How is the Bible the Word of God?

[leibowde84]

The bible cannot be the word of God. There isn't enough science in the Bible to pass a grade 6 science test.

Why does that matter? Science didn't exist when the Bible was written.

 

[viole]

1. Everything must have an explanation of it's self either within it's self of external to it's self.
2. All things that begin to exist have causes.
3. Natural entities no matter what size do not contain the explanation for themselves within themselves.
4. There are no infinite causal regression chains possible.
5. Things that do not begin to exist contain their own explanations and do not require a cause.

Conclusions:
A. Nature has no ultimate natural explanation or cause.
B. I run out of nature yet still require a cause that resulted in all other effects.
C. Natures ultimate explanation and cause is non-natural.

Lol, this is going to be a long thread.

Before we check the general validity of the premises, let's check if the conclusions follow. I don't think they do.

The argument involves natural things and you draw conclusions concerning Nature aa a whole. I think this is a cathegory/composition error.

The set of all natural things, no matter their size (whatever that means), does not necessarily inherit the properties of the objects it contains. You are reificating a set of things assigning arbitrarily the properties of the contained to the properties of the container.

It is like saying that the set of all red things is redness and the property of being red applies to this container. Ergo, redness is also red, which is an obvious non-sequitur.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Lol, this is going to be a long thread.

Before we check the general validity of the premises, let's check if the conclusions follow. I don't think they do.

The argument involves natural things and you draw conclusions concerning Nature aa a whole. I think this is a cathegory/composition error.

Not exactly. I will leave it up to you to form categories of any size, from a molecule to the entire universe. No matter how you slice nature up whatever you have lacks a sufficient explanation of it's self. IOW a car does not contain it's ultimate explanation or cause, nor does a person, a planet, an atom, nothing does. All natural categories have external explanations and ultimate causal originations.

The set of all natural things, no matter their size (whatever that means), does not necessarily inherit the properties of the objects it contains. You are reificating a set of things assigning arbitrarily the properties of the contained to the properties of the container.

I did not make that assumption.

It is like saying that the set of all red things is redness and the property of being red applies to this container. Ergo, redness is also red, which is an obvious non-sequitur.

Why do you think anything I said points to this. The nature of what is in the category is not relevant to me. Whether colors, a planet, natural laws, sounds, a galaxy, etc........ makes no difference. As long as what we are categorizing is natural is does not contain it's own explanation or ultimate cause. Can you find a category of nature of any size or type that alone explains it's self fully or contains it's entire causal chain?

 

[viole]

Not exactly. I will leave it up to you to form categories of any size, from a molecule to the entire universe. No matter how you slice nature up whatever you have lacks a sufficient explanation of it's self. IOW a car does not contain it's ultimate explanation or cause, nor does a person, a planet, an atom, nothing does. All natural categories have external explanations and ultimate causal originations.

I did not make that assumption.

Why do you think anything I said points to this. The nature of what is in the category is not relevant to me. Whether colors, a planet, natural laws, sounds, a galaxy, etc........ makes no difference. As long as what we are categorizing is natural is does not contain it's own explanation or ultimate cause. Can you find a category of nature of any size or type that alone explains it's self fully or contains it's entire causal chain?

Well, that is exactly the crux of the problem. When you are talking of causal relationships you are referring to things that happen INSIDE the Universe. This is all you can observe and draw conclusions from it.

So, to answer your question: I cannot say whether the universe has a cause or not because all I can see are the things contained in it. By definition. And I can make sense of causality only for them; at least as long the Universe is in certain thermodynamical state. Any extension to the container of all things is rationally unjustified.

When I observe a chain of events leading to an outcome, I am not sure it makes sense to ask: what caused this chain of events? I am not talking of the initiator of the chain, but what causes chains of causality to take place at all. Are they laws within the Universe or is there a metaphysical uncaused origin of causality?

So, my question to you: can you rationally support your position that the Universe as a whole is the product of a cause when all you can see are the objects it contains?

Maybe, the time is ripe for you to precisely define what you mean with causality. As long as the term is not clearly defined, the whole argument is useless.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well, that is exactly the crux of the problem. When you are talking of causal relationships you are referring to things that happen INSIDE the Universe. This is all you can observe and draw conclusions from it.

