Before The Common Era.

[chuck schmidt]

First you would have to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, otherwise you're just invoking a good deal of circular reasoning.

I only have to "demonstrate" that God exists if scientific principles of evidence are agreed as the test. I don’t accept that. Spiritual and scientific reasoning are not subject to all of the same principles. God cannot be explained by man using science. Science is how God explains part of Himself to man. It is partially hierarchical and the lesser cannot rule over the greater. Saying that you "win" because of your rules is the same as saying that you deny the existence of God. Under your rules you are saying, “Because I argue I win.” God gives you the freedom to deny Him.

Edited January 19, 2010 by chuck schmidt

[chuck schmidt]

Not to mention the first oral versions of this bible before it was written. Even after it went through many revisions as time went on. To me the original meaning or true word of god is no longer represented by modern scripture.

You're right if you insist on perfection in human understanding. Get a parallel Bible and compare verses. Look at any New Testament and compare the Easter stories in the gospels. All are different in major ways. Then study the discipline of hermeneutics. Some writers say that the differences are part of the evidence of divine intervention. Over thousands of years thousands of people thousands of miles apart have retained and sent onward the same essential principles without any contact, and leaving them by and large intact.

[chuck schmidt]

Since this board is about discussion, and not just posting things that others don't accept, I think it's better to use sources that we can all agree on, more or less.

Use sources we can all agree on? Ever hear the old expression, "The tyranny of unanimity?" Therefore if someone disbelieves in the Bible it cannot be used to support theological arguments?

Oh, dear. Is that a rule?

[chuck schmidt]

I think most people would agree that those with no religion, have no religion.

Gee, can't argue with that.

[chuck schmidt]

No because by their very definition a belief is acceptance without evidence. If you have facts to back something up it is no longer a belief.

What word would you use when the "belief" is not in doubt and/or is supported by evidence?

Wicki says, "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." Under "belief" Wicki also links to a topic called "religious beliefs," but nothing there seems to support your definition?

dictionary.com says

be⋅lief

  

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

I can find no definitive authority for your proposition. When I read the definitions from dictionary.com they lean your way. They leave one thinking that a belief is less concrete than a conviction. Still, if I believe I have my hat, must I only do so in the absence of evidence? I do not accept that use of the word "believe" or its companions such as "belief" necessarily concludes an element of doubt.

I do understand where you are coming from. I suspect that it depends on the context. Use of the word might often mean that the user acknowledges an element of doubt or that not everybody might agree. However it might also mean an assertion that something is not only true, but true in the experience of the speaker.

Edited January 19, 2010 by chuck schmidt

[Guest TrueMetis]

What word would you use when the "belief" is not in doubt and/or is supported by evidence?

Accept or know.

Wicki says, "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

Just because someone holds something to be true doesn't mean it is true.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/beliefs.html

Assumptions and convictions that are held to be true, by an individual or a group, regarding concepts, events, people, and things.

http://ardictionary.com/Belief/2774

Definition: Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

Definition of Faith (same thing as belief)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/faith

unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

Edited January 19, 2010 by TrueMetis

[ToadBrother]

Use sources we can all agree on? Ever hear the old expression, "The tyranny of unanimity?" Therefore if someone disbelieves in the Bible it cannot be used to support theological arguments?

Oh, dear. Is that a rule?

Different branches of Christianity can't even agree on key points of theology using the Bible (ie. the Filioque Controversy which one of the key theological debates that lead to the schism between the Latin and Orthodox Churches, or the nature of salvation, which split the Protestants from Rome). The one thing that historical and current divisions of Christianity teach us, the Bible is as much a cause of theological problems as a solution.

But you're right, in a way. The fact that someone doesn't believe in the Bible isn't an argument against any particular theological system. It's an argument against the theology of any religion being of any use at all.

Again, your problem is that you want to justify your faith via circular logic. You miss the step where you actually demonstrate the factual nature of what you believe.

[ToadBrother]

You're right if you insist on perfection in human understanding. Get a parallel Bible and compare verses. Look at any New Testament and compare the Easter stories in the gospels. All are different in major ways. Then study the discipline of hermeneutics. Some writers say that the differences are part of the evidence of divine intervention. Over thousands of years thousands of people thousands of miles apart have retained and sent onward the same essential principles without any contact, and leaving them by and large intact.

Yes, trying to argue that two entirely different lineages for Jesus somehow mean the story is more true than if there is one.

In the real world, we call it apologetics. Watching apologists handwave away serious problems between Gospel accounts, or the fact that some seem to be outright rip offs of the others, and then having someone say "You see, that means it's true!" doesn't really impress non-believers.

[chuck schmidt]

Again, your problem is that you want to justify your faith via circular logic. You miss the step where you actually demonstrate the factual nature of what you believe.

