Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Why are you an inerrantist?

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 9:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought this was particularly good blog post on a subject that isn't discussed much in this forum. It sums up some of the reasons why I'm not one as well. Hopefully there will be some good discussion (especially about how Christians conceive their doctrine of divine inspiration).

http://undeception.com...

At 6/20/2012, Steve Douglas wrote:
If I were to ask you why you believe in inerrancy, would you answer with any of the following?

1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.

2) It's a logical inference from other things I believe (e.g. about God's perfection).

3) Without a perfect record of divine revelation, anything goes. What'd be the point?

I left off one likely response, as it doesn't get to the root cause: "Because it's never been proved wrong." The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation. So assuming the Bible is perfect until proved otherwise assumes something not in evidence. What I'm asking is, :\"Why do you expect it to be perfect?"

Let me look at the remaining answers one at a time.

1) For the Bible tells me so.

Ok. Forget the circularity of "I trust X because X told me to"; after all, presuppositionalism has nifty ways of embracing such circularity as a "feature, not a bug". There are other problems.

Where does the Bible tell you so? Before answering that, realize what that question really means: does any passage ever refer to this specific collection of books as they were canonized centuries after the individual books were written? If so, does it additionally refer to them as entirely free from error? In other words, can you find:even a single passage that refers to the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible ("the word of the Lord" doesn't count)? Do those passages also refer to this canon as inerrant, or with an unarguably synonymous term? If not, does it even say something like that in a way that doesn't require philosophical/theological (i.e. extrabiblical) extrapolation?

Pretty sure I know what the answer is. But I won't spoil it for you: go look for yourself.

2) Ok, maybe it's not spelled out precisely in the Bible, but it's a logical inference based on other Scriptures and on what one should expect from a perfect God.

A common pitfall is to suppose that because Passage X:YZ makes a claim about a passage or portion of "Scripture" (e.g. Psalm 119 speaking of the Law), we can extrapolate that everything the Church eventually determined to be "Scripture" somehow gets grandfathered in. So when one verse proclaims, "The Word of the God shall stand forever," it must be referring to what inerrantists now think of as the totality of the Word, the Bible. That's clever: but it's not biblical. In fact, it's unapologetically extrabiblical; that is, it requires you to add other assumptions to the text, assumptions about the Church's role that Protestants by definition reject when applied outside this one issue. What I mean is this: you're rallying around Source A for authority while rejecting Source B, yet citing Source B as the authoritative body that proves Source A's authority.

Many hold on to inerrancy because they believe that God does not lie, and so by :extension we must assume that this must be applied to everything we call Scripture. :By now you should be able to anticipate my response: what makes you think that :everything we call Scripture is comprised of God's words? This is yet another mask of a :presupposition that needs to be peeled away so that we can ask the underlying :question. There has to be a reason you believe that Scripture = God's very words, :and preferably it's more defensible and less based on personal ignorance/incredulity :than, "I can't imagine it being any other way."

A common response to this is rhetorically asking why God would leave us without an unimpeachable source about Him and His ways. I return, do you mean to ask why He wouldn't ensure that we had a source of knowledge that was capable of proving His truth to us and that was free from human obfuscation, manipulation, misunderstanding, and exploitation? Why indeed! Instead, what we actually have is a book whose truth claims are very easily disputed and that has been obfuscated, manipulated, misunderstood, and exploited for all kinds of nefarious purposes–and all the more because of its supposed authority! If God intended to invest it with an authority used properly so rarely and misused so commonly, it would not go toward lessening the problem of God's transcendence from our plane of existence: if anything, it would compound the problem of why He has chosen to (ineffectually) intervene in our affairs only to deliver us a much misinterpreted and too often dangerous collection of ancient writings while leaving everything else in our world in such a state of glaring imperfection. On the other hand, if our very human Bible is instead yet another example of humanity's grasping after the ethereal, always just out of reach, and frequently misunderstood regions of the Transcendent, there's no hollow exception. All told, everything makes much more sense: the Bible's not perfect because its authors weren't, either. Nothing's perfect.

