Curiosity About The Bible's Supposed Divinity

You mean Bro. Mike post/ explanation? It was not! Not at all circular!
Precisely what am pointing at what that phrase give signals in the OP..... and the effect eventually shown in discussion….

You did assume his premise …
Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out. I forgot my wording.
You are correct, I did assume he meant that he had a Bible based belief when he said "belief in what he has done for you". But after I said that, I asked him if I was correct in my assumption. He didn't answer. So until then, assuming that a Christian has a Bible based belief about what God has done isn't far off. I'm still waiting on him to correct me if he wants to, I'm open to that.
 
WingedVictory, why exactly are you an atheist?

Could you explain? Thanks.
Yes I'll explain.

My position isn't to say "there are no gods". I'm saying "I don't believe in gods". They aren't necessarily the same.

I see no good reason to believe in gods. I put them in the same category as someone might put fairies, Zeus, or Thor. No one has presented evidence for me to believe any of this, and I haven't experienced anything that would make me believe this. Many unsubstantiated claims and logical contradictions.

I used to be Christian because I wanted the teachings to be true about salvation. I had to be honest with myself and look at the logical contradictions I tried to harmonize and let them go.

I would assume you don't believe in Zeus. If my assumption is correct, my rhetorical question to you would be, why don't you? Perhaps that may give you insight to why I don't believe in gods as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out. I forgot my wording.
You are correct, I did assume he meant that he had a Bible based belief when he said "belief in what he has done for you". But after I said that, I asked him if I was correct in my assumption. He didn't answer. So until then, assuming that a Christian has a Bible based belief about what God has done isn't far off. I'm still waiting on him to correct me if he wants to, I'm open to that.

As I said, i see nothing as circular in his explanation, also with those you refer as Bible based....

The reason as i said your view is “trap in seeing circular” is: you already have preconceived ideas = biased thinking about the other belief...

In logic, there are rules, there is a premise.
A premise is an assumption to be true so as conclusion can be made.
Without a premise: there is no conclusion, of course….
So the critical part is: for everyone first to agree if it is valid premise…

(of course, Christians likes to use bible verse as a premise: what can be a more valid premise for Christians than a bible verse, the bible speaks the truth! )

The trouble I think, it just so happen that the premise was a bible verse and you see it as circular already. that is biased thinking.

Now, since you like to think secular, take it out of bible context, bring it to secular context, is it acceptable as a valid premise… if yes, then it is yes valid premise!

To give you an example what I meant:
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
You agree that is a valid premise?


Definition of terms:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit
spir·it
noun \ˈspir-ət\
: the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power
: the inner quality or nature of a person
: a person
 
Last edited:
As I said, i see nothing as circular in his explanation, also with those you refer as Bible based....

The reason as i said your view is “trap in seeing circular” is: you already have preconceived ideas = biased thinking about the other belief...

There is certainly circular reasoning in his argument if the belief in what God has done he is referring to is Bible based (A point he has yet to clarify).

I'll do my best to help you see it:

My OP asked how one comes to "...believe this book to be inerrant and of divine origin...". The objective is to know why should I trust these stories to be inerrant. Remember, all further discussion is focused on this goal.

He replied by saying (among other things) "Without that [the HS]-the Bible is foolishness to the unbeliever..." Making the point that without the HS, no one will understand the "wonder, mystery, and power of God's word [the Bible]". So, here, he actually answers my question (the objective) by introduction the concept of the HS.

Next, I asked him how to get the HS. His answer was "There are no special chants, tricks, etc... to gain said 'Spirit' other than Faith in God-belief in what He has dome [done] for you. You don't necessarily have to have the Bible to have Faith.".

So far, we have the objective; why should/how do people believe the Bible to be inerrant. His answer is that you need to HS to understand the Bible. I then asked how do you get the HS. He said you have to have belief in what God has done.

The last point I made (because he never responded) was the contention that belief in what this god has done likely requires belief in the Bible. How would anyone "know" what this god has done without the Bible? So you have to already believe in the Bible in order to have an idea of what this particular concept of God has done in order to get the HS, and the HS is required the understand the Bible. Since the Bible itself is the thing in question (the objective), then its circular.

So it's not what you call a trap in seeing circular because of preconceived ideas. It's a well thought out evaluation of his argument. And I even still left room for the possibility that I'm wrong by asking him to clarify his point. "Trap" is hardly the word to use.


