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

[William]

I'm not addressing your Creator Mind theory, but I'm addressing what is mentioned in the original article and the dominant alternative theory to the universe being real.

Then we could agree to drop that line of argument, since my focus is on addressing the "We Exist Within The Creator Mind" theory.

What should be dropped is your Creator Mind theory, since you alone are the one espousing it and (in my opinion) avoiding providing logical reasoning and supporting evidence. As I mentioned, what has been proposed is we are in a computer simulation as what was stated in the original article.

So what I see you are doing is using this discussion on philosophy to just promote your Creator Mind theory, but not willing to support why it is true.

Your "we do not exist within a simulation (re Simulation theory) is contrary to your "We exist within a thing created outside of The Creator Mind" theory.

For example, both have the creator of the creation, outside of the creation. That is what defines both theories and makes them essentially the same theory. The difference is in your defining said creator. Simulation theory isn't as concerned with the nature and motivations of the creator.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #4089

Then doesn't the universe align just as well with a natural reading of the Quran or the Book of Mormon?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not here to argue for either of those books in this thread.

"If one of you had a sheep fall into a pit on the Sabbath, would you not go and fetch it out?"

"Maybe, maybe not. We're not here to argue over how we take care of our sheep."

[otseng]

Your "we do not exist within a simulation (re Simulation theory) is contrary to your "We exist within a thing created outside of The Creator Mind" theory.

For example, both have the creator of the creation, outside of the creation. That is what defines both theories and makes them essentially the same theory. The difference is in your defining said creator. Simulation theory isn't as concerned with the nature and motivations of the creator.

Your terminology is confusing. For simplification, here's the three theories on the table on the nature of our reality:
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator mind theory - our universe is entirely in God's mind

No, none of them are essentially the same. Here's an explanation of the simulation theory:

[William]

Your "we do not exist within a simulation (re Simulation theory) is contrary to your "We exist within a thing created outside of The Creator Mind" theory.

For example, both have the creator of the creation, outside of the creation. That is what defines both theories and makes them essentially the same theory. The difference is in your defining said creator. Simulation theory isn't as concerned with the nature and motivations of the creator.

Your terminology is confusing. For simplification, here's the three theories on the table on the nature of our reality:
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator mind theory - our universe is entirely in God's mind

No, none of them are essentially the same. Here's an explanation of the simulation theory:

My terminology is less confusing that the proposals you make above.

Real Universe Theory (our universe is actually real) is not different from Creator Mind Theory - (our universe is entirely in God's mind.)

Your belief that the universe is real but does not exist entirely in The Creator Mind, shares many of the principles of Simulation theory - (our universe is running inside a simulation mechanism.)

The Creator Mind is not a "simulator mechanism" in relation to the ideas presented Simulation Theory, but your "Real universe outside The Creator Mind" theory does share similarities with Simulation Theory... the most obvious being that with Simulation Theory one does not know if what they are experiencing is "real" or just made to be able to be experienced as being real and in that, can even be believed to be actually real which is the definition of your Real Universe outside The Creator Mind Theory - were the declaration is that "our universe is actually real".

While Neil deGrasse Tyson has (to my knowledge) not come out and stated something along the lines of;
IF Simulation Theory is true
THEN popular theism has been true all along
I think that if such were put to him he would agree.

This is because popular theism claims that we exist within something which was created by a mind/minds which exist outside of said created thing and that is the very definition of Simulation Theory.

The created thing becomes a "computer" and the human minds become "those who have been placed into the "computer" and believe they exist within a real thing and were put there by an entity who exists outside of said "computer/creation".

Those are the base similarities which can be extended upon.

In Neils' case, he would indeed most likely concede that popular theism has been right all along (re If Simulation Theory were true) but he would still be able to question the many claims to do with the nature of said creator entity and ultimate purpose of having created the simulation and placed minds into its various forms (specifically human minds overall) ...

