DerekSansone

Howdy,

These are my new borns....

Argument Against Bible Perfection

1. Perfect and Innerrant presupposes an objective standard for perfection and innarrency. To err is to contrast that of which is the opposite, i.e. perfection, without error. As an error would automatically eliminate the established perfection.

2. If I have 10 true or false questions that I am asked to answer, if I make one error I see to have answered the entire 10 question test perfectly. Perfect equaled answering all ten correctly, and was established by the tester making. (A standard set by those who formed the test....)

3. But without establishing a pre tester or pre standard justifier, God and Bible perfection is immeasurable, and subjective. Someone can be perfect if we have decided a standard for perfection, a specific experimental task. But ultimate perfection on a revelation ground is standard-less and is therefore immeasurable and indistinguishable.

4. Since The God concept is immaterial and held on subjective appeal it is relatively interpreted.

5. It’s impossible to measure yourself against a non-thing, or a concept that is immeasurable to physical reality. There is no palpable or appreciable data that supports a veridical measurement between tangible spatial agents and their contrary... incorporeal God concepts...

C. Therefore, it is useless and absurd to refer to a God concept or the Bible as perfect. Without proving what 1.) What the term “God� means objectively, and making a connection to a specific God and 2.) What the standard of perfect is…

Argument from the Bible demonstrating itself to be the Word of God

1. In order for something to demonstrate another thing, that other thing must exist to allow for a comparison and falsification.

2. If I say I am walking like my Dad walks, my Dad has to exist in order to make the comparison.

3. There is no word of God measuring stick independent of the 66 Books that make up the Holy Bible. Matter of fact, we have many different alleged God revelations, and none have been proven false, therefore not one is justified as true….

4. There is also no justification or evidence for a divine author since no one has ever seen an experiment with any divine being. The term "divine" itself begs the question....One has to establish divine being’s exist, then demonstrate how this being is connected to the men who wrote the bible. Spirits are not physical observable beings. Souls have not been shown to exist. There is no positive data to support such assertions.

5. So claiming an immaterial disembodied being has worked in unison with another immaterial object, such as the soul, all in regards to the mechanism in which the Bible content was written, has no veridical basis beyond layered conjecture...assumptions, personal bias and fallacious appeal. And is an unproven irrelevant hypothesis on the cosmological phenomena. No non being can act on a physical being.

C. Therefore the Holy Bible can’t demonstrate itself to be the Word Of a God.

Have fun...

Derek Sansone

Atheos

Welcome to IIDB, DerekSansone. :wave:

Your babies seem to have legs.

You need only go to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible if you want to see some large scale de-bunking of the inerrancy of the Bible. One of my personal favorite segments is when God kills all the cattle of Egypt in the 5th plague, then comes back around and kills even more of the cattle of Egypt in the 7th plague, and kills even more of them in the 10th plague. Them damn cattle just won't succumb to a good smiting.

It's also interesting how that Noah and his family were supposedly the only survivors of the flood, but then the Nephilim (giants) also survived it since they were spotted in Numbers 13.

But there are other, more egregious contradictions in the Bible, conveniently laid out on SAB's website for your perusal.

-Atheos

newtype_alpha

I think your babies are misnamed. This is a refutation of popular Christian theology. The original authors of the Bible never claimed perfection--obviously so, since some of the scribes who assembled the original scriptures on more than one occasion INTENTIONALLY contradicted other writers in order to make a point. New Testemant writers are no less guilty creative interpretation, in fact Jesus himself actually ammends some of the OT laws and edicts, as more fitting with what he (or whoever it was writing the gospel) thought was appropriate to religious life. The concept of the Bible being either perfect or infallible is an invention of Catholicism in their effort to dumb-down their adherents with the doctrine of "dont ask, just obey."

