Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #312]

Do you think that all arguments for the Christian god would be unfalsifiable or are you just referring to the specific ones you talk about?

And, if only certain ones, what kind of argument, evidence, reasoning do you think would, in theory, convince you of Christian theism's truth?

[RBD]

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

First of all, the method you've described above neither acknowledges the possibility of confirmation bias nor mitigates for it.

There's always the possibility of self-confirming bias on either side of an argument. Blind believers can skew the Bible to avoid contradictions, and blind disbelievers can skew it to make contradictions. Let the arguments speak for themselves.

Secondly, even if the Bible were to be demonstrated as inerrant, this would only falsify the claim that it contains errors and/or contradictions.

True, in a textual sense alone. It means the book is without flaw within and without.

The existence of an inerrant Bible would not falsify the claim that the collection of books and letters comprising it were written by human authors in the absence of a deity.

I've amended the challenge: God isn't proven by Bible inerrancy, but only proven to be reasonably possible. So long as inerrancy remains, then anyone can reasonably believe the Author is who He says He is, the Creator and the Lord God Almighty, or anyone can still choose not to believe it.

However, with Bible inerrancy, no one can reasonably say it can't possibly be true nor possibly believed. That would be blind disbelief without evidence to prove it.

But there is also one further fact, that makes the Bible all the more believable, if it is flawlessly unerring: That so many people over so much time in so many places, are flawless in their agreement, as well as in their observable record. The lesson of 10 people in a circle, trying to keep one simple statement in tact from beginning to end, demonstrates a near incomprehensible fact, that about 35 people write a whole Book in different places and times, saying the exact same thing without error between them.

It becomes easier to just believe their testimony, that one Author inspired them all. Or, to at least idolize them as flawless men on earth. That happens to be where all the idolatrous 'saints worship' comes from...They are worshipped as angels, rather than simply respected as inspired and honest men:

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Act 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

At the same time, nothing in the contents of the Biblical texts will function to prove or disprove the claim that they disclose the words of a god. I know this is the case because I've encountered self-identified Christians who do not reject the notion that the Bible contains errors/contradictions, yet they still believe it captures the inerrant words of their god.

Right. You mean the believers in the Bible, that don't believe all the Bible, but only the parts they believe. And the main thing they don't believe is the Bible record of itself, nor the testimony of the writers about themselves and the Author inspiring them:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The reasoning they offer is that the identified discrepancies were a natural and expected consequence of human fallibility on the part of the authors and transcribers, not the inerrant god who inspired their work.

An inerrant book proves inerrant authorship, and an errant book proves errant authorship.

Beleiving the Bible does not mean believing in the spiritual, while not believing in the physical. If the words are wrong, so is the Spirit.

It's the super-spiritual nonsense of self-deceivers, who think they can believe the Spirit is true, that lurks within words they don't believe are true...

hermeneutics can be deployed to seemingly (and conveniently ) resolve all the apparent errors/contradictions they encounter in the texts. However, Christians are victims of their own success in this regard because the ability to post-hoc rationalize an apologetic defense against any possible objection to their claim renders it unfalsifiable.

Exactly, which is why you and me both don't believe their ideological rubbish, that is cloaked with 'sensible' unbelief in what they believe.

I like your honesty and intelligence. Some unbelievers are foolish enough to think that such unbelieving believers, are somehow help to their arguments of unbelief.

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Why is unfalsifiability a problem?

I like new terms to fit context. Do you mean that someone can try and make the Bible unfalsifiable, or 'protected' against proven error? Rather than simply allowing the Book to stand on it's own?

If so, that certainly is a problem of believers in a book, that don't believe it all, yet believe it's true. It;s just an ideological cover for believing what they like, and rejecting what they don't like. They end up writing their 'Bible':

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The inability to identify any quantity or quality of evidence that would falsify the specified claim does not provide a justification to accept it is as true.

True. Afterall, we have the power to believe or disbelieve something based solely upon personal will alone. We're free to accept something as true or not, that is not proven false. We can also believe a proven lie, or disbelieve a proven truth. That's why the argument is not about what people believe and accept or not, but only about the veracity of the Book itself, which is a physical object that can be tried as unerring or not.

It does not logically follow that an unfalsifiable claim will qualify as true as a consequence of our inability to imagine what evidence would be needed to disprove it.

Disagree. Inerrancy by definition proves something certainly does at least qualify as being true, and therefore can be reasonably accepted as true. The absence of verifiable error and flaw qualifies as possibly true. It just doesn't mean anyone must accept it. However, it does mean no one can sensibly judge it must be rejected.

The challenge of Bible inerrancy is not to prove anyone must believe it, but only to prove anyone saying it can't be true, is an unreasonably blind disbeliever. Bible flawlessness factually makes it believable. The physical Book itself, is proof that anyone can intelligently believe it, and that the Author is who He says He is, the Creator of heaven and earth, the LORD God Almighty.

To illustrate this point, consider the unfalsifiable claim that a fire-breathing dragon was responsible for the strange sounds I heard emanating from my garage this morning.

