How do you know God isn't dead?

[smax]

Definition of INFALLIBLE
1: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Proof that scripture is fallible:

FACTS:
1. Christians claim scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. (II Tim 3:16, also: Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 1)
2. The Bible is a collection of books that men decided on. (Biblical Canon)
3. Those men did not all agree on which books should be included. (Same reference, see old and new testament charts)
4. Further more, the contents and the books are not 100 percent the same in every version of the bible. (example: English Translations)

These are all facts, and they leave no doubt that the bible is fallible.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I know you think it makes sense, but its profoundly ignorant to refer to any process that leads you to a God answer as "deductive reasoning". You don't know enough about the other possibilities to dwindle a conclusion down to God. What you're doing is saying "I don't know what else it could be, so deductively, I'm left with God. Perfectly rational." You sound like a moron. Stop pretending to have knowledge you don't have.

P.S.
I watched Man of Steel last night. That's how you send your one and only son to save humanity! Superman was a way more convincing son of God than that Jesus pussy.

[Whateverist]

Stat, why do you claim that scripture is infallible?

Because it has to be.

What is the fine if God is unable to live up to the lofty expectations you hold him to? And how are you going to impose that fine given all his omni powers. He has got to be faster than a speeding bullet so just forget about popping a cap in his ass.

How do you know that?

Because denying that truth leads to a view of reality that is logically inconsistent and incoherent.

Does the inconsistent and incoherent you complain of reflect an aesthetic disagreement with your own druthers only, or are we talking about ripping open the fabric of space and time? Exactly what is at stake as you see it if permit such blatently inconsistent and incoherent suppositions into our equations?

What infallible method did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?

I didn’t arrive at that conclusion; it’s the starting point that allows me to properly arrive at all other conclusions.

Have I told you lately how much I like it when you just come out and cop to shit many theists wouldn't say in a million years.

[Statler Waldorf]

Christianity is illogical in its faith. The only way to believe God is real is to have faith. Considering that the very definition of faith is the veritable lack of evidence, one must be out of touch with reality to believe in a being that has nothing to back up its existence except man's imagination.

You just committed the fallacy of equivocation (which is ironic because that’s illogical, even though you were claiming Christianity is illogical). That is not how scripture uses the term faith, so you must use the term as its writers did (confidence or trust in a person or thing- Webster’s).

dammit, we're getting into another mega post quote thing...
Good thing I'm going on holidays, so I won't reply tomorrow

Holidays? You must live in the UK?

I don't think it does... how is an atheist view of reality "logically inconsistent and incoherent"?

There’s so many different examples, choose anything and it will work as an example. Science, logic, human dignity, justice, classes, types, sensory perception, predication- none of it makes sense in a purely natural and material Universe and yet it all makes perfect sense in a Universe created by Yahweh.

The same for a muslim's?

For different reasons but yes, but since you’re not a Muslim we’ll stick to what you and I believe.

And, while we're at it, the same for a hindu?

Yes, but again for different reasons.

Clearly, you've considered ALL alternatives, when you make such a bold claim.

I only have to consider all postulated examples, but yes.

Yoda says: "And that is why you fail."

Because I can’t believe he’d be able to move an X-Wing fighter out of the Dagobah swamp with the force?

Statler:

A claim that scripture is infallible is not accurate. Are you telling me that scripture is free from error and that there are not inaccuracies in that book? That "holy" book was written by human authors and yet you claim they are infallible? It would take a lot more than subjective faith to prove that the bible is free of error.

You’re looking at it backwards, you cannot arrive at the conclusion that scripture is infallible because all of the standards and methods you’d have to use to get there are themselves fallible; so it could always be your standards and/or methods that are in error. Rather, you must start with the axiom that scripture is infallible and reason from that axiom; If you do this what you will find is that you get a far more logically consistent and cogent view of reality than any other starting axiom.

If divinely inspired authors are infallible, then christians must accept the fact that the koran is also infallible. If I am not mistaken, the koran was inspired in part by Muhammad. Yet, I seem to remember christians able to question the koran and not follow its premises.

No, because if a person starts with the axiom that the Qur’an is infallible it leads to logical inconsistencies, absurdities and contradictions.

As far as 'infallible scripture' -- do the many Biblical errors, contradictions, omissions, and interpolations count for nothing here? Or are you (statler) using some other sense of 'infallible' that permits failing?