In logic, there are rules, there is a premise.
A premise is an assumption to be true so as conclusion can be made.
Without a premise: there is no conclusion, of course….
So the critical part is: for everyone first to agree if it is valid premise…

(of course, Christians likes to use bible verse as a premise: what can be a more valid premise for Christians than a bible verse, the bible speaks the truth! )
Of course, if his premise is true, then the whole argument is valid and true. I'm arguing against the premise though and seeing his reasoning for believing that it is true. However, it is a logical fallacy because of this assumption unless he can show another reason besides pure assumption.

To give you an example what I meant:
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
You agree that is a valid premise?

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean by "spirit". It may seem like a trivial point to questions that, but there are so many different concepts of that word (even among people of the same religion) that it would be irresponsible of me to assume which one you mean.
 
Personally I believe most people who say they are Christians believe the bible is God’s Word, because others told him or her that the bible is God’s Word.


The Mormons have their bible, and they believe it is God’s word for the same reason.


Only God can convince one of the truth.


The only way one can come to know God is to have God personally teach him or her.


Until God personally brings one to the truth, all people can do is shout out other people’s beliefs. People want to believe other people so much that they will give up their lives to support their beliefs. Muslims are doing this all the time.


I have my belief in God through the direct intervention of Jesus. Jesus came to me personally and has been teaching me about God for almost forty years.


Jesus has verified that he is God to me in many ways: Miracles, healings, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. To me the greatest of all verification that Jesus is God is that he has kept me free of Satan/sin. No one can live without sinning unless God makes that possible for him or her.


Also if one sins that is the greatest verification that he or she does not know God, nor has ever seen God.


(1 John 3:4-6) “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”
 
Personally I believe most people who say they are Christians believe the bible is God’s Word, because others told him or her that the bible is God’s Word...

I agree, most people are believing off of hearsay from others.

Until God personally brings one to the truth, all people can do is shout out other people’s beliefs. People want to believe other people so much that they will give up their lives to support their beliefs. Muslims are doing this all the time.

If what you say about God personally bringing someone to the truth, the problem occurs when believers (not all believers) hold non-believers accountable for not-believing in something that their god has not shown them to be true. They usually say something like "evidence for God is all around us in nature". My response is usually something along the lines of "Evidence for Zeus is in nature too, look at that lightening!". A bit sarcastic, but it makes the point. Just because I see nature doesn't mean I'll jump to the conclusion that some god must have done it.

Jesus has verified that he is God to me in many ways: Miracles, healings, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. To me the greatest of all verification that Jesus is God is that he has kept me free of Satan/sin. No one can live without sinning unless God makes that possible for him or her.
If you recovered from an illness or witnessed someone recover, had great things happen in your life, or are morally awesome, I certainly don't wanna diminish that.

From my experience though, much of the things people attribute to their gods fall under the argument from ignorance fallacy. "I can't explain how my cancer went away, so God must have done it.". "We don't know how the universe got here, so God did it."

But even if someone unequivocally knew from experience that this God exists, as you said above, it's hearsay to someone who hasn't experienced it.
 
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean by "spirit". It may seem like a trivial point to questions that, but there are so many different concepts of that word (even among people of the same religion) that it would be irresponsible of me to assume which one you mean.

It is not trivial, as i said, the premise is the critical part before we can continue discussion.

And as mentioned, bring it to secular context.

The concept of spirit exists in the secular context.
 
I agree, most people are believing off of hearsay from others.



If what you say about God personally bringing someone to the truth, the problem occurs when believers (not all believers) hold non-believers accountable for not-believing in something that their god has not shown them to be true. They usually say something like "evidence for God is all around us in nature". My response is usually something along the lines of "Evidence for Zeus is in nature too, look at that lightening!". A bit sarcastic, but it makes the point. Just because I see nature doesn't mean I'll jump to the conclusion that some god must have done it.


If you recovered from an illness or witnessed someone recover, had great things happen in your life, or are morally awesome, I certainly don't wanna diminish that.

From my experience though, much of the things people attribute to their gods fall under the argument from ignorance fallacy. "I can't explain how my cancer went away, so God must have done it.". "We don't know how the universe got here, so God did it."

But even if someone unequivocally knew from experience that this God exists, as you said above, it's hearsay to someone who hasn't experienced it.
You have me all wrong. I have no interest of trying to convince you or anyone of my knowledge of God.


