The Bible Claims...

[Sanoy]

Yes, you are correct. I have absolutely NO clue if the universe is eternal or not. I fully admit it is beyond my level of comprehension, just like gravity, black holes, infinite regress, etc...... But I do not instead possess an ethnocentric view and/or arrogant certitute. I'm not necessarily stating you do that. But many do... I actually do respect your responses. They actually parallel my own justifications for belief, until very recently....



This, to me, appears very honest. Thank you. I'll try to refrain from any further apparent pompous responses with you, moving forward. I do come off, sometimes, as an a$$hole. My apologize!



Though way off topic, I wrote something about this vary thing a while back. I would love for you to read, and even rip it to shreds. I have NO problem admitting when I'm wrong. Would you be willing? It directly attempt to 'justify' plausibility for one of your primary reasons for your belief structure. One which, ironically, I held to as well, until very recently...




Until very recently, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. If you want to read my piece, I will be glad to send it to you. It would prolly take you about 10 minutes of your time. And yes, I fully invite all possible criticism of it.

Ethnocentric? not sure what you're pointing at here. I'm not arrogant because I'm not operating from my own ability. I am confident in what I believe because of what I have experienced, and because I follow professional atheistic debate, and philosophy and know there is nothing in opposition, only the assertion of lacktheism. I have a crippling lack of confidence in myself which I make up for in studying the certainty of my beliefs.

You don't come off as an "A-hole", you just switch between the motivation you have for these threads. Between what you think is your operational motivation, and that hidden part of you that is the real motivating factor. It's apparent in how you handle an obstacle that is placed in your path. I can actually see you try and pull yourself back from that real motivation. It will be worth some introspection.

We can talk about that hypothesis privately through PM if you want.

 

[cvanwey]

Ethnocentric? not sure what you're pointing at here. I'm not arrogant because I'm not operating from my own ability. I am confident in what I believe because of what I have experienced, and because I follow professional atheistic debate, and philosophy and know there is nothing in opposition, only the assertion of lacktheism. I have a crippling lack of confidence in myself which I make up for in studying the certainty of my beliefs.

You don't come off as an "A-hole", you just switch between the motivation you have for these threads. Between what you think is your operational motivation, and that hidden part of you that is the real motivating factor. It's apparent in how you handle an obstacle that is placed in your path. I can actually see you try and pull yourself back from that real motivation. It will be worth some introspection.

We can talk about that hypothesis privately through PM if you want.

No thanks, you continue to judge. I'll just move one.

Peace out

 

[Sanoy]

No thanks, you continue to judge. I'll just move one.

?

I'd really be happy to look at it, I have studied the potential solutions to this problem and know the logical constraints imposed on it. Well, it's an open invitation if you decide to later on.

 

[Ken Rank]

You are mistaken to counter with "God of the gaps" for every objection you receive. You asked be to object to science, and I did. For someone so concerned about strawmans you sure do make a lot of it. It's not, "therefore God", it's abductivley "therefore God is the best explanation". Sure you can posit a past eternal universe but it still won't be the best explanation.

He just ignored everything you posted and grabbed a sound bite to attempt a counter. That's the issue and why I backed out... he isn't looking for an answer, he is looking to counter and prove his point. Which is fine on this forum or anywhere else, but it is disingenuous to begin this thread seeking answers to questions when in reality he was just looking to debate.

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid?

By what standard is then used to determine the Bible is given from a higher power?

By what specialized method was concluded to determine the Bible is given by God, besides the Bible's say-so?

Good post on "God of gaps." Otherwise, I always find these discussions disheartening because there is one who really wants to prove God wrong or that He doesn't exist and will use anything, except patience, to make his case. I will ignore this thread now... too much of a time suck, even just reading.

 

[cvanwey]

He just ignored everything you posted and grabbed a sound bite to attempt a counter. That's the issue and why I backed out... he isn't looking for an answer, he is looking to counter and prove his point. Which is fine on this forum or anywhere else, but it is disingenuous to begin this thread seeking answers to questions when in reality he was just looking to debate.

If you read the entire conversation in context, it is very easy for me to state the very same thing. Though I do admit everyone does thinks their own position is justified, I find it dishonest when one does not HONESTLY address the main topic. You are harping on events, which stray severely off, or away, from the OP. Which is, 'the Bible claims'.... If you want to re-engage in this 'debate', by all means. Please do. Let's discuss the OP I will try my 'darndest' to stay on point, addressing the OP, and the OP only...

Lets remain directly on the topic at hand though. I will no longer chase rabbit trails, as they quickly divert the topic, and it, quite honestly, becomes two individuals arguing over minutiae.

