Arguments for Biblical Inerrancy

[whoosanightowl]

Jimminy wrote:

My point was that god can't help but be personally involved with his created beings, including humans. This involvement on god's part is as personal as it gets, because without god we and everything else would not exist.

I don't understand why you believe a Creator must be personally involved with it's creation. One action does not cause the other as far as I can tell. .

You portray god as a nutty professor that blew up his lab with a big bang and thereafter was reduced to nothing more than a passive observer of all subsequent events. I'm saying the converse, that god has and probably will continue to interact with humans on a personal level. I base that assertion on my own experience of god and the idea that god's personal involvement is paramountly expressed in our very existence which he caused. What do you base your assertion on?

No, not a "nutty" professor, rather I see "God" as an intelligent, powerful entity which is emotionally removed from it's creation. I'm also basing my assertion that this Creator does not interact with humans on a personal level on my own experience, in addition to what I consider to be predictably obvious non-involvement in the world in general.

...evil is nothing more than a natural consequence of action and inaction or cause and effect. Everything from a broken blade of grass to a starving child is a consequent experience or condition, nothing more. I know that may sound cold and insensitive to the starving child or cancer patient, but I'm simply trying to call a spade a spade. It would be hopelessly optimistic to suppose we humans will never be confronted with experiences that we believe to be detrimental or painful. It is we humans that have bestowed upon these "bad" experiences an evil connotation worthy of eradication. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with labeling certain things evil and wanting to rid ourselves of those evils; I'm simply saying that evil is inherent to our existence solely as a product of our consious minds. We do not live in a world with evil because god doesn’t love us or want to be personal with us, it's because we are finite beings living in a world of infinite possibilites. If god had somehow affected our evolutionary development and prevented us from developing concepts of good and evil we would be in a worse state. We would have been confronted with the same "evils," but we would have been bereft of the means to identify and overcome those evils. We would be intellectual and moral zombies doomed by our ignorance. Now that's evil.

Okay then, so you're saying God does not create or define evil/goodness and that he is completely objective when it comes to morality? If right and wrong are only concepts of our human brains, then we are the only judges of what's good and bad. This explains why there is so much diversity between different societies and cultures when it comes to moral issues over the ages. You assume "God" gave us the ability to develop concepts of good and evil, while I see that as a natural evolutionary process without assuming the involvement of a God.

Our concepts of good and evil may guide us morally and may help define us as a species; but, those concepts cannot prove or disprove a loving god any more than can concepts of beauty or ugliness. They are simply concepts invented by man, with evil having the distinction of being the most maligned by the majority of rational thinking people.~Jimminy

Those concepts cannot prove or disprove a God, but I think they disprove a "Loving" God since people suffering in sickness, pain and agony is not a mere human concept the same as labeling beauty or ugliness.
But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry for making you feel like I was hitting below the belt.

[Jimminy]

I wouldn't rule out the possibility, however slim, that your "experience" of God was delusional.~Jim

I wouldn't expect you to say anything else, really. I've said in this forum I firmly believe a personal experience of god cannot be proven to another. My experience is not your experience.

The atheist's position has always been that there is a "natural" explanation for every alleged supernatural event; and if one can't be found then it's only because it has yet to be discovered. But, there could be no natural explanation for a true supernatural event; if there could be a natural explanation, then the event would not be supernatural.
You might agree, that the only way atheists could accept a supernatural experience as proof for god is if the experience were known to them personally. That's what I've been saying all along in here; that one must personally experience god to know god's existence.

I find it puzzling that I can claim to know with virtual certainty that god exists based on an experience, even though the experience was profound. I can try to explain how I know, but the words always seam to fail me. I'm extremely confident that the force that caused the experience was from outside myself. The experience itself was a singular, overpowering, beautifal experience. The experience was also relevant to my prayers and my personality; that tells me the force is sentient and intimately aware of my existence. Yet, how I am able to make that giant leap in cognition and conclude a supreme being caused the experience defies adjectival explanation. I suppose that's why I declare it to have been a miracle, because it defies rational explanation. The miracle occured in that silly mass that hugs my brain stem; and really, where else is that miracle going to occur?~Jimminy

[Mr. Sluagh]

I wouldn't rule out the possibility, however slim, that your "experience" of God was delusional.~Jim

I wouldn't expect you to say anything else, really. I've said in this forum I firmly believe a personal experience of god cannot be proven to another. My experience is not your experience.

Like I said, I know exactly what you're talking about. I remember that force: not something inside myself but a palpable sensation in the room, like something in the air, but not matter, pressing in on me, but not on my skin. I remember its voice that wasn't a voice, that wasn't in words, not willing me to submit but showing that I must, against all my thought, against all my reason, because it was more real than me, more real than reality. But I still made a different choice than you did. It is possible.

