How is the Bible the Word of God?

[leibowde84]

I see it is technicality day. Technically there is only theory, nothing is known. Let's establish what I mean since this discussion is between you and I when I say theoretical. I mean conclusions or models that the evidence does not make probable. The evidence does make this universes being finite very probable. The evidence does not make multi-verses very probable because there is virtually no evidence. I believe the evidence makes evolution highly probable, but I think the conclusions that naturalism explain genetic reality alone to be theoretical. Though I would come closer to believing we have evidence that does justify evolution being responsible for all genetic change than I do the evidence suggesting that there is anything before the bib bang or beyond this universe. The only merit those ides have is they are not yet proven impossible to a certainty. Does that at least clear up the distinction made by MY use of the word theoretical?

"The only merit those ideas have is they are not yet proven impossible to a certainty."

Couldn't the same be said about the existence of the supernatural, as our inability to disprove completely or provide an alternative natural explanation for certain things is claimed to provide some kind of evidence in favor of it?

 

[1robin]

I didn't see it. Can you repost it for me?

Actually I didn't respond to them until after you asked. It is post 159.

 

[1robin]

"The only merit those ideas have is they are not yet proven impossible to a certainty."

Couldn't the same be said about the existence of the supernatural, as our inability to disprove completely or provide an alternative natural explanation for certain things is claimed to provide some kind of evidence in favor of it?

No, the supernatural has mountains of positive evidence. The inability to disprove faith has no relevance to why I believe in God. I believe in it because unlike multiverses or pre-singularity events it has unending amounts of evidence for it. Plus I experienced the spiritual verification of at least the general template and a few specifics of the Christian faith.

 

[metis]

No, the supernatural has mountains of positive evidence. The inability to disprove faith has no relevance to why I believe in God. I believe in it because unlike multiverses or pre-singularity events it has unending amounts of evidence for it. Plus I experienced the spiritual verification of at least the general template and a few specifics of the Christian faith.

You believe there's evidence there only because that's where your belief is coming from. Probably even a majority of Christian theologians would tell you that faith is not based on empirical evidence but on things that "unseen".

 

[1robin]

You believe there's evidence there only because that's where your belief is coming from. Probably even a majority of Christian theologians would tell you that faith is not based on empirical evidence but on things that "unseen".

I strongly disagree. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. So our path to saving faith is based on academic faith in the bible. Academic faith in the bible has more conformational evidence than I could post in a lifetime in all manner of categories. But for the Christian there is something additional that is virtually unique from any other faith.

Most major faiths all begin the same way. We approach our texts. We must establish textual integrity throughout it's transmission history, internal consistency, philosophic validity, historical accuracy, translational integrity, moral excellence, and so on........... But only the Christian is guaranteed that everyone who comes to faith will experience God in a born again experience that validates that faith. We are not merely left with intellectual consent to a theological proposition but left with absolute, but subjective proof.

Let me explain in very brief words how that worked for me and I have studied enough to know my story is fairly typical. I spent my childhood in church mostly looking at girls or itching to leave. I was baptized but knew nothing of God. When my mother got cancer I thought God would heal her (she was the only truly born again Christian in our family). But the sicker she got the more I lost any superficial faith in God I had and the more I hated him. When she died I believed God did not exist or if he did I hated him. So I led an atheist's life for a decade or so. That caused me so many problems that I lost faith in myself or anything else. At that moment God set in on me, he put some true Christians in my life and I started to see God working in their lives. Several years went by and I met a former drug dealer who was born again and now a bible student. Watching him I saw God in his life. I finally set out to either disprove or confirm the bible once and for all. I actually expected to disprove it because I did not want God to exist. However I found what I read to be accurate and to describe reality and account for it so well I could not deny it. I got maybe 90% of the way to God by intellectual efforts studying the bible. However one day that changed, what I read was supernaturally revealed to be factual to my mind. A few days of this I gave it up and asked Christ to save me. God supernatural got me through that last 10% (which in reality is an infinite gap) and I was literally born again and experienced God. It is hard to put the experience into human language and I will spare you the attempt, suffice it to say it was of such a character as to serve as absolute proof to me. I can't use it in a debate but that is actually the foundation of my faith, it is not in the arguments I make. I make those arguments because that is the only common ground we have but my faith has a different source, the arguments just add to a certainty I gained from God himself. I have had several such supernatural experiences since and even a few miracles. So my faith is pretty much bulletproof. So do no think I lack certainty personally just because my arguments do not lead to an absolute certainty.

