(August 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm)cato123 Wrote: It would have been horrible logic if I had come to that conclusion. My point here is that if there is one example of god lying, then how is anybody to be sure of the veracity of any other statement? This is not the same as saying that all other statements are false, only that we cannot know which other statements are false. At a minimum, this makes The Bible untrustworthy.
So because God didn't tell the truth in one scenario, we have good reason to think that He didn't tell the truth in other scenarios?
I think I get your basic point--if we can't assume that God always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then we can't just assume that every part of the Bible is true.
But it might be knowable exactly what God's obligations are with regard to the truth, or if not exactly, then to some sufficient degree.
For example, we can't solve the roots of general polynomial equations of degree five or higher. But we can know certain classes of polynomial equations of degree five or higher that can be solved.
So while it might not be possible in general to say, "God always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", we might be able to say something like "In circumstances X, Y, and Z, God always tells the truth; since verse A is in circumstance X, we know that God is telling the truth in verse A."
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
