Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there any proof that the Bible is not 100% man made?
Proof in the hard evidentialist sense? No.
The typical evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration consists of fulfilled prophecies, archaeological discoveries, internal consistency, etc. Like most Christian apologetics, this evidence really serves only to confirm and bolster the beliefs of those who already believe. It isn't indisputable enough or compelling enough to sway a neutral or hostile evidentialist.
But the evidentialist demand for proof misses the mark. As I said on another thread, when considered in a vacuum the testimonial evidence for the Resurrection isn't particularly convincing or compelling. A neutral or hostile evidentialist would be quite justified in saying "Your evidence counts as nothing in comparison to the vast body of evidence and experience that corpses don't rise from the dead, ever."
But if one has reached a conviction that the God of Christianity exists and is the creator of the universe and that Jesus was his only begotten Son, the Resurrection becomes much more plausible and the evidence may be entirely sufficient. This doesn't mean the Resurrection is ontologically true (really happened) but it does mean the believer may be epistemologically justified (rational) in believing it - assuming the believer's underlying beliefs about God and Jesus have epistemic justification.
The same is true of the Bible. Considered in a vacuum, the Bible is just another book. The only objective evidence of divine inspiration is as I've described above, and I'd agree it isn't compelling - certainly nothing approaching proof in the hard evidentialist sense.
I don't think many people become Christians because they are objectively convinced the Bible is divinely inspired. They become Christians because the Christian message resonates with them as truth. This may be the culmination of a long quest such as mine or it may be a sudden realization (which Christians believe is a calling by God and a convicting by the Holy Spirit).
If one has reached a conviction that the God of Christianity exists and the Christian message is true, then the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired is entirely plausible. The Bible does, after all, contain the very message that is the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. Jesus himself believed the Bible was God's word and taught it as such. The greater puzzle would be a Christian who didn't think the Bible was divinely inspired, although we seem to have some here.
As with the Resurrection, this doesn't inevitably mean the Bible is divinely inspired. It means a believer is epistemologically justified in believing it is.
In the category of evidence, I might also point to the unlikely history and survival of Israel and the unlikely survival and phenomenal growth of the Christian religion. There is also a long tradition that the Bible proves itself to a believer through the witness of the Holy Spirit, something that I and most believers have experienced.
Almost every thread on the Religion & Spirituality forum would be greatly improved if everyone had a rudimentary understanding of epistemology and specifically religious epistemology. (Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge and belief.) Except to a hard evidentialist - and there really is no such thing, because no one lives according to this impossible standard - the proper approach to religious questions isn't "Can you prove it?" or "Do you have hard evidence for that?" but rather "Are you justified in believing that? Is it rational to believe that?"
It's inevitable that a hard evidentialist and a religious believer are going to be talking past each other, as we see on almost every thread. The dispute isn't really over evidence and proof, but over what counts as evidence in the context of religion and how much is required for a religious belief to be justified.
If "Is there a God?" and "Is the Bible inspired?" were the same sorts of questions as "How far away is the moon?" or "At what temperature does lead melt?", then a hard evidentialist approach would be appropriate. But they aren't even vaguely the same sorts of questions. And humans have never limited themselves to attempting to grapple with those sorts of questions.
The typical evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration consists of fulfilled prophecies, archaeological discoveries, internal consistency, etc. Like most Christian apologetics, this evidence really serves only to confirm and bolster the beliefs of those who already believe. It isn't indisputable enough or compelling enough to sway a neutral or hostile evidentialist.
You write has if you actually had this evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
But the evidentialist demand for proof misses the mark. As I said on another thread, when considered in a vacuum the testimonial evidence for the Resurrection isn't particularly convincing or compelling. A neutral or hostile evidentialist would be quite justified in saying "Your evidence counts as nothing in comparison to the vast body of evidence and experience that corpses don't rise from the dead, ever."
But if one has reached a conviction that the God of Christianity exists and is the creator of the universe and that Jesus was his only begotten Son, the Resurrection becomes much more plausible and the evidence may be entirely sufficient. This doesn't mean the Resurrection is ontologically true (really happened) but it does mean the believer may be epistemologically justified (rational) in believing it - assuming the believer's underlying beliefs about God and Jesus have epistemic justification.
The same is true of the Bible. Considered in a vacuum, the Bible is just another book. The only objective evidence of divine inspiration is as I've described above, and I'd agree it isn't compelling - certainly nothing approaching proof in the hard evidentialist sense.