If I can convince you of my understanding of God, then most likely there will be someone more convincing than me that will persuade you of his or her thinking.


No my job is just to give a word. If God sees fit to make whomever one of his then he will do so.


There was a time that I believed if people could see the healings, miracles, and witness the gifts of the Holy Spirit Jesus gave me, then they would come to believe.


I found out if people are blind to the truth, then noting I say or do will give him or her understanding of the truth.


I believe that Satan has given blind people the idea that those who don’t believe the truth are much more intelligent then those who have given their lives to Jesus/God.
 
WingedVictory, thanks for taking the time to discuss your position. If besides that you’ll also take the will to consider our arguments, it won’t be lost time for either of us.


My position isn't to say "there are no gods". I'm saying "I don't believe in gods". They aren't necessarily the same.

That presents no interest whatsoever to any of us, since no one here is interested in gods. However, if you’re talking about God, then let me assure you that you have all our attention.


I see no good reason to believe in gods.

Neither do I.


I put them in the same category as someone might put fairies, Zeus, or Thor.

As do I.


No one has presented evidence for me to believe any of this

Neither could they.


I used to be Christian because I wanted the teachings to be true about salvation. I had to be honest with myself and look at the logical contradictions I tried to harmonize and let them go.

Please share those ‘contradictions’.


I would assume you don't believe in Zeus. If my assumption is correct, my rhetorical question to you would be, why don't you?

Why exactly would I?
 
You have me all wrong. I have no interest of trying to convince you or anyone of my knowledge of God.


If I can convince you of my understanding of God, then most likely there will be someone more convincing than me that will persuade you of his or her thinking.


No my job is just to give a word. If God sees fit to make whomever one of his then he will do so.

I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were trying to convince me. I understand what you're saying. I appreciate the concern.
 
WingedVictory, thanks for taking the time to discuss your position. If besides that you’ll also take the will to consider our arguments, it won’t be lost time for either of us.
No problem. That's what I came here to do, discuss and listen.

That presents no interest whatsoever to any of us, since no one here is interested in gods. However, if you’re talking about God, then let me assure you that you have all our attention.
To understand that to me, your god is just one of many gods, beings that people claim to exist without good reason for me to believe in their existence. So, since a question about my perspective was what prompted me to discuss it, then I saw it important to explain that your god has no more weight to me than Zeus or the tooth fairy, because I'm almost certain (not 100% certain) that none of you believe in the tooth fairy or Zeus.

Please share those ‘contradictions’.

I'll share the biggest one. There's no need to go into all of them. If I have to or you insist, I'll explain more of them though.

I've actually explained this elsewhere on this site, so copying a pasting will be my friend. haha.

Let's say hypothetically that we agree that the Christian god named God exists with all the attributes commonly associated with him. He is all powerful, all knowing, and the creator of all that exists (except himself, he's preexisting). He was the only person around before anything came into existence. Also, he ultimately holds us humans accountable for the evil actions we do. So, in formal-like way of stating this paragraph:

Premise 1: Before all that exists came into existence, there was ONLY God (I'm ignoring the special pleading fallacy, he is thought to be preexisting).
Premise 2: God created ALL that came into existence.
Premise 3: Evil exists.
Conclusion: God is the ONLY person who could have had a hand in creating evil.

But this conclusion goes against what most Christians in my experience say. To say that God created evil would be heretical to them. However, it logically follows from premises that they accept.

That's one of the contradictions. "Inconsistency" is probably a better word for it though. Also, if there is any of the premises you don't accept, then obviously the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Then, like I said to someone else, that's a discussion I don't mind having if it comes to that.


Why exactly would I?

I don't know of any logical reason why you would. Maybe lightening testifies of its creator, so the lightening is evidence of Zeus! (totally sarcastic).
 
It is not trivial, as i said, the premise is the critical part before we can continue discussion.

And as mentioned, bring it to secular context.

The concept of spirit exists in the secular context.
Yes, this concept does exist in a secular sense, but the variety of concepts that attributed to that word is abundant, even in the secular sense. So, more specificity is needed.

Whenever I do use the word, I tend to mean an enthusiasm and will to accomplish a goal. Is this what you mean by spirit?
 
Hey, I read the article about prayer you linked me to and considered the arguments. I haven't had a chance to get to the one about prophecy. It will take more time, but I will when I can.

Thank you for giving them to me man.