The atheist's position has always been that there is a "natural" explanation for every alleged supernatural event; and if one can't be found then it's only because it has yet to be discovered. But, there could be no natural explanation for a true supernatural event; if there could be a natural explanation, then the event would not be supernatural.
You might agree, that the only way atheists could accept a supernatural experience as proof for god is if the experience were known to them personally. That's what I've been saying all along in here; that one must personally experience god to know god's existence.

The great thing about things that can't be understood is that it's impossible to know whether they can be understood. Right now, scientist don't understand how to cure HIV. It may be impossible, no one knows. That doesn't mean that those scientists are going to say "Oh well, I guess God doesn't want us to cure it, all we can do is pray." 100 years ago, the same went for countless other diseases. It's easy enough to think like a supernaturalist when it comforts you, but when you're sick and you'll die without those antibiotics, you'd better be thankful that some people don't think like that.

The basic fallacy of religious supernaturalism lies in thinking an event that goes against our most basic understanding of reality can answer more questions than it creates. When religion claims credibility because of a "supernatural" event, it's never just because of the event itself; it's always a certain interpretation that the event doesn't really quite entail. In order for this kind of thinking to fly, that explanation must be very vague, and disallow further investigation into the mechanics of the event. Let's use Jesus as an example. If you suppose that Jesus rose from the grave because He was the son of the Creator God, Who can break His own rules and do anything He wants, you make a claim that if true, would make any further investigation into the resurrection and Jesus' nature impossible. By making a proposition that automatically deflects alternate hypotheses, discourages further investigation, and doesn't even require evidence, you make your position as unassailable as it is meaningless.

Now, say I suppose that YHVH is an alien with highly advanced, unknown technology who is apparently trying to develop a following on Earth in preparation for when he invades, burns everyone who opposes him and rules over the rest in a totalitarian regime. This is just as consistent as yours is with the assumptions that the Bible is YHVH's word, that Jesus rose from the grave, and that our revelations came from an outside source. However, it is not nearly as obscurantist as your position. It highlights--rather than concealing--how little we really know about this being if it is capable of doing what it's done. It invites details that aren't known yet, but could be, like "What kind of technology could raise someone from the dead?", "Where did YHVH come from?" and "What does he want with humans?" It shows how little we really understand about this being (almost all our information comes from his own propaganda), and how little we understand about the universe if he can exist. It is not nearly as comforting as the religious interpretation, but it is more honest.

There could be something out there that utterly violates the way reality otherwise works in some totally inconsistent way. There's no way to prove otherwise, because there's no way to prove a negative. There's also no way to prove that an event is not truly inconsistent, because there's no way to prove a negative. The best way is to simply continue trying to understand more, because it's impossible to know whether something can be understood until you understand it; if you don't know, you don't know, and picking the first unsupported hypothesis that appeals to you won't help.

If YHVH is the Creator, then He has created a universe in which reason indicates that He probably doesn't exist and is a very shady character if He does. That's His fault. (Paradoxically, if YHVH has any faults that indicates that he's not perfect and therefore probably not the Creator, although on the other hand I don't see what the problem is with unintelligent design.)

I find it puzzling that I can claim to know with virtual certainty that god exists based on an experience, even though the experience was profound. I can try to explain how I know, but the words always seam to fail me. I'm extremely confident that the force that caused the experience was from outside myself. The experience itself was a singular, overpowering, beautifal experience. The experience was also relevant to my prayers and my personality; that tells me the force is sentient and intimately aware of my existence. Yet, how I am able to make that giant leap in cognition and conclude a supreme being caused the experience defies adjectival explanation. I suppose that's why I declare it to have been a miracle, because it defies rational explanation. The miracle occured in that silly mass that hugs my brain stem; and really, where else is that miracle going to occur?~Jimminy

Let me make an analogy. My Greek professor says that Homer's epics are far better written than is the New Testament. The NT is apparently notable as literature only for its popularity; the writing just isn't that good. The King James version improved greatly on the original. I have yet to read either in Greek except for small excerpts (I'll get back to you on both next Summer), but judging by those excerpts, he's right. The Iliad is amazing, "good sex" poetry. The rhythm, imagery, and euphony of the original Greek give one an intense, profound feeling like nothing you've ever felt before. The New Testament has its ups and downs, but it's mainly the sort of plodding, poorly paced, prosaic narrative you get in most translations. It doesn't give one the feeling that the Iliad gives. And yet, if I had to choose one as my guide to morality, I know which one I'd choose. I'd choose the NT in a heartbeat, because it's not about how it makes you feel; it's about whether what it says makes sense. It's about what's said, not how it's said. Trusting YHVH based on the power of his revelation would be like voting for a politician based purely on his public speaking skills. Apparently, YHVH, whether he's in our heads or outside them, is a thousand times more charismatic than any politician. That doesn't make him right.