So, to answer your question: I cannot say whether the universe has a cause or not because all I can see are the things contained in it. By definition. And I can make sense of causality only for them; at least as long the Universe is in certain thermodynamical state.

When I observe a chain of events leading to an outcome, I am not sure it makes sense to ask: what caused this chain of events? I am not talking of the initiator of the chain, but what causes chains of causality to take place at all.

So, my question to you: can you rationally support your position that the Universe as a whole is the product of a cause when all you can see are the objects it contains?

Maybe it is time you provide a clear cut definition of what you mean with causality.

Ciao

- viole

Useless duplicate.

 

[leibowde84]

Not exactly. I will leave it up to you to form categories of any size, from a molecule to the entire universe. No matter how you slice nature up whatever you have lacks a sufficient explanation of it's self. IOW a car does not contain it's ultimate explanation or cause, nor does a person, a planet, an atom, nothing does. All natural categories have external explanations and ultimate causal originations.

I did not make that assumption.

Why do you think anything I said points to this. The nature of what is in the category is not relevant to me. Whether colors, a planet, natural laws, sounds, a galaxy, etc........ makes no difference. As long as what we are categorizing is natural is does not contain it's own explanation or ultimate cause. Can you find a category of nature of any size or type that alone explains it's self fully or contains it's entire causal chain?

That is just our current understanding, which has changed quite a bit and surely will in the future.

 

[Nada]

There is knowledge in the holy scriptures that man could not have come up with in his own.

 

[leibowde84]

There is knowledge in the holy scriptures that man could not have come up with in his own.

Like what specifically? And why would it be impossible for us to learn it?

 

[morphesium]

Okay. I think I put this in the right forum. It has to do with religion.

Anyway, I was thinking. When I think of the "Word of God" I think of Jesus' message to His believers and those He said His Father sent Him to save. His message--the words--are the Bible. Since Jesus is said to be God, it is God's words as well.

However, when I think of God I do not think of His message written in a book. God (or so have you) speaks to us through our heart, minds, and souls. The Bible (and any other Abrahamic scripture: Quran and so forth) is more the message written through the hearts of the people who believed in Him. It is "their words; their testimonies" not God's.

Of course, there is opposition with this statement. I do not think of God as a person, so Him having a full conversation written or spoken with me and anyone else in our native tongue is foreign to me.

"God" has no language. He has no tongue. He is the spirit or mystic law imprinted in our hearts that motivates us to fulfill our calling and purpose in life. We are born through the Spirit, live by it, and die by it to live the next stage of life in a continuous cycle.

Who can ever limit "God" by language alone.

I agree with you. i believe that our moral - the sense of being/doing right is the god sent message. we are born with it - inherited by birth. All other religious knowledge came through an external source. They all need some form of holy text and constant preaching for its survival. we have lots of religions that have died out along with their gods.

But this wont happen to our moral - it will exist as long as humanity exists. I only hope more people understand this - follow our hearts and will be the much closer to god than we can get through religion.

 

[morphesium]

There is knowledge in the holy scriptures that man could not have come up with in his own.

which one in the holy scriptures - geocentric theory , sentences that oppose evolution theory, .......

 

[Nada]

Like what specifically? And why would it be impossible for us to learn it?

Oh it is not impossible for you or anyone to learn it.But there are things that need to happen though.The holy scriptures says that it is a gift.So by that we know that grace is a gift from God, so it has to be given to us.It is not something that we can do on our own.If we pray to God and ask Him for a better understanding so that we can have an accurate knowledge of the truth,He will respond.If we earnestly seek Him He will make Himself known by allowing the holy spirit to guide you and help you come to understand and see the light.

Have you ever heard the song Amazing Grace? I'm sure you have.It says,"I once was lost but now I'm found." That's how it is when we are lost.We know nothing about God.We are all in the world just living according to what ever lifestyle is happening at the time.Once God allows us to take in knowledge about Him then thats when the door opens.If you continue to search with all your heart and pray it only gets better.Once you have enough knowledge and God has let you see you can then make a choice whether or not you want to serve Him.Those with hardened hearts will sometimes take longer due to a lack of faith.Some will never have the privilege.

The knowledge of God is not something that is learned in schools or universities.It is a gift from God.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

And as for like what specifically you ask,well there is one in particular that will make you scratch your head.The very first sentence of the holy scriptures.
Genesis 1:1. It says,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." At first glance you might say ok,and? But,if we really dig beneath the surface and get down to what is being said you will find something very interesting.