Otherwise, your added post provides nothing of value to anyone looking for answers to the original post.

Furthermore, I was actually HONEST from the get-go.... As stated in my OP:

'When I read it, many stories, assertions, and claims seem to more fall in line with what mere humans would think and state; especially from the time period written.

By what specialized method was concluded to determine the Bible is given by God, besides the Bible's say-so?'

So, if you care to actually contribute, please tell me how YOU are aware that the Bible was given or inspired by anyone other than humans?.?.?.

Thank you

 

[Uber Genius]

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid? If all humans are flawed in reason, logic, and in assessing evidence... If all humans are bias in their assessments.... If no universal human standard exists for determining truth.... If all humans have a brain, and use that brain to assess all claimed information, with no other mechanism to determine reality verses fiction...

Determining reality is a tall order indeed. As a skeptic you know (pun intended) that Descarte has inaugurated an epistemic method by which it is no longer reasonable to believe in an external world, other minds (people), reality of the past. Given these skeptical presuppositions who is asking the question again about the PROVING the validity of the Bible?

You may be able to prove you exist but that is it for skeptics.

Now as for the Bible with 66 books and over 40 authors there seem to be many assertions but as to how one would prove them well we can eliminate the circular ones, certainly.

So quotes about this statement being true need the same sort of inductive, abductive, and deductive proofs that any other claims require.

Most deductive arguments center around Jesus' treatment of the Septuagint as true. Similarly, leaders and prophets refer to previous scriptures as true.

Abductively we would look at things like fulfilled prophecy that would best be explained by a divine author whose omniscience accounted for accuracy of future events.

Inductively we would go to historical accuracy as verified by hundreds of thousands of archaeological fines from the last 150 years that confirm data found in scripture. Historical accounts outside of scripture that confirm scriptural events.

There are other data, both internal and external, that points to the reliability of the scriptures over time but that is not the nature of you post.

Now if we apply your rubric for verifying the truth-claims of any book what historical accounts could even pass a skeptics' method, assuming all eyewitnesses are dead?

So it could be the case that your method is what is limiting what you can consider as true, rather than the reasons in support of that claim. That depends of course on how skeptical of knowledge you are.

 

[cvanwey]

Determining reality is a tall order indeed. As a skeptic you know (pun intended) that Descarte has inaugurated an epistemic method by which it is no longer reasonable to believe in an external world, other minds (people), reality of the past. Given these skeptical presuppositions who is asking the question again about the PROVING the validity of the Bible?

You may be able to prove you exist but that is it for skeptics.

Now as for the Bible with 66 books and over 40 authors there seem to be many assertions but as to how one would prove them well we can eliminate the circular ones, certainly.

So quotes about this statement being true need the same sort of inductive, abductive, and deductive proofs that any other claims require.

Most deductive arguments center around Jesus' treatment of the Septuagint as true. Similarly, leaders and prophets refer to previous scriptures as true.

Abductively we would look at things like fulfilled prophecy that would best be explained by a divine author whose omniscience accounted for accuracy of future events.

Inductively we would go to historical accuracy as verified by hundreds of thousands of archaeological fines from the last 150 years that confirm data found in scripture. Historical accounts outside of scripture that confirm scriptural events.

There are other data, both internal and external, that points to the reliability of the scriptures over time but that is not the nature of you post.

Now if we apply your rubric for verifying the truth-claims of any book what historical accounts could even pass a skeptics' method, assuming all eyewitnesses are dead?

So it could be the case that your method is what is limiting what you can consider as true, rather than the reasons in support of that claim. That depends of course on how skeptical of knowledge you are.

My ''rubric' is very simple. I will simply concede every natural based event from the Bible (and this is actually conceding quite a lot), for argument sake....

Now all one needs to do, is demonstrate two remaining tasks (to satisfy this skeptic):

1. Demonstrate the Bible was actually inspired by anything other than humans.
2. Demonstrate any supernatural events actually happened.

As I've stated elsewhere... It's one thing to accept Alexander the Great's story (i.e) he lived, he fought in war, how he died, etc.... But does this conclude he then WAS the son of Zeus?

 

[Hawkins]

Hello all,

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid? If all humans are flawed in reason, logic, and in assessing evidence... If all humans are bias in their assessments.... If no universal human standard exists for determining truth.... If all humans have a brain, and use that brain to assess all claimed information, with no other mechanism to determine reality verses fiction...

By what standard is then used to determine the Bible is given from a higher power?

When I read it, many stories, assertions, and claims seem to more fall in line with what mere humans would think and state; especially from the time period written.