[Capbook]

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

I consider the Bible authoritative and inspired still.
Though you may find conflicting verses in the Bible through the eyes of men.
I don't give much attention to find which of which is correct.
What I would rather focus much is if such contradictions affects men salvation.
As God wants all men to be save. All unwritten signs was written for all to have life (eternal life).
John 20: 30-31.

[otseng]

[Replying to William in post #4103]

All three have differences and commonalities. One thing you didn't point out is the Creator mind and simulation are similar in that our none of our experiences are actually real. Our perceptions are not our own, but generated from outside ourselves (either God's mind or a computer).

I would agree God is the basis for all three beliefs. Even in simulation theory, something must have created the first universe, which God can account for.

But the question to be answered is which theory is true?

Neil deGrasse Tyson believes there's a 50% chance we're in a simulation. And I've given theological reasons why we are in a real universe and not in a simulation or in the Creator's mind.

A practical reason we're not in a simulation is we do not experience glitches/bugs in the simulation. In order for a perfect program to happen, there must've been a perfect programmer. So, it would be more likely a Creator mind can generate that rather than any finite programmer.

[POI]

Even in simulation theory, something must have created the first universe, which God can account for.

(Do not bother really answering much of what is written if the bottom question is answered with a 'yes', regarding us all having to rely upon some level of 'faith'.)

1) Is it possible our known universe is eternal? If not, why not? I'm not sure if I've already offered the video, regarding this explanation about the possibility of our universe being eternal? Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and philosopher, explains it much better than I can.
2) Also, if the scientific principle is true, that (paraphrased) - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", then the concept to instead invent a 'creator God' then may become a non-starter?

Leaping forward, let's just assume, for a moment, 'stuff/materialism/other' has always existed in some capacity. At best, your position then could be there exists a "change agency" alone to merely <re-arrange> existing 'matter/existence/other'?

I guess the take-away for me would be... If you can instead convince me that materialism had a true beginning, then we can forge forth to address the topics of "deism/theism". Otherwise, you may be able to merely argue that such a 'creator' or 'creators' are instead not truly 'creators', by the purest sense of the word, but instead 'changers', like we all are when we 'create' stuff.

And fast-forwarding even further, if I was to grant as much as I can grant towards your position, I guess the best we could surmise, is that some deity exists, created our universe the way he did, offered an instructional guide for us to follow, and wants for us to see which parts are actually physically true, verses metaphorically true, and not actually being irreconcilably conflicting in reality at all, etc etc etc....

Is it also possible this agency no longer exists? Is it also possible that this agency is just F-ing with us? Is it possible this agency does not truly care about us? The list of questions would still go on and on and on, while granting your faith-based position.... Further, maybe the Bible is not this book at all, but it is another book for which either no longer exists, or is one you decided to reject, based upon fallible logic? Or maybe such a book has never existed in the first place, and all such claimed books are the works of men alone?

Come to think of it, is this entire argument to suggest that we must all rely upon 'faith', in that we can all equally be wrong? Hmm? In essence, seems your argument is to suggest that there is not really a way to prove we are not in a simulation. Hence, we apply faith accordingly. We all use faith.

The reason I ask, is your take-away can be rebutted. Your suggested reason as to why we are not in a simulation can be easily refuted. The creating simulator has us in version 5, and our brains are now programmed to ignore/forget any such possible glitches. Our awareness/senses/other are limited. Just like some have a '6th' sense while others don't. Or maybe we are now in version 6, where there is only one glitch per every million simulation years. Other other other..... We can conjure up all sorts of 'nu-huhs', as the video you provided already suggests.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4096]

All three have differences and commonalities.

Perhaps they do or perhaps they don't.

One thing you didn't point out is the Creator mind and simulation are similar in that our none of our experiences are actually real.

I have already claimed that because these houses exist within the mansion of The Creator Mind, (The Real) they are automatically regarded by me as being real, as I am the one regarding things through that view.

