Biblical circularity.

[Faith No More]

I would disagree though, before I became a Christian I was opposed to and an enemy of God, after my conversion I was adopted as God’s child through Christ. So even the person who claims to be open-minded and neutral on these matters is really not neutral because they are claiming that scripture is wrong when it says there is no neutrality.

But that is just your experience. You went from one end of bias, to the other, but that doesn't mean everyone has to. In my experience, I was raised Christian but parents never discussed religion with me at all. The only part religion played in our lives was going to church every Sunday. Consequently, I had no real presupposition either way on the legitimacy of the bible, except for the fact I was being taught it during Sunday school. It is impossible for anyone to be completely free of bias, as we are biased beings by nature, but it is possible for a person to be as unbiased as possible when interpreting the bible.

You are one of the straightest shooters on this site , and I really appreciate it. I think we are arriving at a similar conclusion but by different means. I say the playing field is equal because everyone is biased, you say the playing field is equal because people on both sides are not biased.

Thank you for the compliment and I appreciate the civil debate. The point I was trying to make was not so much that people on either side are unbiased, but that people on either side can be unbiased as much as humanly possible. There are, however, also biased people on both sides. To clarify, when I'm saying bias here, I am talking about a conscious bias, not the bias that comes from our own personal perspective.

Either way I think we can agree that both sides are allowed to use their own ammunition right?

Wouldn't have it any other way.

You see what I am saying is that if scripture were inerrant there would be no way to test for this. So I think it really has to be a presupposition.

There would be no empirical way to test for it, but one can use their intuition as to what their concept of the word of god would look like. I think 'personal interpretation' would be a better label for this than presupposition.

However, I do not believe this is incorrect reasoning because presupposing that scripture is what it claims to be offers a foundation for a host of other presuppositions that are also required to gain knowledge. I actually cannot think of a way to account for these other presuppositions in a world that the God of the Bible does not reside over.

This is where I have to disagree, because if this were true, you would also have to agree that it is not incorrect reasoning to presuppose the scripture is not what it claims. I think the only way to come to a conclusion of the bible's validity that is true to yourself is to make up one's mind after learning about it.

Could you clarify further into what you mean with that last sentence?

[BloodyHeretic]

Well scripture says that Creation itself so attests to God’s existence that nobody has an excuse to not believe in a Creator. So even if a person has never heard the Gospel, they are still expected to believe in the Creator God. So when you say that the person who has not read the Bible is neutral if they do not believe in a Creator you are saying that scripture is wrong which of course makes your position not neutral. So if the person says, “I am neutral on this matter, I think the Bible is wrong when it says people cannot be neutral.” Is that person actually being neutral? I would say that they are not because they are taking a position against a truth claim scripture makes. We can certainly have a constructive conversation, and I feel we have done so up to this point. I am just saying that there really is no middle ground to meet on this issue. This does not mean we cannot discuss the issue though right?

Again, this is a 'bible says' argument. Creation (I prefer nature) is indeed wonderful. That this demands we must believe in a Creator, is a non sequitur. You can only accept this as logic, if you presuppose the bible to be inerrant, which I know you do, but then that's what I'm arguing is the problem. Two thousand years ago, when there was little known of science, this holds a lot more weight. How to explain lightning? Since not too much was known about static electrical build up in clouds, it's far easier to see how somebody would say this attests to a god. Which is what they did.

To the second part of the argument. You must presuppose the bible is inerrant again for this to hold any water. The notion that somebody can't be neutral towards an idea is preposterous, apply it to anything else and you'll see that. The bible says you're either for or against it? Well that's a nice way of promoting tribal insider and outsider feelings. Another relic from it's primitive past. It suits christinaity's purposes to say this, in the same way it suits it to say nature attests to god. If you dare to have a difference of opinion, you'll be damned. That's evidence of it's man-made origins. An interesting philosophical trip for you Statler, suppose the bible were not god's word, and was man made. What would it need to say, what would christianity need to do to become what it has? I found that fun to think about

We can of course discuss this, but to make progress, there must be some leverage. If you're going to resort to 'this is the case because scripture says so' argument, we can't go anywhere, because I don't accept your premise that scripture is inerrant. I'm asking, apart from presupposing it is, is there any other reason to suppose the bible inerrant? All I'm getting back is 'the bible say x, y and z'. That's not going to go anywhere. If you want to admit that you believe scripture is inerrant because you believe it when it says so, that's fine, we can end it here. If you want to suggest some other argument that isn't circular, please do.