In the beginning=Time.
God created the heavens=Space.
and the earth=Matter.

So we end up with Time,Space and Matter.This is how scientist today believe the universe was created.In this order.If you think about it, it is like the scientist describe, the big bang.The universe just went Boom! and began to grow.Something came from nothing.Imagine how it was when there was nothing in existence and God began to create.

Genesis was written thousands of years ago before anyone even knew about things like this.Yet we have a description of creation in the very first sentence.Time Space and Matter are being described here.The creation of our universe as we know it.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh it is not impossible for you or anyone to learn it.But there are things that need to happen though.The holy scriptures says that it is a gift.So by that we know that grace is a gift from God, so it has to be given to us.It is not something that we can do on our own.If we pray to God and ask Him for a better understanding so that we can have an accurate knowledge of the truth,He will respond.If we earnestly seek Him He will make Himself known by allowing the holy spirit to guide you and help you come to understand and see the light.

Have you ever heard the song Amazing Grace? I'm sure you have.It says,"I once was lost but now I'm found." That's how it is when we are lost.We know nothing about God.We are all in the world just living according to what ever lifestyle is happening at the time.Once God allows us to take in knowledge about Him then thats when the door opens.If you continue to search with all your heart and pray it only gets better.Once you have enough knowledge and God has let you see you can then make a choice whether or not you want to serve Him.Those with hardened hearts will sometimes take longer due to a lack of faith.Some will never have the privilege.

The knowledge of God is not something that is learned in schools or universities.It is a gift from God.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

And as for like what specifically you ask,well there is one in particular that will make you scratch your head.The very first sentence of the holy scriptures.
Genesis 1:1. It says,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." At first glance you might say ok,and? But,if we really dig beneath the surface and get down to what is being said you will find something very interesting.

In the beginning=Time.
God created the heavens=Space.
and the earth=Matter.

So we end up with Time,Space and Matter.This is how scientist today believe the universe was created.In this order.If you think about it, it is like the scientist describe, the big bang.The universe just went Boom! and began to grow.Something came from nothing.Imagine how it was when there was nothing in existence and God began to create.

Genesis was written thousands of years ago before anyone even knew about things like this.Yet we have a description of creation in the very first sentence.Time Space and Matter are being described here.The creation of our universe as we know it.

So, you are saying that the Bible contains things that cannot be learned without God and supporting this by pretty much saying that "the Bible says so?" That is circular logic.

 

[Nada]

So, you are saying that the Bible contains things that cannot be learned without God and supporting this by pretty much saying that "the Bible says so?" That is circular logic.

You understand what I said just fine.Your interpretation of what I said is not in sink with what you know as truth so it does not compute.I totally understand....

 

[leibowde84]

You understand what I said just fine.Your interpretation of what I said is not in sink with what you know as truth so it does not compute.I totally understand....

I do understand what you said. You basically said, the Bible says that Grace can only come from God. Our proof for this is that the Bible says it. You are trying to prove that something stated in the Bible is true by assuming that the Bible is accurate. That is the logical falicy of circular logic. I understand what you are saying, it just isn't valid in any real way. An explanation of this sort doesn't get us anywhere.

Can you explain, without using Bible passages, why you feel so strongly that Grace cannot be attained without God?

 

[Nada]

I do understand what you said. You basically said, the Bible says that Grace can only come from God. Our proof for this is that the Bible says it. You are trying to prove that something stated in the Bible is true by assuming that the Bible is accurate. That is the logical falicy of circular logic. I understand what you are saying, it just isn't valid in any real way. An explanation of this sort doesn't get us anywhere.

Can you explain, without using Bible passages, why you feel so strongly that Grace cannot be attained without God?

If I need to put something together I must first read the instruction manual.That is what the holy scriptures is.An instruction manual for better living and knowledge to help us understand how God thinks and what His message is.There is so much valuable knowledge in the holy scriptures but when you approach it thinking you already know everything,you will never learn anything.We must humble ourselves and admit we know nothing at all about it.Arrogant ones who say they have degrees and know everything think they know all but they do not.Only God can tell you what is really in your heart and when you read the holy scriptures you will slowly come to realize this.

Have you ever read Romans 7?