Yes, the logical conclusion holds for anything, that can't be proven untrue. And the choice to accept it or not, also remains. Personally, I don't believe in fae-folk and leprechauns, but that doesn't mean no one can. would I tell any Irish believers, especially not in Ireland, that they are irrationally believing in lies.

As a believer that the Bible is true, then if it does not contradict something, it's the same as no evidence against it. Fae-folk, ET's, etc...possibly could be true. I just don't believe such things unless I see them, or verifiable evidence that cannot be reasonably denied. The Bible is the verifiable evidence, that the Lord God Almighty can be true.

Obviously, the claim about an invisible fire-breathing dragon is not directly analogous to your claim about the Christian god,

Which is of course irrelevant to the Bible. Once again, this is not about proving anyone must believe anything, but only about the grammatical evidence being flawlessly unerring against any evidence to the contrary. That's where factual evidence demands qualifies something as being acceptable.

So, do you have any claims of error in the Bible internally or externally? If you show the Bible saying 2 + 2 = 4 & 3, or A=B, but B not =A, then it's so obviously wrong, that any honest person must accept it. A proven error of contradiction does not allow for any reasonable alternative.

However, that also means that any reasonable alternative disallows the claim of contradiction.

[POI]

I've amended the challenge: God isn't proven by Bible inerrancy, but only proven to be reasonably possible. So long as inerrancy remains, then anyone can reasonably believe the Author is who He says He is, the Creator and the Lord God Almighty, or anyone can still choose not to believe it.

Well, then I guess this topic is still settled regardless. The Exodus did not happen. Try a differing book of ancient beliefs maybe? For continued reference, you can address this thread for details -- (viewtopic.php?p=1172241#p1172241)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #308]

He doesn't forbid swearing by the name of the Lord, but only by other things like heaven, earth...

He forbids swearing at all (μή ὅλως), approving only of Yes and No.


Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

Only to people that don't trust their word, and so try to impress with more words than necessary. And so, they argue against a man's word is his bond.

There is no record in the Bible of swearing by heaven, earth, etc... that is approved.

Is there any record in the Tanakh [the only Bible around in Jesus's day] of such swearing being disapproved?

Yes, by Jesus. Such overswearing only leads unstable people into foreswearing themselves...

Hos 10:4 They have spoken words, swearing falsely in making a covenant: thus judgment springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

Ecc 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

Abraham swore by God without saying God.

He could have sworn by Jehovah's name and not violated the law, even though it would have been more than Yes or No.

But he could not be swearing an oath, by lawmakers who say the oath must be with more words, else it's not by law.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #312]

Do you think that all arguments for the Christian god would be unfalsifiable or are you just referring to the specific ones you talk about?

And, if only certain ones, what kind of argument, evidence, reasoning do you think would, in theory, convince you of Christian theism's truth?

I'm open to evaluating any claim you might have to determine if it is falsifiable or not. Just to clarify, though, a claim disprovable by evidence that we cannot or could not reasonably obtain does not qualify as falsifiable. For instance, if someone were to argue that Christian theism would be disproved by finding the bones of Jesus, the likely decomposition of such remains would make this disconfirming evidence virtually impossible to acquire and identify.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #314]

Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

Only to people that don't trust their word, and so try to impress with more words than necessary. And so, they argue against a man's word is his bond.

"And he swore by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are therein, and the earth and the things that are therein, and the sea and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer"
(Revelation 10:6)

Is the angel swearing this----John's fellow servant----only trying to impress with more words than necessary?


Is there any record in the Tanakh [the only Bible around in Jesus's day] of such swearing being disapproved?

Yes, by Jesus.

Citing Jesus's disapproval is a circular argument since you want him to be right.

Hos 10:4 They have spoken words, swearing falsely in making a covenant: thus judgment springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.

Swearing falsely is what's addressed in Numbers 30:2. Its command is to do whatever you swear to do.

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

Ecc 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

If these are blanket statements, then they indict Jesus himself for his lengthy sermons.


He could have sworn by Jehovah's name and not violated the law, even though it would have been more than Yes or No.

But he could not be swearing an oath, by lawmakers who say the oath must be with more words, else it's not by law.

You're strawmanning again. It's not about an oath being required----it's about an oath being permitted.

[bluegreenearth]

I like new terms to fit context. Do you mean that someone can try and make the Bible unfalsifiable, or 'protected' against proven error? Rather than simply allowing the Book to stand on it's own?

No, I mean that a claim can be inherently unfalsifiable whether the book containing it is allowed to "stand on its own" or not. For instance, if a collection of manuscripts written by various authors in different places at different times are compiled into a single inerrant book for the purpose of defending the claim that an undetectable fire-breathing dragon exists, then the unfalsifiability of the featured claim is not resolved by allowing the text to stand on its own. Furthermore, nothing about inerrancy makes the central unfalsifiable claim of the book more justifiably believed. Because the claim about an undetectable fire-breathing dragon is inherently unfalsifiable, intellectual honesty compels a lack of belief (i.e., agnosticism) at best.