[JustJim]

Yet, how I am able to make that giant leap in cognition and conclude a supreme being caused the experience defies adjectival explanation.

Not if you use the adjective "delusional".

Jim

[JustJim]

By making a proposition that automatically deflects alternate hypotheses, discourages further investigation, and doesn't even require evidence, you make your position as unassailable as it is meaningless.

This is an excellent assessment of Jimminy's claim of his personal experience of God -- unassailable and meaningless. I think it's also good reason (for me) to let that discussion lay where it lies.

Jim

[Jimminy]

If you suppose that Jesus rose from the grave because He was the son of the Creator God, Who can break His own rules and do anything He wants, you make a claim that if true, would make any further investigation into the resurrection and Jesus' nature impossible. By making a proposition that automatically deflects alternate hypotheses, discourages further investigation, and doesn't even require evidence, you make your position as unassailable as it is meaningless.~Slaugh


First, I do not accept the physical resurrection of Christ. I am no longer a Christian. I dropped that nonsense about 20 years ago. That doesn't stop me from quoting the Bible if it suits my argument.

I realize in the above you're simply using the resurrection story to make a point, and it's a good one. However, I don't think one must reject "alternate hypotheses," or refrain from "further investigation" simply because one is confronted with an audacious proposition. Intelligent thinking should not be subservient to dumb thinking; unless, of course, one has a gun to their head. There are alternate explanations that can explain the empty tomb. An objective literary assessment of the Gospels with an informed understanding of Christ's milieu can--I believe--provide any rational thinking person with more than one strong-boned argument that can refute the resurrection story as historical truth. The most plausible explanation, of course, is that the body was removed by humans; and for good reason, dead humans are not generally known to instantly vanish into thin air after death. The assumption that a creator being could cause a body to disappear is not proof that it did cause it to disappear. Assuming God sufficiently enpowered to dematerialze a human body is insufficient proof for the resurrection without a causal link between a presumed creator and the alleged event. To propose the story of Christ's resurrection as proof for a creator is merely circular reasoning.

The universal creator, if it exists, could do just about anything I suppose. But it must be said that any true omnipotent act imposed upon our world and senses by the creator would be no less liable to critical analysis than any other worldly phenomena. Christ's alleged resurrection, in the realm of worldly phenomena, is just one example. I have available to me a host of rational explanations for why the body of Christ went missing, none of which need rely on superstitious thinking or unfounded assumptions. If a God-being exists, it would want me to think rationally, because it would be intelligent enough to know the potentially horrible consequences of irrational thinking, holistically speaking. I cannot accept that a supreme being would create a new way of life for humanity based in large part on an event (resurrection) that any rational thinking person would be expected to reject as an affront to human reasoning. The resurrection story should not foster belief in God and Jesus as God's emissary because the story runs contrary to human experience concerning bodily decomposition. At the very least, one should suspend judgment without prejudice. How can we expect to derive any truth of God with any degree of confidence from an event that runs contrary to what we know to be true, with the full weight of human experience to back it up? Should we drop our ponderous truth simply because we have been confronted with one fabulous story about a dead man's body that has gone missing from the tomb? It is my firm opinion that the universe and a good God would allow us enough latitude in judgment to say no to that question. Amen.

Now, in regards to my alleged experience of God, I'm not declaring that experience off-limits to rational inquiry, nor am I trying to deflect alternate hypotheses, as you've suggested above. On the contrary, I've laid bare (in various threads) the greatest objections to my own argument for personal experience by stating that a true experience of God could not be proven to another; and moreover, the experiencer cannot even "prove" by logical means the experience to him/herself. I cannot think of any greater objections to my hypothesis than the two just stated. Nevertheless, my argument is not reduced one iota in the face of these two objections. The reason for this--I believe--is that any experience that could prove to one the reality of God must be a miracle; a miracle because that miraculous occurrence has done the impossible by proving the existence of a Creator, whose very existence itself would be a miracle. Now, miracles can't be proven, if they could then they wouldn't be miracles, disregarding the sentimental notion that everything is a miracle; so, there's no sense in expecting to be able to prove that miracle to oneself or another.

It's a miracle that results in a sure understanding of the reality of God.