Sorry for the length of this, I got going and was too lazy to stop.

 

[viole]

I see it is technicality day. Technically there is only theory, nothing is known. Let's establish what I mean since this discussion is between you and I when I say theoretical. I mean conclusions or models that the evidence does not make probable. The evidence does make this universes being finite very probable. The evidence does not make multi-verses very probable because there is virtually no evidence. I believe the evidence makes evolution highly probable, but I think the conclusions that naturalism explain genetic reality alone to be theoretical. Though I would come closer to believing we have evidence that does justify evolution being responsible for all genetic change than I do the evidence suggesting that there is anything before the bib bang or beyond this universe. The only merit those ides have is they are not yet proven impossible to a certainty. Does that at least clear up the distinction made by MY use of the word theoretical?

Ok, But if there are not yet proven impossible, then the existence of infinities is possible. So, you should at least concede that your rebuttal of infinities is merely empirical, not a logical nor nomological impossibility.

So, let's get back to you "annihilation" of determinism. If I understood you correctly, you claim that causal chains do not have intent (or desires, intentionl agency, etc) and therefore they cannot produce things with intent.

I think that is not an argument that has logical warrant. It would, if the following proposition:

P = if a causal chain does not have property X, then it cannot generate things with property X, for all X.

Was true. Otherwise, plugging in X = "have intent" and saying that it is true for this particular X, and not necessarily for other Xs, would be unwarranted special pleading.

But if P was true, then i could use the same logical support to prove that electrons are eternal:

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) no causal chain has the property of being electrically charged
3) electrons are electrically charged
4) electrons cannot be the result of a causal chain (because of 2, 3 and P)
5) electrons cannot have begun to exist (because of 4 and 1)
6) electrons exist
7) electrons are eternal (because of 5)

So, what premise would you like to attack?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gzusfrk]

Heaven and earth will pass away but my Words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33.

 

[viole]

Heaven and earth will pass away but my Words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33.

Of course they will. They actually already did.
Viole 9:168

Ciao

- viole

 

[catch22]

I strongly disagree. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. So our path to saving faith is based on academic faith in the bible. Academic faith in the bible has more conformational evidence than I could post in a lifetime in all manner of categories. But for the Christian there is something additional that is virtually unique from any other faith.

Most major faiths all begin the same way. We approach our texts. We must establish textual integrity throughout it's transmission history, internal consistency, philosophic validity, historical accuracy, translational integrity, moral excellence, and so on........... But only the Christian is guaranteed that everyone who comes to faith will experience God in a born again experience that validates that faith. We are not merely left with intellectual consent to a theological proposition but left with absolute, but subjective proof.

Let me explain in very brief words how that worked for me and I have studied enough to know my story is fairly typical. I spent my childhood in church mostly looking at girls or itching to leave. I was baptized but knew nothing of God. When my mother got cancer I thought God would heal her (she was the only truly born again Christian in our family). But the sicker she got the more I lost any superficial faith in God I had and the more I hated him. When she died I believed God did not exist or if he did I hated him. So I led an atheist's life for a decade or so. That caused me so many problems that I lost faith in myself or anything else. At that moment God set in on me, he put some true Christians in my life and I started to see God working in their lives. Several years went by and I met a former drug dealer who was born again and now a bible student. Watching him I saw God in his life. I finally set out to either disprove or confirm the bible once and for all. I actually expected to disprove it because I did not want God to exist. However I found what I read to be accurate and to describe reality and account for it so well I could not deny it. I got maybe 90% of the way to God by intellectual efforts studying the bible. However one day that changed, what I read was supernaturally revealed to be factual to my mind. A few days of this I gave it up and asked Christ to save me. God supernatural got me through that last 10% (which in reality is an infinite gap) and I was literally born again and experienced God. It is hard to put the experience into human language and I will spare you the attempt, suffice it to say it was of such a character as to serve as absolute proof to me. I can't use it in a debate but that is actually the foundation of my faith, it is not in the arguments I make. I make those arguments because that is the only common ground we have but my faith has a different source, the arguments just add to a certainty I gained from God himself. I have had several such supernatural experiences since and even a few miracles. So my faith is pretty much bulletproof. So do no think I lack certainty personally just because my arguments do not lead to an absolute certainty.