So ignore the evidence and just believe. That is good philosophy, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
In the category of evidence, I might also point to the unlikely history and survival of Israel and the unlikely survival and phenomenal growth of the Christian religion.
One religion had to be top dog. Apparently it will soon be Islam, which also had a phenomenal growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Almost every thread on the Religion & Spirituality forum would be greatly improved if everyone had a rudimentary understanding of epistemology and specifically religious epistemology. (Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge and belief.) Except to a hard evidentialist - and there really is no such thing, because no one lives according to this impossible standard - the proper approach to religious questions isn't "Can you prove it?" or "Do you have hard evidence for that?" but rather "Are you justified in believing that? Is it rational to believe that?"
So hard evidentialists do not ask "is it rational to believe that?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
It's inevitable that a hard evidentialist and a religious believer are going to be talking past each other, as we see on almost every thread. The dispute isn't really over evidence and proof, but over what counts as evidence in the context of religion and how much is required for a religious belief to be justified.
If "Is there a God?" and "Is the Bible inspired?" were the same sorts of questions as "How far away is the moon?" or "At what temperature does lead melt?", then a hard evidentialist approach would be appropriate. But they aren't even vaguely the same sorts of questions. And humans have never limited themselves to attempting to grapple with those sorts of questions.
So you do not need evidence to believe in Cedric the cosmic carrot?.
Proof in the hard evidentialist sense? No.The typical evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration consists of fulfilled prophecies...
Such as? Don't bother with Israel. That's too easy to debunk.
Quote:
...archaeological discoveries...
What about the archaeological discoveries that prove your Bible wrong?
Quote:
...internal consistency...
what about the contradictions?
Quote:
Like most Christian apologetics, this evidence really serves only to confirm and bolster the beliefs of those who already believe. It isn't indisputable enough or compelling enough to sway a neutral or hostile evidentialist.
Well you got that right anyway!
Quote:
But the evidentialist demand for proof misses the mark. As I said on another thread, when considered in a vacuum the testimonial evidence for the Resurrection isn't particularly convincing or compelling. A neutral or hostile evidentialist would be quite justified in saying "Your evidence counts as nothing in comparison to the vast body of evidence and experience that corpses don't rise from the dead, ever."
But if one has reached a conviction that the God of Christianity exists and is the creator of the universe and that Jesus was his only begotten Son, the Resurrection becomes much more plausible and the evidence may be entirely sufficient.
So once you convince yourself that Jesus exists, it's easy to find evidence for Jesus? Do you realise that works for leprechauns too?
Quote:
In the category of evidence, I might also point to the unlikely history and survival of Israel...
It's not difficult to survive when the most militarily powerful country on the planet NEEDS you to survive.
Quote:
...and the unlikely survival and phenomenal growth of the Christian religion.
It grew because of the sword, not because it was true.
Quote:
There is also a long tradition that the Bible proves itself to a believer through the witness of the Holy Spirit, something that I and most believers have experienced.
My friend would say the same about the Bhagavad Gita.
None of what you just typed makes any sense, follows my post well, or explains anything.
Your post is word salad.
No it isn't. And that's what's so frustrating about Arach. He often does say things that make sense. If you unravel the word - salad.
It doesn't have to presuppose a deity.
(this is a deep one but basically, while the 'you can't dismiss the Bible without dismissing any other book' argument is valid, and the claims to be a human record of God's doings, it is NOT valid to presuppose that it is the 'word of God' just because the claim is made.) we can layout all the data and it all has a human hand in it.
(a case can be made for the Bible being the words of men, and not a god) then the question becomes "is there one piece that doesn't look like a human was involve?"
(essentially the search for knowledge in the Bible that a human could not have known;- science in the Bible or, of course, prophecy) as in "that we missed."
its called hitting from every angle ...
especially from behind.
(looking at all aspects. And we are all familiar with fiddling and wangling to try to fins 'cience in the Bible'. And 'prophecy' is a vey old aplogetic.)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-02-2020 at 03:57 AM..
The typical evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration consists of fulfilled prophecies, archaeological discoveries, internal consistency, etc. Like most Christian apologetics, this evidence really serves only to confirm and bolster the beliefs of those who already believe. It isn't indisputable enough or compelling enough to sway a neutral or hostile evidentialist.