To sum, nothing else can compare to a personal experience as proof for God because no other proof is possible. No story, regardless of its grandiosity, could ever supersede experiencing God personally. The story of Christ's resurrection you offered is a very good example of the futility of trying to prove a living creator based on hearsay; but your example does not discredit my personal experience theory, as hearsay and unwieldy assumptions--I propose--will always be subservient to a true revelation of God~Jimminy

[Jimminy]

Jimminy wrote:
...When god revealed himself to me he did not give a detailed explanation of the full depth and breadth of his "omni" abilities. I only know that when I was "touched" I knew with certainty that it was by the one that had total command over my existence. I knew it was god; though, how I know is a miracle that defies rational explanation....
Jimminy wrote:
God revealed himself to me via a revelation experience. I'll call it a metaphysical experience. I know that the experience was caused by god as self-evident truth. It was not a logical deduction for me, it was a miracle of understanding. It's from that miracle in my consciousness that I realized that there can be only one way to know with certitude that god does exist; and that one way is via revelation. Revelation is the only means of knowing god as truth, everything else is mere hearsay. To me, mathemathics and logical argument alone cannot prove a living god; a god whose existence is a miracle, to us. Logical deduction cannot prove god's miraculous existence because that existence lay outside the purview of logical thinking. Logical deduction cannot prove god's illogical existence. God must be personally experienced to be believed, I'm convinced.

Slaugh wrote:
So what you're saying is that your feelings--the things you experience in your mind--sometimes serve as a sort of sixth sense with which you can perceive the common reality outside of our heads. What's more, this sixth sense lets you perceive that reality more clearly and with more certainty than any of us can with our five. These feelings cannot be mere psychological emanations, because they feel too intense and inexplicable. What's more, I am supposed to believe that your sixth sense is better than those of all the other people in the world (Buddhists, Sufis, Hindu mystics, neopagans) who claim to have similar experiences, but draw completely different conclusions.

I have had an experience very similar to the one you describe. I've also seen enough Star Trek to know that when a strange alien entity approaches you and tells you it created the universe, the proper response is to back away until you're out of arm's reach and then bolt.~Slaugh

Slaugh,
You've raised a good objection to my personal experience theory, and I appreciate your sarcastic humor in the last paragraph. First, the revelation of God that I experienced was not the result of a feeling. My new-found concious knowledge of God was a cognitive process, not a feeling. This knowledge came instantaneously at the time of the event as an immediate realization. There was no time for any emotional filtering of the event. The event was an external imposition upon my person with characteristics that revealed--instantly--a commanding power and presence that precluded a doubtful interpretation of the event. Additionally, the event presented me with information that could only have come from a sentient being that was aware of my existence on the most intimate level. The difficulty for me is understanding how I am able to go beyond ghosts, invisible aliens, psychological malfunctions, etc., and instead recognize God as the only possible cause for the experience. If anyone can help me figure that one out I'd be much obliged.~Jimminy

[Jimminy]

Our concepts of good and evil may guide us morally and may help define us as a species; but, those concepts cannot prove or disprove a loving god any more than can concepts of beauty or ugliness. They are simply concepts invented by man, with evil having the distinction of being the most maligned by the majority of rational thinking people.~Jimminy

Those concepts cannot prove or disprove a God, but I think they disprove a "Loving" God since people suffering in sickness, pain and agony is not a mere human concept the same as labeling beauty or ugliness.
But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry for making you feel like I was hitting below the belt.~Nightowl

Nightowl,
I wouldn't deny that "sickness, pain, and agony" are more than mere concepts. However, should those same people that deny a loving God because of evil then proclaim God loving at those moments of joy, love, and peace? Is sickness, pain and agony more evil than health, pleasure and peace are good? Why should concepts of evil that disproves a loving God (according to you) supersede concepts of good which support a belief in a loving God? How does one weigh apparent evils against apparent good? I personally don't think the opinion of an cursed man is worth more than the opinion of a blessed man; though, I'd rather be a blessed man if I could choose.~Jimmy

[JustJim]

I just ran across this excerpt from an article on religioustolerance.org, and I couldn't tell if it's ever been posted here or not.

There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics. On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for homosexuals and bisexuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human sexuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.

The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches. Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error.

So, from practical observation, it would appear that the Bible is ambiguous. It is not possible to be certain of at least some of its key teachings.

John G. Stackhouse, Jr., professor of theology and culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, reflects this conclusion. At the end of his book "Humble Apologetics" he states:

"We Christians do believe that God has given us the privilege of hearing and embracing the good news, of receiving adoption into his family, and of joining the Church. We do believe that we know some things that other people don't, and those things are good for them to hear. Above all, we believe that we have met Jesus Christ.... For all we know, we might be wrong about any or all of this. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. Thus whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly." (Emphasis added)

If it is not possible to be certain of the Bible's meaning, then it is meaningless to assert that the text of the Bible is itself inerrant. Biblical passages appear to have multiple meanings. It doesn't really matter if one of them is true, if we cannot determine which is the valid one.

Now it has (been posted here, that is...)

Jim