By what specialized method was concluded to determine the Bible is given by God, besides the Bible's say-so?

Thank you in advance!

Your line of reasoning is under the brainwashing effect due to secular education. It's fallacious.

Humans rely heavily on faith in testimonies to reach a truth of any kind. There's no proof in this process. To put it another way, humans don't usually rely on evidence or proof to approach a truth.

That said, what proof do you have that humans ever set foot on the surface of moon. Even with recent technology of video and photo shooting, humans can't even prove a simple fact like this. This is so because in the end even videos and photos are deemed human accounts of testimonies (i.e., cannot be fully proved, you either believe or not).

Our history is another example, history is basically made up of human accounts of witnessing with most writings cannot be evidenced. That's actually why the Chinese insist the Nanjing massacre in WWII happened but denied by the Japanese. This is so simply because history in the end is about accounts of human testimonies (i.e., cannot be fully proved, you either believe or not). This is so for history as recent as WWII.

The second fallacious line of reasoning is "because it's beyond human comprehension (such as donkey talk) thus it can't be true". Humans are not omnipotent. At any point of humanity humans are not supposed to understand everything. This however has nothing to do with any thing objectively existing. Ancient humans couldn't understand quantum physics or cosmic science by no means says that black holes didn't exist in their age. They are out of their comprehension though (such as donkey talk).

The third fallacious argument is the burden of proof. The argument of burden of proof is only valid in a situation where one has a neutral ground to stand. When the police demand an evacuation, it's no point for them to provide you and proof before you shall leave your house. It is so because you don't have a neutral stance when your own life is said to be under a threat. It is a "you make you run or you die" situation. Humans don't wait for proof under this situation.

Christianity is an advocate of such a situation. Either you make your run after hearing the "gospel" or you don't. No one is obligated to provide you any proof.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Hello all,

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid? If all humans are flawed in reason, logic, and in assessing evidence... If all humans are bias in their assessments.... If no universal human standard exists for determining truth.... If all humans have a brain, and use that brain to assess all claimed information, with no other mechanism to determine reality verses fiction...

By what standard is then used to determine the Bible is given from a higher power?

When I read it, many stories, assertions, and claims seem to more fall in line with what mere humans would think and state; especially from the time period written.

By what specialized method was concluded to determine the Bible is given by God, besides the Bible's say-so?

Thank you in advance!

If there is a theistic God, then one would expect him/her/it to communicate truths to humanity...

... the Bible is that special revelation

 

[cvanwey]

If there is a theistic God, then one would expect him/her/it to communicate truths to humanity...

... the Bible is that special revelation

I'm sorry. But this response does not address the concern.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I'm sorry. But this response does not address the concern.

Perhaps not, but it is a good starting point. I was trying to skim over thousands of years of argument in a few dots, mainly because I thought that as the person asking, I'd have thought you would have done at least a little research on the subject.

 

[cvanwey]

Your line of reasoning is under the brainwashing effect due to secular education. It's fallacious.

Even if that were true, yours isn't?

Humans rely heavily on faith in testimonies to reach a truth of any kind. There's no proof in this process. To put it another way, humans don't usually rely on evidence or proof to approach a truth.

I disagree... "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four, or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.' - Bertrand Russell

[/QUOTE]That said, what proof do you have that humans ever set foot on the surface of moon. Even with recent technology of video and photo shooting, humans can't even prove a simple fact like this. This is so because in the end even videos and photos are deemed human accounts of testimonies (i.e., cannot be fully proved, you either believe or not).[/QUOTE]

My lack in belief to such a claim will not send me to hell though. And if the Bible had evidential accounts, even as much as the moon, I would not have much doubt. I'm not asking for that much really....

Our history is another example, history is basically made up of human accounts of witnessing with most writings cannot be evidenced. That's actually why the Chinese insist the Nanjing massacre in WWII happened but denied by the Japanese. This is so simply because history in the end is about accounts of human testimonies (i.e., cannot be fully proved, you either believe or not). This is so for history as recent as WWII.

I somewhat agree... However, such historical accounts do not make statements within them claiming they were all presented from divine inspiration. Unbiased people can cross reference such claims to address the probability of their claims. In the end, if they are mistaken, may not conclude a threatened flamed filled pit of eternal torture, for lack in agreement to such claims. Such statements present coercion or an ultimatum.

The second fallacious line of reasoning is "because it's beyond human comprehension (such as donkey talk) thus it can't be true". Humans are not omnipotent. At any point of humanity humans are not supposed to understand everything. This however has nothing to do with any thing objectively existing. Ancient humans couldn't understand quantum physics or cosmic science by no means says that black holes didn't exist in their age. They are out of their comprehension though (such as donkey talk).

