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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #4152]

Something I haven't asked you about POI, re you "faith"-take on these positions - I don't recall you identifying the necessity for "faith" re (3)...

What's up POI? Cat got your tongue? ^..^

Is your silence agreeing with the observation that there is no identifiable necessity for faith with those who hold (3)?

3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind.

As I understand it, those holding (1) and believe they do not exist within a simulation, even that the universe they exist in, is believed to have been created by a mindful entity existing outside of said created thing (Simulation Theory), have their wires crossed and the faith they have is in the belief that there is no contradiction regarding their belief.

I usually stay out of this thread but that jibe is so wrong. Whatever '(3)' was, the 'creator mind' is a faithclaim and the burden of proof falls on you, not on POI or any other skeptic goddless. I'm sure we have done this before, but Deep Dive practice means the defeated apologists vanishes and surfaces later on spouting the same froth.

The burden of proof is on you to validate any of the claims you make in reverse above, but (illogically and falsely) making the skeptic make a denial of them. Classic fallacy of inverted burden of proof.

Situation is, we exist within a universe NOT created intelligently from any argument yet presented. Note, attaching a portentious sounding label like 'simulation theory' does not make it science, or even sense. Foisting a denial 'belief' on the one who awaits persuasive evidence, damns you and your apologetic as falling into the eternal illogical trap of the Theist (in your case an irreligious one, I gather) and sadly you make the same error.

Hurling abusive accusations like your 'understanding' of those who require some decent evidence before signing up to your faithclaims as having 'wires crossed' that your case has crashed and burned totally. I know you can do better than this. You don't even have to give up your sortagoddist Faith. Just accept that it is an unprovable claim (at present) and you will have escaped the theist illogic trap while still remaining a theist.

"I am not trying to rob you, I'm trying to help you".

[POI]

What's up POI? Cat got your tongue? ^..^

Nope. I'm just starting to realize that when I press your position, you avoid answering. I've asked specific questions of you, in the past, and you find technicalities, to not answer them. Hence, I will only respond when I deem a response truly worthy, which your last one was not.

Here is where we stand William:

Post 4141 (leading up to the follow-up Q):

Why should anyone believe an external mind is feeding their internal mind, in any capacity?

Post 4149 (leading up to the follow-up Q):

Does this 'TCM' communicate with physical human brains?

********************

Since the cat continues to have your tongue, I feel I owe you nothing more.

Ta-ta

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4162]

I'm just starting to realize that when I press your position, you avoid answering.

My position is (3).
You have claimed that my position is faith-based and have yet to show that this is true.

Why should anyone believe an external mind is feeding their internal mind, in any capacity?

No one "should" or "shouldn't". There is no reason why someone "should" believe in position (4), either. The positions (1) (2) and (3) are simply positions one can take on whether we exist within a simulation or not.

Does this 'TCM' communicate with physical human brains?

No. With (3), physical human brains are simply seen to be otherwise mindless meat-mechanisms/devices which mindfulness uses. Meat-based brains (like silicon-based brains) do not have minds of their own, separate from the mindfulness which uses them so cannot be "communicated" with in any manner.

[POI]

You have claimed that my position is faith-based and have yet to show that this is true.

But I have. We have brains, and thus far, we know the origin of our thoughts comes from our brains. Anything beyond that requires faith to further demonstrate. This is where (3) comes in.

No one "should" or "shouldn't". There is no reason why someone "should" believe in position (4), either.

This would mean you reject the position that humans have physical brains, which is where our thoughts come from. But we know we have human brains, and we know thoughts come from them. Faith is required to assert more.

The positions (1) (2) and (3) are simply positions one can take on whether we exist within a simulation or not.

As I told otseng, (1) (2) and (3) are similar in that they all three argue for some "external mind" communicating with internal minds or (human brains). All three require faith, as it has not been demonstrated to be the case that external 'mind(s)' are passing data through human physical brains. It has been demonstrated, to be the case, that we have physical brains, and this is where our thoughts come from. So far, nothing more.