At this point, most will have asked or at least thought the third possible response to my initial question.

3) Without an inerrant Bible, why should I believe in Christianity – or God Himself – at all? How are we supposed to know what to believe? Christianity is just not intelligible unless God left us a clear, miraculously accurate demonstration of His activity in the world, which is what the Bible is.

What it comes down to for those of you asking that is that you were sold a bill of goods. You believe the Bible, and therefore Christianity, because the Bible is inerrant; the moment you stop believing the latter, despite having had no good reason for starting to believe it, your foundation is gone. You become fallible; your beliefs become less than 100% sure; you stand the chance of being wrong about it all. And it's uncomfortable, isn't it? I felt more secure when I was confident I knew everything–or if not everything, I at least knew enough to consult the complete Source of All Knowledge, which conferred absolute truth to me on demand (magically, my interpretations were spot on as well). How much simpler things were then!

Let's just say that, given only a Bible that's human rather than divine, you decide that it's all a sham and a scam. Let's say you throw in the towel on faith. Are you so worshipful of Almighty Certitude and the Right to Be Right that, in place of your shattered inerrancy, you'd be willing to embrace a version of certainty that affirms, "There is no God, no transcendent meaning, and nothing but the material world"? (This is a very popular choice, unfortunately.) If so, I weep for you and for all the people you take with you into that rigid, harsh realm of fundamentalism. Good thing you don't base everything in your life off of complete certainty, or you'd never leave your bed in the morning!

The difficulty is in managing expectations and dealing with disappointment: if you were never accustomed to forming your beliefs and outlook on life from the belief that the Bible is a codified list of unquestionable direct messages from God, I don't think you'd miss it. It does, however, hurt a bit to have what you've planted your feet on suddenly jerked from underneath you.

Continued in the next post.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 9:55:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Continued from the last post.

At 6/20/2012, Steve Douglas wrote:
Thankfully, the situation for the non-inerrantist isn't nearly so bleak as the former inerrantist might be tempted to believe. Most of us are used to living in expectation of things not seen (that sounds familiar, doesn't it?). Human beings can't escape living by induction; the assumption that the sun is going to come up tomorrow is based only on inferences from our prior experiences and our unverifiable trust that past events are indicative of the future. We assume a lot in our daily lives, and have literally nothing we can say with certainty. We use Wikipedia. We Google to find answers from fallible people all over the Internet, having to pick through what's credible and not on our own (well, Snopes helps). And by and large, we're ok with that. That's just the way it is. And for non-inerrantist Christians, the same goes with our faith; we don't go around pretending we're exempt from uncertainty because of some special knowledge we have about the world through our divinely authored handbook. We don't set our gaze on the window with all its smudges and imperfections, but on what's on the other side of the window, which we can still see remarkably well.

For those brought up without such unrealistic expectations of the Bible as inerrancy, the faith is still communicated as it always was: the sacred but not necessarily infallible word of the saints' testimony, leading to personal encounters with God. The earliest church spread by passing on their beliefs about their encounters with Jesus by word of mouth long before it was written down and spread around: even then, there were soon quite spurious testimonies as well, and so, like us, they couldn't just trust that everything they read was…well, the gospel truth. The testimony of those changed by God in Christ was passed down and continues to be replicated. My father was brought to faith in his adulthood not because anyone had demonstrated the Bible inerrant, but because someone demonstrated the risen Christ in his life.

A faith without a perfect, unquestionable source for knowledge and truth is a light that shines in darkness without completely eliminating the darkness; in fact, when pointed in the wrong directions it can cast some pretty ominous shadows. Dim places are navigable as long as we tread lightly, but the inerrantist plows through boldly while pretending to see it all clearly, often with results that harm others more than themselves (which is the only reason I bother critiquing inerrancy). For instance, without permission to critique the Bible, we cannot convincingly condemn slavery, which is prescribed (by God, apparently) in the first part and never truly repudiated in the second.