And since the Bible presents nothing within it, in which humans may not have already known during the time in which it was written, actually speaks volumes....

The third fallacious argument is the burden of proof. The argument of burden of proof is only valid in a situation where one has a neutral ground to stand. When the police demand an evacuation, it's no point for them to provide you and proof before you shall leave your house. It is so because you don't have a neutral stance when your own life is said to be under a threat. It is a "you make you run or you die" situation. Humans don't wait for proof under this situation.

This is a false analogy....

Let me present something more relevant. The Holy Qur'an makes similar claims as the New Testament. Meaning, they both claim of their prophet as fact and the absolute truth.

Just because the Holy Qur'an is in existence, does not then mean it is equally true, verses not true. Where does the burden of proof actually lie? With the claim, or the one in doubt? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Claims are not warranted or considered by default. Any and all claims are not true by default. One is to weight the amount of presented evidence against the claim. The more extra ordinary the claim, the more extra ordinary the evidence required.

Christianity is an advocate of such a situation. Either you make your run after hearing the "gospel" or you don't. No one is obligated to provide you any proof.

I'm aware no one is obligated. But since this is a forum location, I figured I would ask for demonstration. And FYI, I believed wholeheartedly for over 30 years prior to actually studying it, researching it, and reading it. I know... My bad.

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps not, but it is a good starting point. I was trying to skim over thousands of years of argument in a few dots, mainly because I thought that as the person asking, I'd have thought you would have done at least a little research on the subject.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

 

[aiki]

Hello all,

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid?

Does the Bible give us reason to think it is divinely given? Yes. Here are just a few:

1. Thematic unity.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
3. Historical accuracy.
4. Influence upon individual's and culture.
5. Survivability.

If all humans are flawed in reason, logic, and in assessing evidence...

Are they always this way? When a man says, "Two plus two equals four," is he flawed in his reason and logic? Is he mistaken? No. If he gets hit on the head with a rock and says, "My head hurts," is he being illogical or unreasonable? Is he wrong about the condition of his head? No. His potential to be mistaken does not guarantee that he is always mistaken. Sometimes, he is exactly right.

If all humans are bias in their assessments....

Again, are they always biased? And is their bias always wrong? No.

If no universal human standard exists for determining truth....

But such a standard does exist: correspondence to reality.

By what standard is then used to determine the Bible is given from a higher power?

See above.

When I read it, many stories, assertions, and claims seem to more fall in line with what mere humans would think and state; especially from the time period written.

Well, the Bible is in part a record, an accounting, of human events. As such, it sometimes relates to us very human thinking and behaviour. Why does this mean the Bible isn't divinely inspired?

 

[Kristen.NewCreation]

This thread has been closed for staff review.

Exploring Christianity is not a debate area. It is for genuine seeking and inquiry of the Christian faith.

See the Statement of Purpose before posting here:

This is a forum where non-Christian Seekers are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christian members (see Faith groups list) can enter into discussion with them on these questions. The primary focus of this forum is Christian evangelism and discipleship, not to debate Christian Theology or challenge, attack, or argue against, Christianity. If any non-Christian member would like to challenge Christianity, they may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum. Please read and agree with this thread before posting in the Christian Apologetics forum.

​

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread Has Been Moved from Exploring Christianity to Christian Apologetics

We are moving this thread to a section where it is a better fit.

As a reminder, if you are coming to this thread from replying to it in Exploring Christianity, to continue posting in this thread you need to have permission to post in this area, and the SOP is a bit different.

Non-Christians: Read and Agree before Posting
MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose



Please continue the discussion here, thank you.​

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your line of reasoning is under the brainwashing effect due to secular education. It's fallacious.

Either you're implying that Christian parents don't brainwash their children (which is false), or else you're implying that Christian parents do so and it's OK (even though secular brainwashing isn't).

Humans rely heavily on faith in testimonies to reach a truth of any kind. There's no proof in this process. To put it another way, humans don't usually rely on evidence or proof to approach a truth.

But in principle, you could see for yourself why the consensus in a field, such as biology for example, has come to be what it is. You can sit in on lectures for free, starting from the introductory level all the way up to the top. Obviously, you'd prefer to get credit for what you're doing in the form of a PhD, but most professors would enthusiastically allow you to gobble up the information fully free of charge. It's just a matter of your time and inclination.

But what, even in principle, can we do to know first-hand why it is that the Bible is true?