No. With (3), physical human brains are simply seen to be otherwise mindless meat-mechanisms/devices which mindfulness uses. Meat-based brains (like silicon-based brains) do not have minds of their own, separate from the mindfulness which uses them so cannot be "communicated" with in any manner.

So, the 'TCM' does communicate with the physical human brain. According to you, it uses the human brain as some sort of a proxy or transport vessel to exchange information. Now all we need to do is identify this so-called 'TCM'? Is there a way to do this without relying upon faith?

Since the physical human brain is a mindless meat-mechanism, this would mean each and every thought does NOT originate from it, but instead from some claimed external source (like a 'TCM', or a 'god', or 'evil', or other). All of which are, so far, discerned by faith alone. Further, if the brain is a mindless meat-mechanism, then why does this claimed and asserted "TCM" need this mindless meat-mechanism to exchange data/info in the first place?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4164]

We have brains,

Indeed, we minds do have brains...

we know the origin of our thoughts comes from our brains.

We do not know this - some assume this.
As was pointed out, brains are simply machines which do not have thoughts, any more that Chat GPT (or any other LLS) has thoughts...

Anything beyond that requires faith to further demonstrate.

What has been "demonstrated" which tells us that brains "have thoughts"?

Why should anyone believe an external mind is feeding their internal mind, in any capacity?

No one "should" or "shouldn't". There is no reason why someone "should" believe in position (4), either.

This would mean you reject the position that humans have physical brains, which is where our thoughts come from.

Humans do have physical brains. I reject the claim that brains are where our thoughts come from, since the claim itself hasn't been demonstrated to be the actual case.

(1) (2) and (3) are similar in that they all three argue for some "external mind" communicating with internal minds or (human brains).

(3) has it that all mindfulness is of The Creator Mind so minds within TCM, (as all minds are) can hold the perspective that TCM is "outside" of their minds, but this is an incorrect perception, based upon misinformation.
This is why religious script (Bible) often advocates the individual mind aligns with/draws close to/perceives/acknowledges/identifies with TCM. (John 10:30)

No. With (3), physical human brains are simply seen to be otherwise mindless meat-mechanisms/devices which mindfulness uses. Meat-based brains (like silicon-based brains) do not have minds of their own, separate from the mindfulness which uses them so cannot be "communicated" with in any manner.

So, the 'TCM' does communicate with the physical human brain.

No. The interaction TCM has with human minds is the communication. Human brains are not able to communicate any more than any other machinery can be communicated with. You cannot communicate with your computer, so why do you think you can communicate with your brain, or that TCM communicates with brains?

According to you, it uses the human brain as some sort of a proxy or transport vessel to exchange information.

It is not the proxy or transport or vessel which is exchanging information, any more than this is what is occurring between you and I. We are communicating. Not as brains but as minds. We are minds communicating. Human brains/bodies are simply the mechanism we use to do so. You are conflating the idea that you are the brain/body, which is why you are confused about (3).

Now all we need to do is identify this so-called 'TCM'? Is there a way to do this without relying upon faith?

In this sense, your position is that of Philips'. (John 14:9) The information has been made available to you, (as it was made available to Philip) but you fail to see it and thus ask to be shown it.
One does not "rely on faith" but on knowledge - and not just on knowledge, but also on how the knowledge is processed by us minds re how any/all knowledge is defined.
(Like you defining the knowledge of mindfulness to being emergent of brains - see my signature for more about that.)

Since the physical human brain is a mindless meat-mechanism, this would mean each and every thought does NOT originate from it

That is just how you are defining things here.

The physical human brain is not "mindless" as long as there is mindfulness occupying it. Even so, it is the mind occupying it which is mindful and where certain thought originates from and by extension (where individual human minds connect and interact with TCM) all true thought originates.

[POI]

No. The interaction TCM has with human minds is the communication. Human brains are not able to communicate any more than any other machinery can be communicated with. You cannot communicate with your computer, so why do you think you can communicate with your brain, or that TCM communicates with brains?