I know what you are saying. You are insisting that my argument fit within your demands for a particular form of logic. An example is the definition of "belief" in Wicki. It says (in part, of course):

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily

plausible assertions/evidence/guidance

) for believing it is true.

[emphasis added]

In other words the subject of the assertion is empirically provable at some level. In the logic as described above you are correct.

The logic of God is not intended to fall within these bounds. Faith in God requires you to take it or leave it on God's terms.

[charter.rights]

The logic of God is not intended to fall within these bounds. Faith in God requires you to take it or leave it on God's terms.

Nope. Faith in God is in His/Her works. Feel a breathing forest and those works give rise to faith that it is something more than can just be explained scientifically. See someone suddenly use extraordinary strength to move a car off a trapped child and the wonder gives faith that something else is at play. There are lots of wonders and miracles that provide justification for faith. Faith without works is dead just as much as science without wonder is dead.

[Michael Hardner]

Use sources we can all agree on? Ever hear the old expression, "The tyranny of unanimity?" Therefore if someone disbelieves in the Bible it cannot be used to support theological arguments?

Oh, dear. Is that a rule?

Not at all. I will accept your use of The Bible to support your arguments that God exists, if you agree to accept my use of Kiss albums to support the argument that Satan is Lord.

[Michael Hardner]

Gee, can't argue with that.

So secular humanism isn't a religion, then.

[ToadBrother]

I know what you are saying. You are insisting that my argument fit within your demands for a particular form of logic. An example is the definition of "belief" in Wicki. It says (in part, of course):

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily

plausible assertions/evidence/guidance

) for believing it is true.

[emphasis added]

In other words the subject of the assertion is empirically provable at some level. In the logic as described above you are correct.

The logic of God is not intended to fall within these bounds. Faith in God requires you to take it or leave it on God's terms.

Logic is logic, regardless of anything else.

But you've found is your cheap little out. You don't have to justify anything. And that's fine, I don't expect you to. But if you want to discuss things, then it's a two-way street. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Insisting the Bible is proof of the Bible's divine inspiration is circular logic, period. It may be enough for you, but it's not very impressive otherwise. I get the feeling you don't really want to discuss things at all.

Edited January 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shwa]

Logic is logic, regardless of anything else.

Which begs the question...

How would you define - without giving a self-referential definition please - the flavour of logic that you would apply to an examination of the validity of the claims of the Bible?

[ToadBrother]

Which begs the question...

How would you define - without giving a self-referential definition please - the flavour of logic that you would apply to an examination of the validity of the claims of the Bible?

I dunno. How do you examine the validity of anything? Why should the Bible be epistemologically treated any differently than, say, entomology, forensics, auto repair or baking?

Edited January 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nope. Faith in God is in His/Her works. Feel a breathing forest and those works give rise to faith that it is something more than can just be explained scientifically. See someone suddenly use extraordinary strength to move a car off a trapped child and the wonder gives faith that something else is at play. There are lots of wonders and miracles that provide justification for faith. Faith without works is dead just as much as science without wonder is dead.

Both of those things have a scientific explaination though, and people only call them miracles when they don't know the real answer.

[Shwa]

I dunno. How do you examine the validity of anything? Why should the Bible be epistemologically treated any differently than, say, entomology, forensics, auto repair or baking?

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" I think that is the only point Mr. Schmidt is trying to make.

You provided what I would call an invalid definition of logic - a self-referential defintion - all the while chiding the poster on his circular logic and reluctance to discuss.

How do you examine the validity of anything?

Are you asking as a rhetorical question or you don't know? It is interesting to note that the areas of epistemological treatment you give are all materially based. I would have hoped that you were more inclined to epistemologically treat say morality, ethics, emotion or the theory of mind.

You know, something with a little more meat than the usual fare.

[ToadBrother]

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" I think that is the only point Mr. Schmidt is trying to make.

You provided what I would call an invalid definition of logic - a self-referential defintion - all the while chiding the poster on his circular logic and reluctance to discuss.

I didn't provide any framework, other than to ask why the Bible is unique?

A logical argument would follow a certain route from beginning to end. For instance: The Bible is true because some of the prophesies in it have come true.

Now that argument may not be true (and isn't, to my mind, prophecies are either vague, or in fact written after the fact), but that's not really the point. The point is that a solid claim that can be verified or falsified is made. There's nothing circular about it. It may be faulty because it relies on a statement of questionable veracity, but that's something different.

You seem to be insisting that there is no reliable epidemiological system, that all knowledge is potentially faulty, that none can be gathered reliably. That's simply epistemological nihilism, and maybe it's true, but if it is, then all the science, theology, metaphysics and whatever other systems of building bodies of knowledge you care to come up with are utter and total wastes of time.