I think your reasoning here violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason. You are saying that we have to accept our senses are reliable in order to obtain knowledge, I completely agree, but you do not give a reason as to why our senses would be reliable given your worldview and presuppositions. The Christian worldview can certainly account for the reason why someone’s senses are generally reliable; I am not so sure an atheistic worldview could. Please explain if you disagree though.

I do disagree. Natural selection is a sufficient reason to suppose our senses are reliable. If they weren't a somewhat accurate representation of reality, we wouldn't have survived as a species. Survival of the fittest dictates that we wouldn't be here arguing about it, if we weren't in some way 'fit'. I hope that's reason enough, apologies for not presenting it earlier.

[Napoléon]

If they weren't a somewhat accurate representation of reality, we wouldn't have survived as a species. Survival of the fittest dictates that we wouldn't be here arguing about it, if we weren't in some way 'fit'.

How do you explain this amazing fucker then?:


Like seriously, how the fuck did this thing survive?

[BloodyHeretic]

[Napoléon]

Lol I really have to stop looking at sloths.

[Ryft]

[Here is what] I'm asking: apart from presupposing it, is there any other reason to suppose the Bible inerrant?

I cannot speak for Statler, of course, but I suspect that we are on the same page here so I want to offer a clarifying remark on this issue. First, the inerrancy of the scriptural autographs is not itself a presupposed axiom; it is a conclusion drawn from that which is a presupposed axiom, the transcendental truth of God and his self-revelation. The reasoning goes like this: given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error (infallible), and that which is incapable of error obviously does not err (inerrant). Second, if we reason to some X then it is a conclusion, whereas if we reason from some X then it is a presupposition. Thus while there are cases where we reason from the inerrancy of Scripture (as such it is presupposed), we do not do so when that inerrancy is itself the question (which would argue in a circle). In a situation where inerrancy is itself the question, we admit that it is a conclusion and show how it follows; we reason to it, not from it, since it is a conclusion, not an axiom.

Natural selection is a sufficient reason to suppose our senses are reliable.

Natural selection is a mechanism of biological evolution, which assumes that the world our senses perceive is real. Therefore invoking natural selection is question-begging.

[Minimalist]

The reasoning goes like this: given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error

Fine.


Now all you have to do is produce some actual evidence that your idea of a god exists and is not just some shit made up by primitive humans.


A major task, there.

[Godscreated]

The reasoning goes like this: given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error

Fine.


Now all you have to do is produce some actual evidence that your idea of a god exists and is not just some shit made up by primitive humans.


A major task, there.

No more so than you producing some actual evidence that our God does not exist.

[Darwinian]

No more so than you producing some actual evidence that our God does not exist.

I'm sorry I don't understand this. What is it you are trying to say here? Because we can't prove God doesn't exist it means what? We can't prove that Unicorns don't exist on a large planet made of jelly in the Andromeda galaxy either but I think it pretty unlikely.

I also notice you said 'our God'. What do you mean by that? That there are many gods? Why else would you try to differentiate by using the pronoun 'our'?

[Minimalist]

The reasoning goes like this: given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error

Fine.


Now all you have to do is produce some actual evidence that your idea of a god exists and is not just some shit made up by primitive humans.


A major task, there.

No more so than you producing some actual evidence that our God does not exist.

No, asshole. The fact that something does not exist means there can never be any evidence for it. I know this is deep but even someone of your limited intellect should be able to understand it. Perhaps if you stopped reading that fucking stupid bible for a while you could learn a few things? Ah...probably not.

You say there is a god so it is your burden to demonstrate it. I have no burden to show that your invisible sky daddy does not exist.