Then your position is based purely upon faith alone. It takes little/no faith to surmise a mind not only made the said computer, but also inputs data into this computer. We know this is the work of humans, without applying faith. Where the human brain is concerned, we have no verifiable example(s) of (1) (2) or (3) as the actual mindful agency inputting data/info into the human physical brain. Thus, outside taking it upon faith alone, that a 'TCM' is the actual cause, what'za got? So far, all I see is a Bible verse below, (which demonstrates the need for faith). Weeee!

In this sense, your position is that of Philips'. (John 14:9) The information has been made available to you, (as it was made available to Philip) but you fail to see it and thus ask to be shown it.

This provided Bibe statement is garbage. The Bible would be arguing for (1) and not (3) anyways.

I do not require faith to discern a human not only made the computer, but also uses the computer for input. Thus, your above computer analogy fails. We know humans make computers; we know of no 'agency' which produces anything from flesh?

The entire argument smells of question begging.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4166]

Indeed, we minds do have brains...We do not know the origin of our thoughts comes from our brains. Some positions assume this is the case, but that is not knowledge.

Do you deny that brains are simply machines which do not have thoughts, any more that Chat GPT (or any other LLS) has thoughts?

What has been "demonstrated" which tells us that brains "have thoughts"?

Human minds do have physical brains.
I reject the claim that brains are where our thoughts come from, since the claim itself hasn't been demonstrated to be the actual case.

(3) has it that all mindfulness is of The Creator Mind so minds within TCM, (as all minds are) can hold the perspective that TCM is "outside" of their minds, but this is an incorrect perception, based upon misinformation.
This is why religious script (Bible) often advocates the individual mind aligns with/draws close to/perceives/acknowledges/identifies with TCM. (John 10:30)
The script is not advocating faith, but is passing on knowledge.

The interaction TCM has with human minds is the communication. Human brains are not able to communicate any more than any other machinery can be communicated with. You cannot communicate with your computer - It is not the proxy or transport or vessel which is exchanging information, any more than this is what is occurring between you and I. We are communicating. Not as brains but as minds. We are minds communicating. Human brains/bodies are simply the mechanism we use to do so. You are conflating the idea that you are the brain/body, which is why you are confused about (3).

So why would any mind think they can communicate with your brain, or that minds communicates with other brains?

Your position is that of Philips'. (John 14:9) The information has been made available to you, (as it was made available to Philip) but you fail to see it and thus ask to be shown it.
One does not "rely on faith" but on knowledge - and not just on knowledge, but also on how the knowledge is processed by us minds re how any/all knowledge is defined.
(Like you defining the knowledge of mindfulness to being emergent of brains - see my signature for more about that.)

[otseng]

If one accepts the real universe theory, then it's a separate argument if the universe is created or is it eternal, which we will get to after the discussion on philosophy.

Going on to the followup question - is the universe created or eternal?

POI asserts it is eternal:

4) POI - Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: 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; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone.

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?

What I claim is both science and the Bible support the position the universe had a beginning and was created.

The universe either had a beginning and is a finite age or it is eternal and an infinite age. All major sources point to a finite age of the universe:

According to NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe project, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion (13,700,000,000) years old—plus or minus 200 million years. (The NASA satellite, launched in 2001, measures the temperature of radiant heat remaining from the big bang.)

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-an ... e-universe

The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.77 billion years[14] of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/f ... r/age.html

Scientists’ best estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.

https://www.newscientist.com/question/h ... -universe/

[POI]

You cannot communicate with your computer - It is not the proxy or transport or vessel which is exchanging information, any more than this is what is occurring between you and I. We are communicating. Not as brains but as minds. We are minds communicating. Human brains/bodies are simply the mechanism we use to do so. You are conflating the idea that you are the brain/body, which is why you are confused about (3).

I already spoke to this. We know humans create computers, and we also know humans input data/info into computers. We do not know who created brains, if any, and we certainly do not know if some unknown input source provides the brain it's thoughts. It is your burden to prove the existence of a 'TCM". And yet, aside from your assertion, I see no evidence to suggest this is the case. Thus far, all we know is that humans possess brains, in which produce thought(s)/other. Anything more requires evidence.