He answers my prayers - not everyone, but much more than can be explained by chance (http://dtjsoft.com/practical-evidence-of-gods-existance/). I also know others who have had many amazing answers to prayer. With these answers, I find God is totally true to His character and His promises, so that I am able to rely on Him fully.

Every example of this article is an incomplete argument in need of more information at best, and an argument from ignorance logical fallacy at worst.

For example, he tells how he can't find his keys, so he prays and then finds them. Argument from ignorance. Things that important that are misplaced eventually get lost. Given the information I have in that article about those keys, I could (not with certainty) find another psychological verified explanation for him finding his keys after praying.

The deaf tenant who rented the room: this needs more information. Was Reno actively searching for a deaf tenant? What statistical analysis can we do on this phenomena to know that it didn't happen by chance?

I know these events are significant to people, but studying probability would show that significance doesn't necessarily mean lower probability of happening by chance. It only seems that way because we are naturally biased.
 
... Maybe lightening testifies of its creator, so the lightening is evidence of Zeus! (totally sarcastic).

Lightning can testify to a creator, but as your statement implies (even if it is sarcastic), it doesn't say who the creator is. Greek writings (I assume) say Zeus makes lightning, while the Bible says Yahweh (Jehovah) makes lightning (Psalm 135:7). Which is correct? I don't think you can tell just by looking at lightning. The truth is determined using other means.

In 1 Kings 18 we have the story of Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal. Elijah believed in Yahweh while the other prophets believed in their god. Rather than debate doctrinal theories, Elijah made a dare for whichever god was real to show himself. In the end, Baal never showed up, but Yahweh did. The point of the story is that the God of the Bible is not a theoretical being, but One who reveals Himself in experiential ways.

Now, God is not some impersonal force that we can stick in a test tube and repeatedly do the same experiment with the exact same results. Nor can we just make any test up and expect God to jump through our hoops. (In the 1 Kings account, Elijah was acting under orders from God (vs. 36)... the test wasn't his own idea.) But God does unmistakably reveal Himself to those who earnestly (not lightly or skeptically) seek Him. He does so in His own way - which is usually more convincing than what we would expect.

Every example of this article is an incomplete argument in need of more information at best...

Those examples were what I and people I know personally experienced. I don't expect you to see them as proof because you don't know me or them. I could be selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. You can only know the truth through your own study of the Bible and your own personal relationship with God.
 
But God does unmistakably reveal Himself to those who earnestly (not lightly or skeptically) seek Him. He does so in His own way - which is usually more convincing than what we would expect.
What does it mean to "earnestly" seek God? and what's the difference from that and being skeptical?

I ask because I don't know of any other reliable method of seeking truth besides being skeptical and testing. By being skeptical and testing claims, I weed out claims that have no evidence or are inconsistent. You could say, I'm so earnest about seeking truth that I gave up beliefs that were logically inconsistent, even though they were comfortable and made me feel good (I'm referring to my former Christian beliefs).

In 1 Kings 18we have the story of Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal. Elijah believed in Yahweh while the other prophets believed in their god. Rather than debate doctrinal theories, Elijah made a dare for whichever god was real to show himself. In the end, Baal never showed up, but Yahweh did. The point of the story is that the God of the Bible is not a theoretical being, but One who reveals Himself in experiential ways.

This is actually one of my favorite stories in the Bible (yes, atheist can enjoy the Bible too). It can be an analogy of why scientists make testable claims, and then tests those claims. Maybe you can compare the process of science to the Elijah story you told. Scientists, instead of simply debating over and over, simply tests the claims, just as Elijah put his and other's claims to the test. The test tells which claim is correct, just like with Elijah's.

You say God reveals him self in experiential ways. Science at a simplistic form is about experience. The root word for "experience" and "experiment" are the same. Truth reveals itself to scientists he earnestly (through skepticism, reason, and testing) seek it (not literally revealing itself, but you get my point). The problem is that these same values that are earnest in the realm of science and skepticism don't seem to get me anywhere with reaching your god. I've done the whole "Pray and ask God to reveal himself in unmistakable ways" test. Hasn't happened yet.
 
Yes, this concept does exist in a secular sense, but the variety of concepts that attributed to that word is abundant, even in the secular sense. So, more specificity is needed.

Whenever I do use the word, I tend to mean an enthusiasm and will to accomplish a goal. Is this what you mean by spirit?

Yes, can be… seems a valid premise to me when translated into secular context.

