

There's more to my hypothesis of an alternative explanation for the extreme redshift. For now, I'm simply stating there are two mechanisms, not just one, to cause redshifting.

To go to the next step, I'm going to go back to what I stated in post 1503:

Another problem with the Big Bang since it originally started from a singularity is that it originally was a black hole.

If all the contents of the universe started from a singularity (or a finite small volume), wouldn't it have been a black hole?

[Miles]

If all the contents of the universe started from a singularity (or a finite small volume), wouldn't it have been a black hole?

Having stumbled across the following not too long ago, this may answer your question. Please note; this is a 2016 update.

......Is the Big Bang a black hole?

For an interesting 2020 article in Forbes, "Did A Black Hole Give Birth To Our Universe?" read HERE


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1549]

It goes back to my earlier question, "If the expansion of the fabric at each point due to dark energy was not uniform, would the fabric still be flat and distortionless?" I cannot see how non-uniform expansion of the fabric would result in a flat fabric and be perfectly distortionless. And we do know that gravity distorts the fabric and light bends because of the distortion in the fabric.

Sounds like a good argument against nonuniform expansion. I think the prevailing view among physicists is that the expansion is uniform in all directions. Mass causing curvature of spacetime certainly does "bend" light in the vicinity of the object, but such objects are far separated (by orders of magnitude more than their own dimensions).

This is only in one dimension. Expansion of the space-time fabric must be in 3 dimensions. So, the hypothetical escalator would apply in all dimensions, not just in one dimension. It would be this escalator movement that is not along the axis of the observer and the source that would be causing the light to deviate from a straight path.

Are you proposing that the expansion in X may be different from in Y or Z? I suppose that could cause some issues with how light would travel if spacetime was the medium that light travels in, but we know light doesn't need a medium (eg. the old concept of the luminiferous aether). But is there any evidence to suggest that spacetime could expand asymmetrically?

There's more to my hypothesis of an alternative explanation for the extreme redshift. For now, I'm simply stating there are two mechanisms, not just one, to cause redshifting.

Wikipedia lists the usual three sources for elecromagnetic redshift:

1) The radiation travels between objects which are moving apart ("relativistic" redshift, an example of the relativistic Doppler effect)

2) The radiation travels towards an object in a weaker gravitational potential, i.e. towards an object in less strongly curved (flatter) spacetime (gravitational redshift)

3) The radiation travels through expanding space (cosmological redshift). The observation that all sufficiently distant light sources show redshift corresponding to their distance from Earth is known as Hubble's law.

In the absence of line-of-sight massive objects, only numbers 1 and 3 should be in play for a telescope image. But the more distant the object, the more likely something will be in the way and all 3 redshift mechanisms (or blueshift as well in the case of #1) can be active simultaneously.

If all the contents of the universe started from a singularity (or a finite small volume), wouldn't it have been a black hole?

I think the fact that the math breaks down (ie. a singularity) for both black holes and the Big Bang is enough to say that the physics is incomplete for both. Another example of humans not knowing all the details yet to make definitive conclusions. I would think mathematical singularities in physics models could arise in more than one way though (ie. black holes may have a singularity at their centers, but not all singularities are black holes).

[otseng]

Having stumbled across the following not too long ago, this may answer your question. Please note; this is a 2016 update.

......Is the Big Bang a black hole?

The article states:

The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down. The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter.

If this is true, then the question is what is the cause of the rapid rate of expansion? Is this referring to inflation? If so, I've addressed there's problems with that, including one of the originators of cosmic inflation theory abandoning it.

The Big Bang is therefore more like a "white hole": the time-reversed version of a black hole. According to classical general relativity white holes should not exist, since they cannot be created for the same (time-reversed) reasons that black holes cannot be destroyed. But this might not apply if they have always existed.

Actually, this is more accurate terminology. My model is not a "black hole", but a "white hole".