Sorry for the length of this, I got going and was too lazy to stop.

Thanks for sharing your testimony, I dig it. I also agree with your position, but I doubt that's surprising haha.

 

[leibowde84]

No, the supernatural has mountains of positive evidence. The inability to disprove faith has no relevance to why I believe in God. I believe in it because unlike multiverses or pre-singularity events it has unending amounts of evidence for it. Plus I experienced the spiritual verification of at least the general template and a few specifics of the Christian faith.

Can you provide some of this evidence that is not substantiated by some kind of major assumption (e.g. there was nothing before the Big Bang, the universe cannot be eternal, the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God's will/nature, etc.)?

 

[catch22]

Of course they will. They actually already did.
Viole 9:168

Ciao

- viole

What are you talking about?

 

[1robin]

Ok, But if there are not yet proven impossible, then the existence of infinities is possible. So, you should at least concede that your rebuttal of infinities is merely empirical, not a logical nor nomological impossibility.

I would, can, and have argued they are impossible in this one universe we know exists, and I believe they would be impossible in any possible world. I don't believe there is a possible world that can contain a natural infinite. However when the theoretical boys are playing around in fantasy land it is hard to get them to use inconvenient things like facts. I did not mean that anything natural being infinite was possible. Just that other universes and something existing prior to the BB was not proven impossible. Neither of those have inherent infinites unless they are tacked on by someone in which case I would say that scenario was impossible.

So, let's get back to you "annihilation" of determinism. If I understood you correctly, you claim that causal chains do not have intent (or desires, intentionl agency, etc) and therefore they cannot produce things with intent.

I have never said they could not. I have said if they did produce something with actual intent (intent having assumed free will), that at that point determinism alone does not explain reality. I am not saying that determinism can create a brain with intent but if it did then at that point free will entered the picture.

I think that is not an argument that has logical warrant. It would, if the following proposition:

P = if a causal chain does not have property X, then it cannot generate things with property X, for all X.

Was true. Otherwise, plugging in X = "have intent" and saying that it is true for this particular X, and not necessarily for other Xs, would be unwarranted special pleading.

But if P was true, then i could use the same logical support to prove that electrons are eternal:

This is so easy we do not need logical equations. If you having a different causal chain than I can answer my questions in a timely manner then determinism does not explain it. Determinism has no desire to answer my questions in a timely manner and so if you can do so you are freely intending to. No logical equations, no mathematics, no statistics, only common sense is required for this cake walk.

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause

Agreed

2) no causal chain has the property of being electrically charged

It does have the capacity to assemble things with electrical charge. Besides electrical charges existed in the singularity. They do not even need causal chains, they are brute facts.

3) electrons are electrically charged

Agreed

4) electrons cannot be the result of a causal chain (because of 2, 3 and P)

I disagree.

5) electrons cannot have begun to exist (because of 4 and 1)

Almost no one would agree.

6) electrons exist
7) electrons are eternal (because of 5)

Inaccurate premise = false conclusion.

The singularity contained electrically charged particles. The singularity is a complete mystery but it is not a mystery that is not in need of a cause and no significant evidence posits that anything natural predates it.

So, what premise would you like to attack?

2 and 4. Electrically charged particles go back as far as the universe does. There is no known pre-electrically charged particle period in natural history. At least if there is I have never heard anyone mention it.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for sharing your testimony, I dig it. I also agree with your position, but I doubt that's surprising haha.