Thus - The Creator Mind is not to be confused with the concept of Simulation Theory, as these are different enough not to share any pertinent similarities.


This is primarily because Simulation Theory speaks of that being experienced as, "not real" and is thus "false".

If one personally believes that The Creator Mind (in creating and sustaining these houses in that mansion) is being false on account of that, one probably does not understand that they are mind - or even what mind is - let alone how or why The Creator Mind makes these houses and place minds within them.

Our perceptions are not our own, but generated from outside ourselves (either God's mind or a computer).

This perspective I lean toward agreeing with.


Can we liken The Creator Mind to a computer?
I do not think so if we are also to believe machines cannot become what The Creator Mind obviously is.
This is not to say that The Creator Mind could not make forms in which to experience mindfulness through.
For example, the human form will give the mind which wears it (for the experience) a certain range of sensory perception.

Our perceptions are indeed our own UNTIL we come to the realization that we share these with The Creator Mind in a most personable manner. The constraints are necessary to the experience and therein all three positions (on this matter) share a similarity which is unavoidable and thus - essentially - beside the point.

In other words "How can it be any other way?"

The realization is the key factor in determining where these positions do not overlap.

I would agree God is the basis for all three beliefs. Even in simulation theory, something must have created the first universe, which God can account for.

But the question to be answered is which theory is true?

And the first question to ask re that question is "What does one mean by "True"?"

I think the closest position (of the three) to "what is truth?" is that we exist within The Creator Mind, right there alongside The Creator Mind, because we minds are ultimately sourced AS The Creator Mind, in the sense that it is We who are responsible for the Creations (houses) that are built and which we are involved with voluntarily - by our own choice to have such built and to go to those houses and experience said houses.

WE are in cahoots with The Creator Mind (or) we are still finding our way (or) we are at loggerheads with the idea of that. ("That" being "is the idea "True" "False" or "Undecided".)

Neil deGrasse Tyson believes there's a 50% chance we're in a simulation.

I do not think your assessment here is accurate.
Neil say's the 50/50 is in 50% certain that there would have to be an initial Real universe (Mansion) and 50% certain that all other universes are simulations which are "not real". (illusionary houses outside the mansion)

And I've given theological reasons why we are in a real universe and not in a simulation or in the Creator's mind.

That is also how many theists have it and some of these also have it that the houses "are as real" as the initial mansion, only these do not exist within the mansion, but outside of it. Therein, a similarity between those two theories is identified.)

Whereas, being within The Creator Mind Theory has it that there is no outside of The Creator Mind thus being within The Creator Mind is NOT a simulation, thus every house which can be experienced is also NOT a simulation, thus 100% certainty is achieved by the melding of all theories into a coherent theory - The Creator Mind Theory.

A practical reason we're not in a simulation is we do not experience glitches/bugs in the simulation.

This is true if we also take into account that there are oddities still to be accounted for.
But yes, since we do not exist within a simulation, such oddities have to be accounted for through another lens.

In order for a perfect program to happen, there must've been a perfect programmer. So, it would be more likely a Creator mind can generate that rather than any finite programmer.

I agree. There is no question about it. The only difference between our positions in this instance, is that I think this is all successfully achieved WITHIN said Creator Mind BY said Creator Mind.

Whereas, you do not think that...and Simulation Theory has not accounted for that possibility either...

[otseng]

1) Is it possible our known universe is eternal? If not, why not? I'm not sure if I've already offered the video, regarding this explanation about the possibility of our universe being eternal? Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and philosopher, explains it much better than I can.
2) Also, if the scientific principle is true, that (paraphrased) - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", then the concept to instead invent a 'creator God' then may become a non-starter?

I'd like to answer these after the discussion on philosophy because it can result in a lengthy discussion. For now, want to focus on the 3 theories of the nature of the universe.

