Is Bible inerrant
- Thread starter yip1997
- Start date
Actually, it has everything to do with the post.
It was suggested to you that there is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood. You provided evidence suggesting a localized flood from the Black Sea. Such evidence does not support the Bible's inerrancy, and in fact is evidence demonstrating that the Bible is errant.
The obvious response from anyone of "faith" should have been that evidence is unnecessary, because God doesn't operate within the confines of nature. Yet, you chose to blow up your own argument.
I was just pointing out what a waste of time it is to try to "prove" God's action in the world. Once you choose to believe, the concept of "proof" is rendered meaningless.
In the end, all Creator characters fit that description. Some were just created by those artists at much earlier dates than the others..
There is nothing logically credible about an entity not defined other than, - It doesn't exist but created the Universe. It 's Assertion based on imagination only and not with any supporting logical credibility.Made more apparent when compared against stuff which does appear to exist and could have kick started the Universe..
[ my edit to the reference }
So your argument is, science amounts to nought because although science proves stuff, there is a piece(s) of information or knowledge science has not affirmed ?There is NO information about 'the Supernatural' it is not defined past non-existent, it proves not a thing, so for that you do not account the Supernatural as nought, but rather science instead. Logical credibility?
No Hans, that's a description of what some proponents for religion often do. Big Bang Singularity is Science. Pre-Big Bang speculation is not.
Religion is not Science. Using the word science in a religious title , does not science make.
[my edit to the reference ]
Ruling them in to rule them straight out again because they. "were invented after the fact ".Ok, . but so was 'the Supernatural.'
It's sounding to me as if you only have a purely philosophical response to this. The "Now" you describe is Time as a conceptual relativity from the point of known consciousness, is it not?. Should the Earth Collide with Mars (is that a song?) , there is no reason that "Now" would not occur at the same designated position, as part of an Eternal Universe,.without any conscious reference to time..
So it's "All that exists +1" . I really am not being facetious here ... but have you heard of Gilbert? But anyway, who says you are not already in a Universe that is not Time dependant ?. From a personal view time is important. But The Universe, and time dependant? Why? t=0 through n billions of eons to t=0 through n billions etc ...Eternally ...is not time dependant....
Assuming all things have to have a reason is, I suggest most respectfully, a very big mistake.
Quite, so Nothing would not be something Supernatural ..
By your definition above for Nothingness, 'maybe' is not a possibility.
...Isn't that usually referred to as the unknown? Making the unknown sound more exotic with words like 'Supernatural' still does nothing but leave things exactly as they were. Unknown .
....which would inevitably confirm, what you were calling Supernatural, was never there at all . .A component of quantum events would be an explanation of Natural occurrences The Universe - all that is and all that happens in and of it.
You surmounted what you said was insurmountable ("Nothing") to the satisfaction of your argument.... by your assertion of "the Supernatural " ..
I would suggest though , Minimal definition that provides no specifics is at best conjecture, not explanation.
The implication would appear to be, thinking on its own doesn't prove anything.
I agree, but we were not discussing whether it is meaningful to speculate or not, we were looking at on what grounds such speculations are considered to be logically credible.
We seem to agree the meaning of "Nothing " is abstract .We don't seem to agree the "Supernatural" is abstract .
But it is, (you declare it to be but do not accept it is) , and furthermore it is meaningless in this context, because everything that there is, whether it be these abstract definitions of 'not existing' whilst contradictorily being (existing) 'a-temporally', would in any event were they ever known of , be Natural occurrences...
From what you have said about it having no definitions , the Supernatural remains no more logically credible or any more possible than when we started, and really, it is not explained as being anything much more than the conjoining of two separate words. The purpose of prefixing an existing word with another , one might hope, would result in something at least , which had an intention of being definable.
Super-Natural surely is actually nothing but an expression for the unknown parts of the Natural, in all its magnificent glory.. Supernatural is predominately a useful word to encompass everything extraordinary and imaginable...But to associate ' the Supernatural to anything more, to an entity, or as something non-existent, does the entity nor the word any justice, nor attributes any possibility or credibility to it any better than assigning a comic book character does.. Possibly Superman is more to do with "the Supernatural" than the White Rabbit in Alice's Wonderland, because he can do superhuman things, but that says nothing about any logical credibility , nor does it explain anything at all.
If a Creator is to be Supernatural , then It will certainly have to share a non definability you gave It, with a myriad of non existing indefinable entities through to a single other... the non-definable Supernatural Creator which Created the Creator. But that's where the Supernatural leads things. Like so many non substantive articulation. Just begging more questions, not explaining anything..