That said, what proof do you have that humans ever set foot on the surface of moon. Even with recent technology of video and photo shooting, humans can't even prove a simple fact like this. This is so because in the end even videos and photos are deemed human accounts of testimonies (i.e., cannot be fully proved, you either believe or not).

Again, in principle, with enough money and resources, you could reproduce the shuttle that they made and launch it yourself.

Our history is another example, history is basically made up of human accounts of witnessing with most writings cannot be evidenced. That's actually why the Chinese insist the Nanjing massacre in WWII happened but denied by the Japanese. This is so simply because history in the end is about accounts of human testimonies (i.e., cannot be fully proved, you either believe or not). This is so for history as recent as WWII.

Is there physical evidence? What is the consensus on the issue? Is the Japanese denial a cultural thing or is it in the classrooms as well? I haven't looked into it.

The second fallacious line of reasoning is "because it's beyond human comprehension (such as donkey talk) thus it can't be true".

Straw man. This should be beneath you. We are fully aware that there are many things that are beyond our understanding.

The argument is that if it's beyond our comprehension, then we have no good reason to believe it.

Humans are not omnipotent. At any point of humanity humans are not supposed to understand everything.

I think you mean omniscient.

This however has nothing to do with any thing objectively existing. Ancient humans couldn't understand quantum physics or cosmic science by no means says that black holes didn't exist in their age. They are out of their comprehension though (such as donkey talk).

And ancient humans, not comprehending quantum physics, would've had no good reason to believe in quantum mechanics.

Are you done with that straw man, or do you intend to trample it underfoot a bit more?

The third fallacious argument is the burden of proof. The argument of burden of proof is only valid in a situation where one has a neutral ground to stand. When the police demand an evacuation, it's no point for them to provide you and proof before you shall leave your house. It is so because you don't have a neutral stance when your own life is said to be under a threat. It is a "you make you run or you die" situation. Humans don't wait for proof under this situation.

The burden of proof lies on the one making a positive claim. That's all. Your analogy is meaningless. We're not talking about real-life situations with life-threatening emergencies. We're talking about academic arguments.

Christianity is an advocate of such a situation. Either you make your run after hearing the "gospel" or you don't. No one is obligated to provide you any proof.

If you brainwash children into being mortally terrified of hellfire, and then provide absolutely zero exit-counseling for those who wish to leave the faith, and if, further, you push for Christian legislation in a country that is explicitly secular, then the least you could do is live up to your burden of proof.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The argument is that if it's beyond our comprehension, then we have no good reason to believe it.

....

And ancient humans, not comprehending quantum physics, would've had no good reason to believe in quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is beyond my comprehension, so apparently I hav no good reason to believe it is true.

Doesn’t make it untrue however. So my not believing it is irrelevent.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Quantum mechanics is beyond my comprehension, so apparently I hav no good reason to believe it is true.

Doesn’t make it untrue however. So my not believing it is irrelevent.

Therefore...?

 

[Hawkins]

Either you're implying that Christian parents don't brainwash their children (which is false), or else you're implying that Christian parents do so and it's OK (even though secular brainwashing isn't).

The point is whether you have the consent that you are brainwashed. The lies the huge difference. You don't seem to have the consent that you can be brainwashed by receiving secular education since childhood.

Is there physical evidence?

That's rather the question directed to yourself. Do you have the evidence whether Nanjing massacre ever happened. Or can you deny its occurrence due to the lack of evidence.

Straw man.

You are the one who's making straw man by asking for evidence of an historical event like Nanjing massacre.

If you brainwash children into being mortally terrified of hellfire, and then provide absolutely zero exit-counseling for those who wish to leave the faith, and if, further, you push for Christian legislation in a country that is explicitly secular, then the least you could do is live up to your burden of proof.

That's an incorrect description of what Christianity dogmas are. To put it another way, if hellfire is a truth (for the sake of argument), how will you be able to convey this truth?

It's your another fallacy to ask for burden of proof. Do the police need to present you with proof in the case of an evacuation? Humans (perhaps except for you) don't ask for evidence under that "you make your run or you die" circumstance. Similarly Christianity is about such a message conveyed more than 2000 years ago. You either believe to make your run or you not. No one has the burden of proof to show you any evidence. In the end, it's your own life.

Burden of proof is only valid under the circumstance the you can stand neutral in a situation, but not in one which you either make your run or risk your own dead or alive.

Moreover, in terms of an advocate about a future event, it's joke itself to ask for evidence as no humans can reach a future event to gather evidence. You are fooling yourself by using such a straw man argument.