 

[1robin]

Well, that is exactly the crux of the problem. When you are talking of causal relationships you are referring to things that happen INSIDE the Universe. This is all you can observe and draw conclusions from it.

Oh I see the argument from we cannot be certain so we know nothing what so ever argument is still in style. I actually can do much more than that. I can select a category in nature and then actually find that it does have a causal explanation outside it's category. Now your saying that that principle despite never having an exception to it known in the history of man cannot justify reasonable belief that it even occurs when I cannot verify it. Let me ask you this, in all the hundreds of hours of debate I have seen the books I have read, even transcripts I have reviewed (yes I am that obsessed) I do not recall a non-this using this type of defense before. The question is has any major figure used this argument in a formal defense as you have here? Can you link me to it? Drawing conclusions from what can be seen and if reason allows extrapolating to what cannot be seen is science.

So, to answer your question: I cannot say whether the universe has a cause or not because all I can see are the things contained in it. By definition. And I can make sense of causality only for them; at least as long the Universe is in certain thermodynamical state. Any extension to the container of all things is rationally unjustified.

I think we have been here before. You will not in this case allow what has no exception to comment on events that cannot be see. That is technically valid but I consider a weak response. If we did this in science we would still be in the stone age. Science assumes lawfulness and rationality.

When I observe a chain of events leading to an outcome, I am not sure it makes sense to ask: what caused this chain of events? I am not talking of the initiator of the chain, but what causes chains of causality to take place at all. Are they laws within the Universe or is there a metaphysical uncaused origin of causality?

It depends on what the question is. Any ultimate answer would justify the line of reasoning, temporal questions like how did this coffee get made, or why is my tire flat would not. I would say the question what caused the chain of events is far more reasonable that what causes "cause and effect" to be true. Many things are simply brute facts any the explanation is not needed to grant them their ontological nature. Of course curiosity would want both answers but I think you have the hierarchy backwards of what is more important.

So, my question to you: can you rationally support your position that the Universe as a whole is the product of a cause when all you can see are the objects it contains?

The last part of the question threw me off. I don't understand why you clarified the question by adding when al objects can be seen. Makes me doubt I understand the question.

Maybe, the time is ripe for you to precisely define what you mean with causality. As long as the term is not clearly defined, the whole argument is useless.

I disagree, I do not have to know or be able to explain how every genetic or biological process in a bear works to know they exist, I get burned by the sun whether I can describe the process or not, I don't even know how 1% of my own processes work yet I know I am. I can dig up some boring philosophical dissertation what is meant by a cause but I think it would only add a mountain of semantic technicalities to something we both agree exists. This does not really apply to you but there is a famous saying that to give truth to one who loves it not only increases opportunity for contention. I will give a definition if you really want but since causes come in every conceivable type it will be a very long definition.[/quote]

 

[leibowde84]

If I need to put something together I must first read the instruction manual.That is what the holy scriptures is.An instruction manual for better living and knowledge to help us understand how God thinks and what His message is.There is so much valuable knowledge in the holy scriptures but when you approach it thinking you already know everything,you will never learn anything.We must humble ourselves and admit we know nothing at all about it.Arrogant ones who say they have degrees and know everything think they know all but they do not.Only God can tell you what is really in your heart and when you read the holy scriptures you will slowly come to realize this.

Have you ever read Romans 7?

I have read the entire Bible many times. I have studied the historicity, textual accuracy, and outside texts to see what criticisms are founded and which are not. I have never and would never claim to know everything, and you actually stated my point. You are right, we know practically nothing about the accuracy of the Bible, as it is all heresay, written by men who did not witness the events they wrote about. That is not to say that it isn't true or valuable, just that it is not a valid source of validity for itself, just as nothing is.

Romans 7, for example, was a letter written by St. Paul, who, admittedly, never met Jesus. He merely claimed to have "seen him in a vision." This is a perfect example of why I do not take him as overly validated.

You claim that you admit to knowing nothing, but that is contradictory to your belief that the Bible is the word of God and authoritiative in its entirety. My view, after studying the subject extensively, is that it is foolish to take any account from this long ago as 100% accurate. It is important to not just blindly follow what the Bible says, but, instead, to use the reason that God gave us to read between the lines and realize how it should be taken today.