You were asked about geologic evidence demonstrating that a WORLDWIDE flood occurred, as stated in the Bible. You provided a leading theory of a LOCALIZED flood, which does not prove a WORLDWIDE flood.
If there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, then the Bible is errant.
Indirect ad hominem acknowledged and ignored.
Your evidence is the equivalent of trying to prove an expanding universe by proving that the solar system is expanding. One prove does not prove the other without some verifiable connection between theories.
Quote from smilingsynic:
The rational have a suggestion: Please clarify this gibberish!
The Bible - the writer of the letter of Hebrews - defines faith as "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for".
This is thought to apply to faith in what is yet unseen by human eyes.
But if you open your eyes, you will see the "substance" of an ancient faith...the "evidence" of things hoped for.
I mean that the world, what is called "the universe" is the evidence and substance of an ancient faith. The human eye sees only the left-over effects of an ancient, pre-time/form faith. The human eye is designed to see only the remnants of this faith.
It does not appear to the naked eye that this is a faith-based environment because the evidence/substance appears to have been caused by something other than faith. Ironically, because that cause is unknown, it takes faith to believe in most any cause for this world.
The point is that the mountains exist purely due to an ancient faith. Faith keys off of desire. So the world is the evidence of things "hoped for". So the world is a wish believed in. It was wished for, like a child blowing out a candle on a birthday cake. On that day, death was born.
How is this different from magic?
The mountains are maintained by the faith of the faithful who believe in this world...who still hope for this world to give them something of value.
When faith is removed from this world, there will be nothing to maintain it...so it will disappear, as in, "pass away".
An atheist hopes there is not God. This world gives "evidence" there is not God. So an atheist will be invested in this world as his reality. He values what is utterly built by faith. And he builds his faith in the world in many ways.
Likewise, scientists are heavily invested in the reality of what is really a faith-based environment...right down to the last quirky quark. Energy itself is faith-based. You have to have some faith in this world just to study it. Otherwise, who gives a damn!
The body of an atheist, or a scientist does not exist but by an ancient faith. The body constantly reinforces it's sense of existence. The evidence suggests that the body and it's environment is real. Well, duh! That is what faith intends to accomplish. The perceived reality of this world drives many of the faithful to study it, making it yet more real. Comparing, analyzing, grading, measuring...all of these are faith enhancing mechanisms that make this world more and more real for it's faithful.
Arguments about this world are especially potent mechanisms that make it more and more real for the faithful. They don't even realize this is what they are doing. But actually, faith is built and maintained constantly, every hour, every minute, every second of the faithful's existence. Every time you look in the mirror, you are augmenting faith in a body that exists because of an ancient faith. And this essentially is for twisting the truth about you beyond recognition, inducing you to identify with a body as if that is who you are.
Faith in the world does not appear to be faith because it is ubiquitous, effortless, and the substance of the world seems to precede your arrival in it. But the fact is, whenever you think "rationally" about the world, you are putting faith in it. When the power of faith is masked, it get's confusing.
There is really nothing rational about the world. It is completely insane from it's very foundation. So it's really a kind of black magic...faith in the dark side, faith in insanity for the sake of craziness.
Here, death rules. But it is insanely called the "life cycle". And this is accepted, hypnotically, without question.
God did not make it, and it is still not His Will. And what God did not create does not exist. Therefore, if this world is desired, it must be believed in, and this belief gives it all the "substance" it will ever have.
Before this world, there was no such thing as "faith". Why does Heaven need faith? Faith is for environments in which there are unknowns...like dark environments...like this world.
Faith is a tool made to make this world. It is a "law" of mind that gives this world all the reality it will ever have. It's a way to make an environment in which you can see whatever you want to see, experience whatever you want to experience...things and experiences that are otherwise not at all real, and therefore do not exist.
Faith is for fantasy...for private use of the mind God gave you. Such is this world, a private fantasy island in the mind of God's Son.
But to be saved from this self-made trap, you've got to use this same faith to extricate yourself by placing it in truth instead of fantasy. That is the purpose of the kind of faith that I taught. Faith in fantasy has disempowered the spell-casters of this world. Faith in truth will empower you to exit this world gracefully.
Jesus
Faith in the unknowable ("God") as a force has over history been much more destructive than that in reason.
The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment--in many ways, one and the same--have done more for humanity over the last 400 or so years than "faith" in God or in gods did in the previous 4000.
Modern medicine, technology, tolerance, freedom--these are come from reason, not from revelation.
Faith in reason makes much more sense than faith in God.