Your position is that of Philips'. (John 14:9) The information has been made available to you, (as it was made available to Philip) but you fail to see it and thus ask to be shown it.
One does not "rely on faith" but on knowledge - and not just on knowledge, but also on how the knowledge is processed by us minds re how any/all knowledge is defined.
(Like you defining the knowledge of mindfulness to being emergent of brains - see my signature for more about that.)

No information about a "TCM", or the claim made about (1) or (2) for that matter, has been made available to me.

In essence, your response suggests that because a computer requires an creator/operator, so too does our brain. It is your burden to prove an 'operator' is inputting info/data into our noggins. So far, all I read are assertion(s) and faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is essentially a creationist -denialist argument. They cannot accept consciousness from inert biochemicals any more than they can accept Life from non - life or indeed a universe of matter/energy from 'nothing'.

This position is (we know) illogical as it assumes a conclusion to unknowns. something from nothing has been in discussion and virtual particles suggest it might not be as impossible as we imagine. Life from non - life has a theoretical mechanism which is more than creation has and, while doubt of abiogenesis has some mileage it is easy for theists to adopt the illogical and false position of 'it is impossible' Because they have to be able to rule out 100% life from non life even as a possibility, even before we get to 'which creator'.

It is, as you say, faithbased.

Which is where the gap for god from Consciousness also fails, and it does, no matter how much they dress it up in long words, self - serving similes and misused analogies (a theist favorite). The theory of evolution (validated, even if abiogenesis is still disputed) is that reactions of life just absorbing nutrients led to the evolutionary arms race when the first blob ate another blob (the hypothesis suggests) and reaction became survival instinct. Input into the head and reaction into the hip - brain in dinosaurs hardly requires mote than an evolved instinct, not a god. Nor the evolution of pack co - operation leading to protection and position of the individual, instincts misunderstood by humans and morals and understanding, both in animal pets and in humans themselves.

It doesn't matter that believers, insisting in preserving the Supernatural reject consciousness, communication and ethic as anything else other than sophisticated animal instincts, reject this on faithbased prejudice; the fact that the hypothetical explanation (never mind the evidence for it) exists, means that their hypothesis, while sorta valid is True in a faith - belief way is simply wrong, illogical and denialist.

This has to be understood before any serious discussion, no matter how dressed up in philosophical jargon (Lane - Craig managed to fool so many with Kalam that way (1). The fallacy of assuming a thing (claim) like a pound of chopped liver or a bucket of mince in the head cannot produce Reason is simply wrong as meat and veg produces electricity and that is all that instinctive reason (including thought) is made of. The problem is not in what seems incredible to the believer but what they can make sound incredible to themselves and hopefully, anyone else, by using deprecating terms or hopeful analogies. That humans make machines to imitate life and thought does not mean that life and thought had to have an (intelligent maker. That's the point that they often ignore - like Lane - Craig) and is what I think should become Sponder's fallacy - misuse of analogy (2)

(1) basically a case that Something kicked of everything (never mind the universe or the stuff the universe Event was made from, the argument is the same. That does not get us to a god, never mind a particular one. L - C knows this as he avoids mentioning any 'god'. But dressing it up in portentious verbiage, he bamboozles people into missing this basic faithbased thinking error. Smart cookie though he clearly is, Faith makes his thinking childish. like the flood victims had it coming. Argument churned around, it essentially comes down to 'God can do what He likes' which is tacit admission it is wrong but tough. Valid Only supposing that God exists, which is the claim under discussion, and Claims are not evidence for claims.

Basic and universal Theist fallacy; assuming as a given (default theory) what is being discussed.

(2) which should be using a simple analogy of what is known to explain something also known but harder to understand. The misuse (e.g the parable of the barber) is a known situation used to validate an unknown believed to be true on Faith. Though the 'barber' parable fails because the barber cannot cut everyone's hair by saying 'Let there be haircuts"