Keep in mind that the Christian doctrine of inerrancy is that the original manuscripts of scripture are what is infallible, so a simple scribal error does not disprove this doctrine. You’d have to present an actual logical contradiction (“A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same relationship) in the original manuscripts and I am not aware of any.

---

Definition of INFALLIBLE
1: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Proof that scripture is fallible:

FACTS:
1. Christians claim scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. (II Tim 3:16, also: Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 1)
2. The Bible is a collection of books that men decided on. (Biblical Canon)
3. Those men did not all agree on which books should be included. (Same reference, see old and new testament charts)
4. Further more, the contents and the books are not 100 percent the same in every version of the bible. (example: English Translations)

These are all facts, and they leave no doubt that the bible is fallible.

---

No, canonization was merely the Church’s rediscovery and reaffirmation of what was inspired, it was not a determination. Even if it were though, that would not prove that scripture is fallible because you cannot prove that any of the books that were included in the canon were not supposed to be, or that any that were supposed to be were left out.

I know you think it makes sense, but its profoundly ignorant to refer to any process that leads you to a God answer as "deductive reasoning". You don't know enough about the other possibilities to dwindle a conclusion down to God. What you're doing is saying "I don't know what else it could be, so deductively, I'm left with God. Perfectly rational." You sound like a moron. Stop pretending to have knowledge you don't have.

Please do not misrepresent my position. I never said I deductively reason to God’s existence in the manner above, I deductively reason from God’s revealed word. Reasoning from the words of an infallible source is certainly deductive reasoning.

I watched Man of Steel last night. That's how you send your one and only son to save humanity! Superman was a way more convincing son of God than that Jesus pussy.

Conquering death through the death of Christ is far cleverer and more sophisticated than through simple might.

Does the inconsistent and incoherent you complain of reflect an aesthetic disagreement with your own druthers only, or are we talking about ripping open the fabric of space and time? Exactly what is at stake as you see it if permit such blatently inconsistent and incoherent suppositions into our equations?

It undermines our ability to reason or know anything at all if we allow for logical inconsistencies and absurdities, I for one value knowledge and reason.

Have I told you lately how much I like it when you just come out and cop to shit many theists wouldn't say in a million years.

No, you have never told me that. If you’re complimenting me then thank you, if you’re damning me through faint praise then….never mind.

[smax]

No, canonization was merely the Church’s rediscovery and reaffirmation of what was inspired, it was not a determination. Even if it were though, that would not prove that scripture is fallible because you cannot prove that any of the books that were included in the canon were not supposed to be, or that any that were supposed to be were left out.

I guessed you missed the part where canonization is not agreed upon.

[Statler Waldorf]

I guessed you missed the part where canonization is not agreed upon.

I guess you missed the fact that that is irrelevant because canonization is not what determines what is inspired; it was merely an attempt at reaffirmation. That being said, the Protestant and Orthodox Churches all agree upon the same 66 books being inspired (The Roman Catholic Church also agreed until the 16th Century).

[smax]

I guess you missed the fact that that is irrelevant because canonization is not what determines what is inspired; it was merely an attempt at reaffirmation. That being said, the Protestant and Orthodox Churches all agree upon the same 66 books being inspired (The Roman Catholic Church also agreed until the 16th Century).

Hence, there is no perfect standard by which to determine that the bible is infallable.

[Zarith]

If God did exist at any point, he most likely reasoned himself right out of existence by assigning one too many attributes to himself and ending up a contradiction. Poof, gone.

[Statler Waldorf]

Hence, there is no perfect standard by which to determine that the bible is infallable.

Sure there is, scripture is self-attesting, the validity of the Apocrypha is never supported or attested to by any of the rest of scripture or Christ himself, it was often used for historical reference by the Hebrews and the Early Church but we know it’s not theopneustos.

If God did exist at any point, he most likely reasoned himself right out of existence by assigning one too many attributes to himself and ending up a contradiction. Poof, gone.

God’s attributes are immutable and eternal.

[Zarith]

If God did exist at any point, he most likely reasoned himself right out of existence by assigning one too many attributes to himself and ending up a contradiction. Poof, gone.

God’s attributes are immutable and eternal.

And include 'fictitious'.