"The faith once delivered to the saints" is bigger than will fit between the covers of a book. It's unwieldy at times, and full of mysteries that can frighten some of us (and thrill others). But it's entirely adequate for giving us insight into the backend of our universe and teaching us to recognize our place within it.

So what's your answer? Why are you an inerrantist?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:29:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 9:54:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I found this to be potent and understated due to my own thoughts on the subject.

I left off one likely response, as it doesn't get to the root cause: "Because it's never been proved wrong." The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation. So assuming the Bible is perfect until proved otherwise assumes something not in evidence. What I'm asking is, :\"Why do you expect it to be perfect?"

I would hold that indeed the Bible has not been proven to be erroneous. I would lay it out differently than laid out here:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

So when 'I' say inerrant, I do not mean to imply that every T is crossed and every i dotted. Nor do I need copyists to be perfect.
When I say inerrant, I follow in line with the majority Theologians on the subject, (much like the Pope is infallible in matters of faith doctrine), the Bible is inerrant in matters of Doctrine of our faith.

No apparent discrepancy gives me pause. Of course, I am not suggesting I have encountered a discrepancy that was not reconciled to a degree of satisfaction. In fact, all that I have encountered are indeed reconciled.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:29:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/20/2012 9:54:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I found this to be potent and understated due to my own thoughts on the subject.

I left off one likely response, as it doesn't get to the root cause: "Because it's never been proved wrong." The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation. So assuming the Bible is perfect until proved otherwise assumes something not in evidence. What I'm asking is, :\"Why do you expect it to be perfect?"

I would hold that indeed the Bible has not been proven to be erroneous. I would lay it out differently than laid out here:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

So when 'I' say inerrant, I do not mean to imply that every T is crossed and every i dotted. Nor do I need copyists to be perfect.
When I say inerrant, I follow in line with the majority Theologians on the subject, (much like the Pope is infallible in matters of faith doctrine), the Bible is inerrant in matters of Doctrine of our faith.

No apparent discrepancy gives me pause. Of course, I am not suggesting I have encountered a discrepancy that was not reconciled to a degree of satisfaction. In fact, all that I have encountered are indeed reconciled.

Before I get to interacting with this - I don't recall if you're Protestant or not but I was thinking you aren't. Am I correct that you don't hold something to like sola scriptura?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:45:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm still open to follow the evidence where it leads when it comes to showing God's word to be wrong in what it teaches.

Anyways, Peter Enns deals well with this topic as a biblical scholar. He's more liberal than most yet he's still an inerrantist.

I know him well.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:48:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2012 10:29:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/20/2012 9:54:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I found this to be potent and understated due to my own thoughts on the subject.

I left off one likely response, as it doesn't get to the root cause: "Because it's never been proved wrong." The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation. So assuming the Bible is perfect until proved otherwise assumes something not in evidence. What I'm asking is, :\"Why do you expect it to be perfect?"

I would hold that indeed the Bible has not been proven to be erroneous. I would lay it out differently than laid out here:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

So when 'I' say inerrant, I do not mean to imply that every T is crossed and every i dotted. Nor do I need copyists to be perfect.
When I say inerrant, I follow in line with the majority Theologians on the subject, (much like the Pope is infallible in matters of faith doctrine), the Bible is inerrant in matters of Doctrine of our faith.

No apparent discrepancy gives me pause. Of course, I am not suggesting I have encountered a discrepancy that was not reconciled to a degree of satisfaction. In fact, all that I have encountered are indeed reconciled.

Before I get to interacting with this - I don't recall if you're Protestant or not but I was thinking you aren't. Am I correct that you don't hold something to like sola scriptura?

Correct. I do not hold to any of the five sola's. I am Salvation Army. I hold to Methodist, Anglican, RCC and Eastern Orthodox viewpoint. (They all share 97% doctrines)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:53:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:45:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm still open to follow the evidence where it leads when it comes to showing God's word to be wrong in what it teaches.

Anyways, Peter Enns deals well with this topic as a biblical scholar. He's more liberal than most yet he's still an inerrantist.