For an interesting 2020 article in Forbes, "Did A Black Hole Give Birth To Our Universe?" read HERE

The article states:

Then, if you like, you can ask a rather profound question: if the entire Universe were compressed into a single point, what would happen? The answer is the same as it would be if you compressed any large-enough collection of mass or energy into a single point: it would form a black hole. What’s remarkable about Einstein’s theory of gravity is that if this collection of mass-and/or-energy isn’t charged (electrically) and isn’t rotating or spinning (i.e., without angular momentum), the total amount of mass is the only factor that determines how large the black hole is: what astrophysicists call its Schwarzschild radius.

if you examine all the properties of space outside of a black hole’s event horizon, from R to ∞, and compare them to all the properties of space inside the black hole’s event horizon, from R to 0, they are identical at every single point. All you have to do is replace the distance, r, with its reciprocal, 1/r (or, more accurately, to replace all instances of r/R with R/r), and you’ll find that the black hole’s interior is mathematical identical to the black hole’s exterior.

We don’t know whether our Universe was birthed by the creation of a black hole, but at this point, it’s a tantalizing possibility that we would be foolish to rule out.

From my reading of it, the article isn't conclusive one way or another about if the universe started as a black/white hole.

[otseng]

Are you proposing that the expansion in X may be different from in Y or Z? I suppose that could cause some issues with how light would travel if spacetime was the medium that light travels in, but we know light doesn't need a medium (eg. the old concept of the luminiferous aether).

Non-uniform expansion among x, y, and z axis at a single point A could happen. But I was more thinking why should x, y, and z expansion at point A be identical to another at point B?

But is there any evidence to suggest that spacetime could expand asymmetrically?

It goes back to what I was originally saying about information moving faster than light. Every point in the universe would be expanding at the same rate (and even accelerating at the same rate). Something happens in our universe (an effect) results from an action (cause). Whether it is a mechanical action, electrical action, electromagnetic action, chemical action, etc. Something must be acting on the fabric and it cannot just be spontaneously expanding with no causation, unless an ad hoc explanation is proposed that violates Newton's law of motion and what we observe with action and reaction. If causation is not instantaneous, then expansion would have to be non-uniform.

If all the contents of the universe started from a singularity (or a finite small volume), wouldn't it have been a black hole?

I think the fact that the math breaks down (ie. a singularity) for both black holes and the Big Bang is enough to say that the physics is incomplete for both. Another example of humans not knowing all the details yet to make definitive conclusions.

For sure math breaks down at a singularity. And even for a finite volume, since it's inside a black/white hole, we don't really know what's going on inside of one and it would entirely be theoretical. And of course we cannot make any definitive conclusions (and I would argue we never will). The best we can hope for is to come up with a reasonable explanation that fit with what we observe.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1553]

Non-uniform expansion among x, y, and z axis at a single point A could happen. But I was more thinking why should x, y, and z expansion at point A be identical to another at point B?

I suppose this would depend on the detailed characteristics of whatever is causing the expansion. If it were a gravity-like "thing" then it may act identically at all points in spacetime with a result of uniform expansion throughout.

It goes back to what I was originally saying about information moving faster than light. Every point in the universe would be expanding at the same rate (and even accelerating at the same rate). Something happens in our universe (an effect) results from an action (cause). Whether it is a mechanical action, electrical action, electromagnetic action, chemical action, etc. Something must be acting on the fabric and it cannot just be spontaneously expanding with no causation, unless an ad hoc explanation is proposed that violates Newton's law of motion and what we observe with action and reaction. If causation is not instantaneous, then expansion would have to be non-uniform.

This is where I get confused. Spacetime is not a physical thing (made of matter) as far as we know, so would not be subject to Newton's laws of motion. If spacetime is a mathematical framework for solving physics problems, and not any kind a real substance, and dark energy is also some force acting like negative gravity (which we don't know the nature of yet), I can see a scenario where uniform (and/or accelerating) expansion of spacetime could occur and not violate Newton or GR.

For sure math breaks down at a singularity. And even for a finite volume, since it's inside a black/white hole, we don't really know what's going on inside of one and it would entirely be theoretical. And of course we cannot make any definitive conclusions (and I would argue we never will). The best we can hope for is to come up with a reasonable explanation that fit with what we observe.

Agreed ... theoretical (and experimental) physicists should not worry about losing their jobs anytime soon. We have a very long way to go to understand all of this.