Also a strictly Christian point. The Bible can't demonstrate itself to be "the word of God" because it never meant to do so. Christians just have a very warped veiw of what "inspired by God" actually means, since they believe God actually wrote it himself. This is a position that is utterly illogical and impossible to defend, even with their own theology, since the Bible never explicitly makes that claim. Interesting, also, is the fact that the book of Esther does not even mention the word "God" anywhere in the chapter.

Vorkosigan

This looks more like BCH stuff.

DerekSansone

Hi newtype_alpha,

Yes I know what it refutes, I was a Reformed Calvinist…And debate Reformed Calvinists, or Covenant theologians…I was also born Catholic.

So, you may not be aware of the claims that the apologists I debate make concerning innerancy. In my debate with Gene Cook, I probed him on verifying the data in which he used from the bible to support the bible. It was a clear cut circularity…But Presuppositionalists admit to it, because they think there would be no higher authoritative work to use as verification…It’s pretty crazy, let me tell ya.

Well, I am with you for most of this…

So, you are a theist? What is the nature of your association?

D

DerekSansone

Hi Atheos,

?

Thanks, I am well aware of the SAB. I am also aware of Jason Gastrich and his SAB answers…I knew him and when I was a believer, I purchased it from him…But, answers doesn't equal automatic correctness...

Anyway, these arguments are mine. They may have similarities, but I did indeed formulate them…I didn’t borrow anything from anyone…

Ciao.

DerekSansone

Vorkosigan wrote

Maybe so.

spuleeah

If must also follow from Derek's reasoning that his argument is imperfect, unsound, and illogical until he can tell us objectively what the standard of a perfect, sound, or logical argument is.
so, before you could know you were conscious...i.e. before your "self" could demonstrate itself to be a "self"...you must have compared your consciousness to other consciousnesses in order to verify that you were conscious....brilliant.

[edited-V]. Btw, I would like to introduce myself as someone who recognizes you. Your decisive defeat in a certain informal debate was an occasion for much amusement for me. As one fellow newcomer to another...Greetings! and welcome to the pool of confusion.

Atheos

Legs. Either arguments stand or they don't. A pun sucks when you have to explain it.

To clarify I find myself in agreement with your propositions. You seem to have placed much thought into them and on the surface they appear sound.

It will be interesting to see how your arguments hold up under the critical eyes of the fundies. Faith in the buybull can cover a multitude of logical fallacies.

-Atheos

DerekSansone

Good morning spuleeah,

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by DerekSansone Howdy, These are my new borns.... Argument Against Bible Perfection C. Therefore, it is useless and absurd to refer to a God concept or the Bible as perfect. Without proving what 1.) What the term “God� means objectively, and making a connection to a specific God and 2.) What the standard of perfect is…

There is no objective standards for perfect, sound, or logical argument unless we decide there is according to our own requirments.

There can be a standard, but it is a local standard for a specific purpose. There is no Universal Objective definition for prefect…Re read my argument…

That’s not brilliant to me, but hey, I am relativist. You have a false analogy here. When I say I perform a certain task like someone else, if you don’t find that someone else whom I have made the comparison to, I can still make the comparison, and even if they didn’t exist, I could have lied or fabricated it…But, if one was to verify the clam, or falsify it, they would have to find that other person at some point…If not, there is no way to verify what I said. It would be unfalsifiable, but I could still make it up…I could still assert...

Like in my argument. To verify the comparison or the claims of the Bible demonstrating itself to be the word of a god, is valid but not true…it can’t pass falsification yet, and it remains an unproven proposition…

I have a bottle of shampoo that I bought from Marshall’s. On the price sticker, it reads, “$5.99� in big print, then below, it reads, “Compared to $10.00�. I assume they mean normal retail price…But this is case and point. Ok, fine, so it’s cheaper, great news, but to fully know the truth of the claims of price, we’d have to have the same bottle from a normal retailer, not another discount retailer…

What are you referring to?

I hope you aren’t referring to Vincent Cheung. :banghead: If you are, then you can visit Christianlogic.com to catch my explanations from that nightmare…
http://www.christianlogic.com/forums...5b1b74ae2880f9

Ciao...