I know him well.

Peter Enns isn't an inerrantist. o_O Or if he is, he's mighty sympathetic with non-inerrantists like Carlos Bovell, Kenton Sparks, Karl Barth and the like. He talks about inerrancy a lot on his blog (I follow it) and there's nothing there that gives me any inkling that he's an inerrant.

And, yeah, I have read his books - Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam (both of which are excellent).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:55:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:53:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2012 10:45:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm still open to follow the evidence where it leads when it comes to showing God's word to be wrong in what it teaches.

Anyways, Peter Enns deals well with this topic as a biblical scholar. He's more liberal than most yet he's still an inerrantist.

I know him well.

Peter Enns isn't an inerrantist. o_O Or if he is, he's mighty sympathetic with non-inerrantists like Carlos Bovell, Kenton Sparks, Karl Barth and the like. He talks about inerrancy a lot on his blog (I follow it) and there's nothing there that gives me any inkling that he's an inerrant.

And, yeah, I have read his books - Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam (both of which are excellent).

Ah, I see we are talking about different types of inerrancy.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:55:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2012 10:53:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2012 10:45:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm still open to follow the evidence where it leads when it comes to showing God's word to be wrong in what it teaches.

Anyways, Peter Enns deals well with this topic as a biblical scholar. He's more liberal than most yet he's still an inerrantist.

I know him well.

Peter Enns isn't an inerrantist. o_O Or if he is, he's mighty sympathetic with non-inerrantists like Carlos Bovell, Kenton Sparks, Karl Barth and the like. He talks about inerrancy a lot on his blog (I follow it) and there's nothing there that gives me any inkling that he's an inerrant.

And, yeah, I have read his books - Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam (both of which are excellent).

Ah, I see we are talking about different types of inerrancy.

He's definitely not a CSBI'er.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:12:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My initial response to this thread is that PCP is super gangster. I hella respect your views. Moving on...

At 6/20/2012 10:29:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/20/2012 9:54:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I found this to be potent and understated due to my own thoughts on the subject.

???

I left off one likely response, as it doesn't get to the root cause: "Because it's never been proved wrong."

The author refuted the position as soon as he presented it:

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:12:40 PM, Ren wrote:
My initial response to this thread is that PCP is super gangster. I hella respect your views. Moving on...

I agree. I have a great deal of respect for PCP.

At 6/20/2012 10:29:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/20/2012 9:54:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I found this to be potent and understated due to my own thoughts on the subject.

???

I left off one likely response, as it doesn't get to the root cause: "Because it's never been proved wrong."

The author refuted the position as soon as he presented it:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.


The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:41:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

I gave a detailed layout.


The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.

This is a defined concept, well known in Philosophy.
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

"Another major tenet is that God is maximal existence. Aquinas calls God ipsum esse subsistens, subsistent existence itself. The Church Fathers from early on affirm God as the absolute Being. Augustine calls God "existence itself" (ipsum esse). God is the ultimate in being. "
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 5:47:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.

That's true, ontological arguments leave open the question of how we can gradually know what so constitutes a Max great being. That's why they're called ontological arguments & not epistemological arguments.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 5:50:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:53:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2012 10:45:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm still open to follow the evidence where it leads when it comes to showing God's word to be wrong in what it teaches.

Anyways, Peter Enns deals well with this topic as a biblical scholar. He's more liberal than most yet he's still an inerrantist.

I know him well.

Peter Enns isn't an inerrantist. o_O Or if he is, he's mighty sympathetic with non-inerrantists like Carlos Bovell, Kenton Sparks, Karl Barth and the like. He talks about inerrancy a lot on his blog (I follow it) and there's nothing there that gives me any inkling that he's an inerrant.

And, yeah, I have read his books - Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam (both of which are excellent).

He actually is an inerrantist, but like I said it's not like most inerrantists ascribe to what he considers: his basic claim is that thoug God's word is innerrent, man's fallible interpretation of it is not-

I think he follow the theological tradition of distinguishing dialectical theology from existential theology.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 2:14:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 5:47:11 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.