But the evidentialist demand for proof misses the mark. As I said on another thread, when considered in a vacuum the testimonial evidence for the Resurrection isn't particularly convincing or compelling. A neutral or hostile evidentialist would be quite justified in saying "Your evidence counts as nothing in comparison to the vast body of evidence and experience that corpses don't rise from the dead, ever."
But if one has reached a conviction that the God of Christianity exists and is the creator of the universe and that Jesus was his only begotten Son, the Resurrection becomes much more plausible and the evidence may be entirely sufficient. This doesn't mean the Resurrection is ontologically true (really happened) but it does mean the believer may be epistemologically justified (rational) in believing it - assuming the believer's underlying beliefs about God and Jesus have epistemic justification.
The same is true of the Bible. Considered in a vacuum, the Bible is just another book. The only objective evidence of divine inspiration is as I've described above, and I'd agree it isn't compelling - certainly nothing approaching proof in the hard evidentialist sense.
I don't think many people become Christians because they are objectively convinced the Bible is divinely inspired. They become Christians because the Christian message resonates with them as truth. This may be the culmination of a long quest such as mine or it may be a sudden realization (which Christians believe is a calling by God and a convicting by the Holy Spirit).
If one has reached a conviction that the God of Christianity exists and the Christian message is true, then the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired is entirely plausible. The Bible does, after all, contain the very message that is the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. Jesus himself believed the Bible was God's word and taught it as such. The greater puzzle would be a Christian who didn't think the Bible was divinely inspired, although we seem to have some here.
As with the Resurrection, this doesn't inevitably mean the Bible is divinely inspired. It means a believer is epistemologically justified in believing it is.
In the category of evidence, I might also point to the unlikely history and survival of Israel and the unlikely survival and phenomenal growth of the Christian religion. There is also a long tradition that the Bible proves itself to a believer through the witness of the Holy Spirit, something that I and most believers have experienced.
Almost every thread on the Religion & Spirituality forum would be greatly improved if everyone had a rudimentary understanding of epistemology and specifically religious epistemology. (Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge and belief.) Except to a hard evidentialist - and there really is no such thing, because no one lives according to this impossible standard - the proper approach to religious questions isn't "Can you prove it?" or "Do you have hard evidence for that?" but rather "Are you justified in believing that? Is it rational to believe that?"
It's inevitable that a hard evidentialist and a religious believer are going to be talking past each other, as we see on almost every thread. The dispute isn't really over evidence and proof, but over what counts as evidence in the context of religion and how much is required for a religious belief to be justified.
If "Is there a God?" and "Is the Bible inspired?" were the same sorts of questions as "How far away is the moon?" or "At what temperature does lead melt?", then a hard evidentialist approach would be appropriate. But they aren't even vaguely the same sorts of questions. And humans have never limited themselves to attempting to grapple with those sorts of questions.
Not a bad post. In fact, pretty good. But boiling it down to essentials, you are saying that there is not enough evidence to convince, unless one is already convinced through Faith.
Such as? Don't bother with Israel. That's too easy to debunk.
What about the archaeological discoveries that prove your Bible wrong?
what about the contradictions?
Well you got that right anyway!
So once you convince yourself that Jesus exists, it's easy to find evidence for Jesus? Do you realise that works for leprechauns too?
It's not difficult to survive when the most militarily powerful country on the planet NEEDS you to survive.
It grew because of the sword, not because it was true.
My friend would say the same about the Bhagavad Gita.
Thank you, Raffa. Essentially, those were the self -serving apologetics used to try to prove Bible and Christianity true. They are very cleverly crafted to look convincing (you know the 'Tyre' prophecy well enough) and much use is made of making coincidence (1) look like more than that, the 'spiderman' apologetic (just because it is set in a real place and has real persons in it does not make the story true), and of course the never ending fiddling of the evidence to make it fit. The 'walls of Jericho' being perhaps the test case of walls that hadn't actually collapsed and were of nothing like the appropriate date were (in the 30's) presented as archaeological evidence for the Bible.
'Biblical archaeology' (as it is called) is almost as big a nuisance as Pyramidiotology and alien technology.
(1) while watching a compilation of outrageously fluked snooker shots, it struck me that coincidence, taken out of context, can be made to look like Something More' . It struck me particularly when a player crossed himself before a shot and it didn't come off. When he tried it again without crossing himself, it came off. That got me thinkng....
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-02-2020 at 04:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it isn't. And that's what's so frustrating about Arach. He often does say things that make sense. If you unravel the word - salad.
. It struck me particularly 