Are you asking as a rhetorical question or you don't know? It is interesting to note that the areas of epistemological treatment you give are all materially based. I would have hoped that you were more inclined to epistemologically treat say morality, ethics, emotion or the theory of mind.

You know, something with a little more meat than the usual fare.

We've already been down this road before. Thus far you have yet to provide an epistemological system that can provide reliable results to compare with methodological naturalism. But go for it. I will make the following claim: a hundred invisible massless faeries inhabit your cerebral cortex and basically enslave you, forcing you to write these posts. Do you care to proclaim me wrong?

Edited January 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shwa]

You seem to be insisting that there is no reliable epidemiological system, that all knowledge is potentially faulty, that none can be gathered reliably.

I am not suggesting that at all just merely enquiring why you wish to compare apples to oranges. (In fact the only one raising doubt is you with phrases like, "maybe it's true" & "but if it is...") What I was hoping was that you might venture away from the simple logic of baking or auto repair and tackle the Bible-as-source with the same sort of attention paid to a metaphysical concept. The followers of the Bible claim that their book describes the nature of reality and beyond, yet you wish to invoke baking and auto repair?

Thus far you have yet to provide an epistemological system that can provide reliable results to compare with methodological naturalism.

Do you have a need for me to? Mr. Schmidt raised 'faith' into the realm of knowledge and all you can answer back is with some meagre thought experiment about "massless faeries." Come on now, is that sort of comment just?

[charter.rights]

Both of those things have a scientific explaination though, and people only call them miracles when they don't know the real answer.

They can be partly explained by scientific methods but there is always ~something else~ that would lend itself to a higher power at work....maybe it is super science.....

Science is limited to the knowledge that scientists have in this day and age and as information (and experiments) reveal more, the science and understanding changes. And my point is that who says that faith is devoid of science? I would suggest that science does in fact prove God's work....and the more that we prove the more we realize we don't know....

[ToadBrother]

Do you have a need for me to? Mr. Schmidt raised 'faith' into the realm of knowledge and all you can answer back is with some meagre thought experiment about "massless faeries." Come on now, is that sort of comment just?

I dunno. Is there a quantitative or qualitative difference between my thought experiment and any other form of faith?

[Guest TrueMetis]

They can be partly explained by scientific methods but there is always ~something else~ that would lend itself to a higher power at work....maybe it is super science.....

I have yet to see anything that makes me think that that might be true.

Science is limited to the knowledge that scientists have in this day and age and as information (and experiments) reveal more, the science and understanding changes. And my point is that who says that faith is devoid of science? I would suggest that science does in fact prove God's work....and the more that we prove the more we realize we don't know....

Faith is pretty much that exact opposite of science.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

At every turn Science proves that a god isn't neccesary for anything in the universe.

[GostHacked]

Science is limited to the knowledge that scientists have in this day and age and as information (and experiments) reveal more, the science and understanding changes. And my point is that who says that faith is devoid of science? I would suggest that science does in fact prove God's work....and the more that we prove the more we realize we don't know....

What was once thought majic can now be done through science. God's majic will eventually be discovered by minds once thought too feeble to even begin to understand god. But that is really not the goal of science.

And faith is devoid of science. Simply because once something is known like the earth being round which is universally and factually true and accepted worldwide because it can be proven beyond any doubt, it does not matter what faith you follow, of even if you don't follow like agnostics and atheists. The fact remains the earth is round. There is not one single faith ideology that is common and accepted as factually true among those who do and do not beleive in a god.

[charter.rights]

What was once thought majic can now be done through science. God's majic will eventually be discovered by minds once thought too feeble to even begin to understand god. But that is really not the goal of science.

And faith is devoid of science. Simply because once something is known like the earth being round which is universally and factually true and accepted worldwide because it can be proven beyond any doubt, it does not matter what faith you follow, of even if you don't follow like agnostics and atheists. The fact remains the earth is round. There is not one single faith ideology that is common and accepted as factually true among those who do and do not beleive in a god.

People can put their faith into science.....it is not devoid of science....But see most of you are trying to apply Christian faith, as the end all of all faith. I can tell you that religion doesn't touch real faith. As I said, faith is in the works. If you can explain it more the better, but that does not mean that miracles, wonderment and spiritual revelation must always be preceded by science. In fact it is often the other way around.....

[chuck schmidt]

Nope. Faith in God is in His/Her works. Feel a breathing forest and those works give rise to faith that it is something more than can just be explained scientifically. See someone suddenly use extraordinary strength to move a car off a trapped child and the wonder gives faith that something else is at play. There are lots of wonders and miracles that provide justification for faith. Faith without works is dead just as much as science without wonder is dead.

I wouldn't say, "Nope." I'd just say your view, parts of which I may and may not agree with.