Well it was a very abbreviated version but thanks. I am glad you concur. By concurring I take it your a born again Christian as well? I ask that for the reason I want to request something of you if you indeed are.

 

[1robin]

Can you provide some of this evidence that is not substantiated by some kind of major assumption (e.g. there was nothing before the Big Bang, the universe cannot be eternal, the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God's will/nature, etc.)?

Holy cow, you want me to post an argument for all of them. I think that is a little impractical. Pick one and we can start with it. Some of these take arguments that have quite a few steps. BTW why do you disagree with every single thing I say? They are all mainstream claims. Just by luck I ought to have said something you can agree with by now.

 

[leibowde84]

I would, can, and have argued they are impossible in this one universe we know exists, and I believe they would be impossible in any possible world. I don't believe there is a possible world that can contain a natural infinite. However when the theoretical boys are playing around in fantasy land it is hard to get them to use inconvenient things like facts. I did not mean that anything natural being infinite was possible. Just that other universes and something existing prior to the BB was not proven impossible. Neither of those have inherent infinites unless they are tacked on by someone in which case I would say that scenario was impossible.

I have never said they could not. I have said if they did produce something with actual intent (intent having assumed free will), that at that point determinism alone does not explain reality. I am not saying that determinism can create a brain with intent but if it did then at that point free will entered the picture.

This is so easy we do not need logical equations. If you having a different causal chain than I can answer my questions in a timely manner then determinism does not explain it. Determinism has no desire to answer my questions in a timely manner and so if you can do so you are freely intending to. No logical equations, no mathematics, no statistics, only common sense is required for this cake walk.

Agreed
It does have the capacity to assemble things with electrical charge. Besides electrical charges existed in the singularity. They do not even need causal chains, they are brute facts.
Agreed
I disagree.
Almost no one would agree.
Inaccurate premise = false conclusion.

The singularity contained electrically charged particles. The singularity is a complete mystery but it is not a mystery that is not in need of a cause and no significant evidence posits that anything natural predates it.

2 and 4. Electrically charged particles go back as far as the universe does. There is no known pre-electrically charged particle period in natural history. At least if there is I have never heard anyone mention it.

I haven't seen you prove anything. You have provided tons of quotes and opinions of sholars, but that doesn't work toward you proving your own point too much.

 

[catch22]

Well it was a very abbreviated version but thanks. I am glad you concur. By concurring I take it your a born again Christian as well? I ask that for the reason I want to request something of you if you indeed are.

I indeed am, what's up?

 

[1robin]

I indeed am, what's up?

There is another poster on here named Leibowde84. He/she is a very civil and intelligence person and claims to be a Christian. Normally I do not question claims to being a Christian but instead only argue for what Christ's definition of being a Christian is. The person in question believes the bible is inspired but rebels whenever I mention the being born again passages or concepts. I like the person, and so am trying to walk a fine line between helping and judging. I thought maybe a fellow born again persons perspective might be of value to them. They are posting in this thread. If you would not mind could you maybe give them the benefit of your born again experience in whatever format you think appropriate?

 

[1robin]

I haven't seen you prove anything. You have provided tons of quotes and opinions of sholars, but that doesn't work toward you proving your own point too much.

I asked you to pick one so I can start showing why what I said is true, are you not going to do so? BTW Another poster concurred with my statements about being born again. I asked them if they would give you the benefit of their experience in a post. I said you were an intelligent and civil debater and that I liked you, so thought maybe their opinion would help. I do not know if they will do so or not but am letting you know I asked them if they would.

Anyway do not suggest I can't prove or demonstrate a thing until you pick a thing for me to try to prove or show. You going to pick one or not?

 

[metis]

I strongly disagree. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. So our path to saving faith is based on academic faith in the bible. Academic faith in the bible has more conformational evidence than I could post in a lifetime in all manner of categories. But for the Christian there is something additional that is virtually unique from any other faith.