Come to think of it, is this entire argument to suggest that we must all rely upon 'faith', in that we can all equally be wrong? Hmm? In essence, seems your argument is to suggest that there is not really a way to prove we are not in a simulation. Hence, we apply faith accordingly. We all use faith.

What I find interesting is secular philosophers and scientists seriously entertain the idea we are in a simulation. Yet, there is obviously no proof we are in one. So, yes, I agree in a sense we are all using faith.

2:02
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a little more conservative he thinks the odds that we are in base reality versus a simulated reality is 50-50. A 50-50 chance that everything we experience is artificial.

Are there arguments and evidence we are in a simulation? Ironically, they use the same line of arguments as Intelligent Design proponents.

8:49
Theoretical physicist James Gates thought simulation theory was crazy then he started studying quarks and electrons he found error correcting code buried deep inside the equations used to describe string theory.

9:33
Everything in nature is math. Look at the fibonacci sequence.

[otseng]

I have already claimed that because these houses exist within the mansion of The Creator Mind, (The Real) they are automatically regarded by me as being real, as I am the one regarding things through that view.

Yes, you've already claimed that. But you're the only one interpreting the passage that way, so it's not a very convincing argument.

This is primarily because Simulation Theory speaks of that being experienced as, "not real" and is thus "false".

We've covered this already too. The difference is perceptually real vs actually real. Do things actually exist in God's mind? Do things actually exist in anyone's mind?

Can we liken The Creator Mind to a computer?

I think we can. Fundamentally, they both posit a mind constructing our perception of reality. Our reality exist within the mind of an external entity (whether it is God's mind or a computer's CPU).

I do not think so if we are also to believe machines cannot become what The Creator Mind obviously is.

If a computer can dictate our perceptions of reality, how can it be distinguished from any creator?

Our perceptions are indeed our own UNTIL we come to the realization that we share these with The Creator Mind in a most personable manner.

Why can't it be programmed so that you perceive it to be God's mind, but in actuality a computer is controlling your mind to think that?

And the first question to ask re that question is "What does one mean by "True"?"

That which conforms to actual reality.

I think the closest position (of the three) to "what is truth?" is that we exist within The Creator Mind, right there alongside The Creator Mind, because we minds are ultimately sourced AS The Creator Mind, in the sense that it is We who are responsible for the Creations (houses) that are built and which we are involved with voluntarily - by our own choice to have such built and to go to those houses and experience said houses.

I have yet to see any logical argumentation and evidence to support your belief other than interpretation of mansions. Rather than evidence, isn't that just lifting a passage out of context to fit your own preconceived belief?

Neil deGrasse Tyson believes there's a 50% chance we're in a simulation.

I do not think your assessment here is accurate.

I provided the sources in the YouTube videos in my previous posts.

Whereas, being within The Creator Mind Theory has it that there is no outside of The Creator Mind thus being within The Creator Mind is NOT a simulation, thus every house which can be experienced is also NOT a simulation, thus 100% certainty is achieved by the melding of all theories into a coherent theory - The Creator Mind Theory.

I wouldn't classify it as a coherent theory either. As I mentioned, it would mean God is deceiving us since our perceptual reality is against actual reality.

A practical reason we're not in a simulation is we do not experience glitches/bugs in the simulation.

This is true if we also take into account that there are oddities still to be accounted for.
But yes, since we do not exist within a simulation, such oddities have to be accounted for through another lens.

If we are in a simulation, the odds of us being in a program that has bugs in it is vastly higher than us being in a perfectly written program. As a matter of fact, writing a perfect program would be practically zilch, unless it was an omnipotent and omniperfect programmer.

In order for a perfect program to happen, there must've been a perfect programmer. So, it would be more likely a Creator mind can generate that rather than any finite programmer.

I agree. There is no question about it. The only difference between our positions in this instance, is that I think this is all successfully achieved WITHIN said Creator Mind BY said Creator Mind.

So, I would rate the odds of being in a Creator mind higher than being in a simulation.