What makes you think that I am under the assumption that I "know everything?" I've never stated that, I have only questioned your evidence in support of the Bible being accurate.

 

[leibowde84]

If I need to put something together I must first read the instruction manual.That is what the holy scriptures is.An instruction manual for better living and knowledge to help us understand how God thinks and what His message is.There is so much valuable knowledge in the holy scriptures but when you approach it thinking you already know everything,you will never learn anything.We must humble ourselves and admit we know nothing at all about it.Arrogant ones who say they have degrees and know everything think they know all but they do not.Only God can tell you what is really in your heart and when you read the holy scriptures you will slowly come to realize this.

Have you ever read Romans 7?

Basically, I am asking you this: Apart from the Bible saying that it is valid, why do you feel that the Bible is a completely accurate portrayal of God's word? I am fine with you saying that it is a belief based on faith, as this is exactly how I feel. But, you claim it as a fact, so I would like to understand why you feel this way. And, obviously, quoting passages from the book in question would not provide any proof for its varacity. If a book says that it is true and that only it can provide the knowledge it contains, does that in any way support that this statement is true?

 

[leibowde84]

Oh I see the argument from we cannot be certain so we know nothing what so ever argument is still in style. I actually can do much more than that. I can select a category in nature and then actually find that it does have a causal explanation outside it's category. Now your saying that that principle despite never having an exception to it known in the history of man cannot justify reasonable belief that it even occurs when I cannot verify it. Let me ask you this, in all the hundreds of hours of debate I have seen the books I have read, even transcripts I have reviewed (yes I am that obsessed) I do not recall a non-this using this type of defense before. The question is has any major figure used this argument in a formal defense as you have here? Can you link me to it? Drawing conclusions from what can be seen and if reason allows extrapolating to what cannot be seen is science.

I think we have been here before. You will not in this case allow what has no exception to comment on events that cannot be see. That is technically valid but I consider a weak response. If we did this in science we would still be in the stone age. Science assumes lawfulness and rationality.

It depends on what the question is. Any ultimate answer would justify the line of reasoning, temporal questions like how did this coffee get made, or why is my tire flat would not. I would say the question what caused the chain of events is far more reasonable that what causes "cause and effect" to be true. Many things are simply brute facts any the explanation is not needed to grant them their ontological nature. Of course curiosity would want both answers but I think you have the hierarchy backwards of what is more important.

The last part of the question threw me off. I don't understand why you clarified the question by adding when al objects can be seen. Makes me doubt I understand the question.

I disagree, I do not have to know or be able to explain how every genetic or biological process in a bear works to know they exist, I get burned by the sun whether I can describe the process or not, I don't even know how 1% of my own processes work yet I know I am. I can dig up some boring philosophical dissertation what is meant by a cause but I think it would only add a mountain of semantic technicalities to something we both agree exists. This does not really apply to you but there is a famous saying that to give truth to one who loves it not only increases opportunity for contention. I will give a definition if you really want but since causes come in every conceivable type it will be a very long definition.

[/QUOTE]
Why does it matter if someone else has used an argument before? Is an argument less valid if it is new? Is an argument more valid if it is popular? I cannot get my mind around the answer to any of these being yes.

 

[Nada]

Basically, I am asking you this: Apart from the Bible saying that it is valid, why do you feel that the Bible is a completely accurate portrayal of God's word? I am fine with you saying that it is a belief based on faith, as this is exactly how I feel. But, you claim it as a fact, so I would like to understand why you feel this way. And, obviously, quoting passages from the book in question would not provide any proof for its varacity. If a book says that it is true and that only it can provide the knowledge it contains, does that in any way support that this statement is true?

I know it is fact because I have faith.I never gave it a chance before in my earlier years.I would think I knew but I really did not.I came to a point not to long ago that I was searching everywhere else but the holy scriptures.I ended up back where I started.I used to be into Ancient Aliens,astrology, and study other religions etc.. When I finally stopped being stubborn and actually found the courage to pray,A door opened up and I began to start learning the very basics.I then started to advance in my studies.Next thin I knew ,I was running with it and the knowledge was pouring in.It seemed anytime I needed to know something it began to just pour out.I took in an accurate knowledge of the truth in the holy scriptures.I have learned more in this last past year than in all my entire life.

The only way I can describe it is like being one of the only sober guys in a room full of drunks.It is that obvious when you know the truth.