Disagree. Inerrancy by definition proves something certainly does at least qualify as being true, and therefore can be reasonably accepted as true. The absence of verifiable error and flaw qualifies as possibly true.

Inerrancy, by definition, only proves that a text is not internally inconsistent. Internal consistency does not reasonably justify the acceptance of an unfalsifiable claim contained within the text because no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to prove or disprove it as was previously demonstrated. In terms of being possibly true, this is a property of all unfalsifiable claims (e.g., It is possibly true that an undetectable fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage).

It just doesn't mean anyone must accept it. However, it does mean no one can sensibly judge it must be rejected.

Yes, this is the inherent problem with postulating unfalsifiable claims as explanations for anything.

Bible flawlessness factually makes it believable. The physical Book itself, is proof that anyone can intelligently believe it, and that the Author is who He says He is, the Creator of heaven and earth, the LORD God Almighty.

"Flawlessness" would only prove the text is not internally inconsistent. It would not provide a justification to believe the unfalsifiable claim(s) contained within it.

The Bible is the verifiable evidence, that the Lord God Almighty can be true.

Evidence (verifiable or otherwise) does not secure the possibility of an unfalsifiable claim being true. The fact that no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to disprove an unfalsifiable claim is what secures its possibility of being true, even while it also retains the possibility of being false. So, any logically possible unfalsifiable claim contained within the Bible "can be true" but never be proven or reasonably accepted as true because it is impossible to ever determine if it false. In other words, it is not helpful to declare the Bible to be the verifiable evidence that "the Lord God Almighty can be true" when the central unfalsifiable claim retains the possibility of being false and with no way to ever determine if this is the case or not.

Once again, this is not about proving anyone must believe anything, but only about the grammatical evidence being flawlessly unerring against any evidence to the contrary. That's where factual evidence demands qualifies something as being acceptable.

When it comes to the unfalsifiability of the Bible's central claim, the concept of "evidence to the contrary" does not apply. If evidence to the contrary were to apply, the claim would be falsifiable.

[The Tanager]

I'm open to evaluating any claim you might have to determine if it is falsifiable or not. Just to clarify, though, a claim disprovable by evidence that we cannot or could not reasonably obtain does not qualify as falsifiable. For instance, if someone were to argue that Christian theism would be disproved by finding the bones of Jesus, the likely decomposition of such remains would make this disconfirming evidence virtually impossible to acquire and identify.

What level of being ‘disproven’ do you have in mind, 100% disproven or something less, like we have with inferences to the best explanation that we use in science, history, philosophy, etc.? I don’t think you would have to produce the bones of Jesus to falsify the case for the historicity of the resurrection in this less than 100% standard.

[bluegreenearth]

What level of being ‘disproven’ do you have in mind, 100% disproven or something less, like we have with inferences to the best explanation that we use in science, history, philosophy, etc.? I don’t think you would have to produce the bones of Jesus to falsify the case for the historicity of the resurrection in this less than 100% standard.

In science, when a falsifiable hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false, it is 100% disproven. This is because all scientific hypotheses must be 100% disprovable or they could never be properly tested to determine if they are false. Science functions by ruling-out competing falsifiable hypotheses through a process of demonstrating when they are 100% false to leave the one that survives as the most reasonable inference to the best explanation. If a hypothesis were to be 90% falsifiable (whatever than means), then there would remain a 10% chance of it being true with no way to ever rule it out as a possibility. Accordingly, an inference to the best explanation that is 90% falsifiable and a competing inference to the best explanation that is 70% falsifiable are both equally 100% unfalsifiable and can never be ruled-out as possibilities. Therefore, it is meaningless to compare them against each other because the one that only has a 10% chance of being true could still be the correct explanation while the one that has a 30% chance of being true could still be the false explanation, and neither can ever be ruled-out.

[The Tanager]

In science, when a falsifiable hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false, it is 100% disproven. This is because all scientific hypotheses must be 100% disprovable or they could never be properly tested to determine if they are false. Science functions by ruling-out competing falsifiable hypotheses through a process of demonstrating when they are 100% false to leave the one that survives as the most reasonable inference to the best explanation. If a hypothesis were to be 90% falsifiable (whatever than means), then there would remain a 10% chance of it being true with no way to ever rule it out as a possibility. Accordingly, an inference to the best explanation that is 90% falsifiable and a competing inference to the best explanation that is 70% falsifiable are both equally 100% unfalsifiable and can never be ruled-out as possibilities. Therefore, it is meaningless to compare them against each other because the one that only has a 10% chance of being true could still be the correct explanation while the one that has a 30% chance of being true could still be the false explanation, and neither can ever be ruled-out.

It's only meaningless to compare them if our standard is 100% certainty, but why should that be our standard? I agree some things can be ruled out 100%, but that's not really much once we get into the weeds. In most things we aren't left with only one possible option. Even in science, our scientific conclusions aren't 100% because they rely on philosophical commitments which have room, if even a slight amount, for uncertainty.