That's true, ontological arguments leave open the question of how we can gradually know what so constitutes a Max great being. That's why they're called ontological arguments & not epistemological arguments.

I would disagree and prove this by concept:
A baseless/blind assertion = You Alliance are skinny.

That is a baseless/blind assertion. Hopefully that is obvious.

The characteristics of a Maximal Being are based in conception. That is we can conceive of the ‘greatest conceivable being'. All ontology is a cognitive conceptual process. Hence, the fact that proponents all agree based upon conceptualization of ontological statements.

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

P1 is supported by
Contingency argument
Teleological argument
Evidence of interaction
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 2:52:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 2:14:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/21/2012 5:47:11 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.

That's not true, ontological arguments leave open the question of how we can gradually know what so constitutes a Max great being. That's why they're called ontological arguments & not epistemological arguments.

I would disagree and prove this by concept:
A baseless/blind assertion = You Alliance are skinny.

That is a baseless/blind assertion. Hopefully that is obvious.

The characteristics of a Maximal Being are based in conception. That is we can conceive of the ‘greatest conceivable being'. All ontology is a cognitive conceptual process. Hence, the fact that proponents all agree based upon conceptualization of ontological statements.

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

P1 is supported by
Contingency argument
Teleological argument
Evidence of interaction

Correction, above in bold... also, I'm not skinny, I'm quite fit.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 7:45:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 2:52:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/21/2012 2:14:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/21/2012 5:47:11 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.

That's not true, ontological arguments leave open the question of how we can gradually know what so constitutes a Max great being. That's why they're called ontological arguments & not epistemological arguments.

I would disagree and prove this by concept:
A baseless/blind assertion = You Alliance are skinny.

That is a baseless/blind assertion. Hopefully that is obvious.

The characteristics of a Maximal Being are based in conception. That is we can conceive of the ‘greatest conceivable being'. All ontology is a cognitive conceptual process. Hence, the fact that proponents all agree based upon conceptualization of ontological statements.

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

P1 is supported by
Contingency argument
Teleological argument
Evidence of interaction

Correction, above in bold... also, I'm not skinny, I'm quite fit.

lol, got it.
btw I am fit too. My butt 'fits' perfectly into the well formed cushion of my chair :)
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:15:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 7:45:17 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/21/2012 2:52:02 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/21/2012 2:14:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/21/2012 5:47:11 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:18:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/20/2012 11:15:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:

That was my point. I felt it was not a refutation of the concept. At least of how I view the concept.

Well, you failed to substantiate that.

The problem here is that this response shifts the burden of proof off of the inerrantist, despite the fact that an expectation of complete perfection is not a natural position; no one expects that anything is perfect until it is proved to be flawed unless they have a prior reason for that expectation.

This is a blind assertion:

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error

This is the definition of a Maximal being.

God being a "maximally supreme being" is a blind assertion.

That is a relative conception, at best.

That's not true, ontological arguments leave open the question of how we can gradually know what so constitutes a Max great being. That's why they're called ontological arguments & not epistemological arguments.

I would disagree and prove this by concept:
A baseless/blind assertion = You Alliance are skinny.

That is a baseless/blind assertion. Hopefully that is obvious.

The characteristics of a Maximal Being are based in conception. That is we can conceive of the ‘greatest conceivable being'. All ontology is a cognitive conceptual process. Hence, the fact that proponents all agree based upon conceptualization of ontological statements.

P1 A maximally supreme being does not do 'things' in error
P2 A maximally supreme being would have had some method of recording and indeed the claim is people recorded their interaction
P3 The Bible (recording) would be completely effective for its intended purpose.
Conclusion, the Bible meets the logical expectations of an erroneous recording of God and would need to be proven erroneous to discount it.

P1 is supported by
Contingency argument
Teleological argument
Evidence of interaction

Correction, above in bold... also, I'm not skinny, I'm quite fit.

lol, got it.
btw I am fit too. My butt 'fits' perfectly into the well formed cushion of my chair :)

Haha