For who among men knows how far he can go except his own enthusiasm and will to accomplish a goal.
 
to me, your god is just one of many gods

One more time: if you want to discuss about gods, then change the forum. This forum is only about God - the Biblical God.


that people claim to exist without good reason for me to believe

How about the universe? Isn’t that a good reason to believe?


Let's say hypothetically that we agree that the Christian god named God

The Christian God is not named God. God is a title, not a name. However, let me warn you about using names. So let’s agree to talk about God - the Biblical God.


Premise 1: Before all that exists came into existence, there was ONLY God

Correct.


Premise 2: God created ALL that came into existence.

Correct.


Premise 3: Evil exists.

See below.


Conclusion: God is the ONLY person who could have had a hand in creating evil.

Wrong: evil is the absence of good; evil is the absence of God. It’s a consequence of free will (although not a necessary, automatic, consequence).


However, it logically follows from premises that they accept.

No, it doesn’t, as long as you have the right definition.


I don't know of any logical reason why you would. Maybe lightening testifies of its creator, so the lightening is evidence of Zeus! (totally sarcastic).

I think you should settle - either this way:
“That's what I came here to do, discuss and listen.“

or this way:
“totally sarcastic”

If the latter, then sorry but I’m not interested in such a ‘dialogue’.


I had to be honest with myself and look at the logical contradictions

Then why aren’t you honest about the logical contradictions of formal paradigms such as big bang - did you stop believing in those too?

Oh, and could you tell me what victory are you claiming? Victory over what exactly?
 
The last point I made (because he never responded) was the contention that belief in what this god has done likely requires belief in the Bible. How would anyone "know" what this god has done without the Bible? So you have to already believe in the Bible in order to have an idea of what this particular concept of God has done in order to get the HS, and the HS is required the understand the Bible. Since the Bible itself is the thing in question (the objective), then its circular.

Let’s go back to my claim you see circular….

You keep on insisting a conclusion/new premise in green:

What is the premise of this conclusion: apparently it is the question before: in blue,

It showed it is a question you assumed an answer, an answer in the negative: thus precisely you keep coming back to your conclusion.
 
No problem. That's what I came here to do, discuss and listen....

I'll share the biggest one. There's no need to go into all of them. If I have to or you insist, I'll explain more of them though.

I've actually explained this elsewhere on this site, so copying a pasting will be my friend. haha.

Let's say hypothetically that we agree that the Christian god named God exists with all the attributes commonly associated with him. He is all powerful, all knowing, and the creator of all that exists (except himself, he's preexisting). He was the only person around before anything came into existence. Also, he ultimately holds us humans accountable for the evil actions we do. So, in formal-like way of stating this paragraph:

Premise 1: Before all that exists came into existence, there was ONLY God (I'm ignoring the special pleading fallacy, he is thought to be preexisting).
Premise 2: God created ALL that came into existence.
Premise 3: Evil exists.
Conclusion: God is the ONLY person who could have had a hand in creating evil.

But this conclusion goes against what most Christians in my experience say. To say that God created evil would be heretical to them. However, it logically follows from premises that they accept.

That's one of the contradictions. "Inconsistency" is probably a better word for it though. Also, if there is any of the premises you don't accept, then obviously the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Then, like I said to someone else, that's a discussion I don't mind having if it comes to that.
Actually, evil is the absence of good, just as dark is the absence of light.

God did not create evil. Sin which separates from God 'created' evil.

Free will provided the opportunity for sin, but without free will we would be no more than robots.

God allows evil for a season. He will deal with it in due time. And when He does, it will cease to be.
 
What does it mean to "earnestly" seek God? and what's the difference from that and being skeptical?

I can understand skepticism because I am skeptical by nature. I always try to test things, whether it be in areas of science or 'religion'. By 'earnestly', I mean beginning with the possibility that God exists and investing time to find out, rather than beginning with the premise that God does not exist and waiting for proof otherwise. It also involves willingness to submit to God if/when He revealed Himself. Usually knowing God requires some faith to begin with, but some ex-atheists have been convinced by the evidence and against their will that God exists (like C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell).

Much science also requires faith (not that that means it is all false). Evolution definitely requires faith considering all of the serious problems with it. (Find a copy of 'Evolution of the Species Revisited' for a very detailed description of some of those problems in the words of evolutionists and ex-evolutionists.) Whether you choose to believe God created everything or it all came about by chance, you are going to do so by faith.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top