Most major faiths all begin the same way. We approach our texts. We must establish textual integrity throughout it's transmission history, internal consistency, philosophic validity, historical accuracy, translational integrity, moral excellence, and so on........... But only the Christian is guaranteed that everyone who comes to faith will experience God in a born again experience that validates that faith. We are not merely left with intellectual consent to a theological proposition but left with absolute, but subjective proof.

Let me explain in very brief words how that worked for me and I have studied enough to know my story is fairly typical. I spent my childhood in church mostly looking at girls or itching to leave. I was baptized but knew nothing of God. When my mother got cancer I thought God would heal her (she was the only truly born again Christian in our family). But the sicker she got the more I lost any superficial faith in God I had and the more I hated him. When she died I believed God did not exist or if he did I hated him. So I led an atheist's life for a decade or so. That caused me so many problems that I lost faith in myself or anything else. At that moment God set in on me, he put some true Christians in my life and I started to see God working in their lives. Several years went by and I met a former drug dealer who was born again and now a bible student. Watching him I saw God in his life. I finally set out to either disprove or confirm the bible once and for all. I actually expected to disprove it because I did not want God to exist. However I found what I read to be accurate and to describe reality and account for it so well I could not deny it. I got maybe 90% of the way to God by intellectual efforts studying the bible. However one day that changed, what I read was supernaturally revealed to be factual to my mind. A few days of this I gave it up and asked Christ to save me. God supernatural got me through that last 10% (which in reality is an infinite gap) and I was literally born again and experienced God. It is hard to put the experience into human language and I will spare you the attempt, suffice it to say it was of such a character as to serve as absolute proof to me. I can't use it in a debate but that is actually the foundation of my faith, it is not in the arguments I make. I make those arguments because that is the only common ground we have but my faith has a different source, the arguments just add to a certainty I gained from God himself. I have had several such supernatural experiences since and even a few miracles. So my faith is pretty much bulletproof. So do no think I lack certainty personally just because my arguments do not lead to an absolute certainty.

Sorry for the length of this, I got going and was too lazy to stop.

First of all, just because you constantly post supposed assurances that Christianity has been proven to be true, that approach simply does not prove it's true in any way. You keep posting the same stuff over and over again as it it's all a gimme, but it simply is just a magnification of your beliefs. Beliefs are fine-- we all got 'em-- but beliefs are not necessarily facts, and for some reason you can't seen to tell the difference between the two in this arena.

This is not to say that your beliefs are wrong, btw, and if these beliefs make you a better person, I'm all for that, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Faith is a very personal thing, at least at first, and it's in an area that is in most cases virtually unfalsifiable, as I've mentioned on many occasions. We cannot even find conclusive evidence there is a God, and yet some go to great lengths supposedly telling others what this God is all about. Talk about a "house of cards".

Therefore, some of us take a "many paths to God" approach, not implying that each approach is equally valid, but just facing the reality that none of us in reality can prove our concepts to be true and the others false. One can say "90%" of this, and "10%" of that, but that is just another area related to belief, not empirical evidence.

 

[metis]

There is another poster on here named Leibowde84. He/she is a very civil and intelligence person and claims to be a Christian. Normally I do not question claims to being a Christian but instead only argue for what Christ's definition of being a Christian is. The person in question believes the bible is inspired but rebels whenever I mention the being born again passages or concepts. I like the person, and so am trying to walk a fine line between helping and judging. I thought maybe a fellow born again persons perspective might be of value to them. They are posting in this thread. If you would not mind could you maybe give them the benefit of your born again experience in whatever format you think appropriate?

To me, the above is about as nasty and narrow-minded as it can get. You are judging another person on a standard you've established as the criteria for God's judgement, and that is terribly pathetic. Not everyone whom is Christian uses the words "born again", and yet you seem to think they're going to hell in a hand-basket because they don't use that expression.

The Christian faith is a lot more than just clich'e expressions, and what you are proposing is simply political correctness on steroids. If a person believes in God and Jesus, is that not enough for you to consider that person to be a Christian? Who made you the judge on this? Is saying "born again" some magical password whereas if you say it, it's an express to heaven?