Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ebonmuse · 02-22-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyh44

I'm in a debate with a preacher and he keeps using this:

>This in itself is one more reason I believe
> the Bible is inspired and inerrant...it doesn't read
> like a lie. If the Bible wasn't inspired it would
> make more sense to remove passages like this which
> seem to run contrary to our limited human logic.

What he's doing is using the Bible "apparent flaws" in morality and consistency as an appeal to authenticity.

Anyone got a really good rebuttal for this?

If the Bible had no contradictory, immoral or illogical passages, he would obviously claim it to be proof of divine inspiration. But the fact that it does have such passages, he also claims to be proof of divine inspiration. Ask him what would constitute proof that the Bible is not inspired.

Joshua Adams · 02-22-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensei Meela

The "~" symbol means "not"; in other words, if X=consistent and Y=true, then if a passage is consistent, it is true, if a passage is not consistent it is true, and thus there is nothing to distinguish between "true" or "not true" based on consistency.

Well, just to split hairs, consistency is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for truth. So it should actually be "if a passage is true, then it is consistent". When it's written this way, we can see the argument that "if a passage is inconsistent, then it is true" is bullocks (the statement and its contrapositive aren't logically equivalent). The priest's claim is about on the level of C.S. Lewis' argument that Christianity is likely true because it's so bizarre.

Sensei Meela · 02-22-2005, 05:06 PM

:thumbs:

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-22-2005, 05:28 PM

Easy!

"STUPID"

...or, the good ole Beavis and Butthead: "Huh. You're dumb!"

Quoted from T.O.M's "Rebuttals Made Easy". If your friend doesn't get the picture, then there's a Q.E.D. for you!

jonesg · 02-23-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebonmuse

If the Bible had no contradictory, immoral or illogical passages, he would obviously claim it to be proof of divine inspiration. But the fact that it does have such passages, he also claims to be proof of divine inspiration. Ask him what would constitute proof that the Bible is not inspired.

Maybe what he means is , if the conspiracists were right, the vatican would have removed all contradictory passages.
I have not seen any contradictions which could not be explained , it depends on finding someone who is well versed enough.

For example, Paul and James on faith.
They seem to completely contradict each other,
James is talking about the fruits of faith.
Paul is speaking to the roots of faith.

jeremyp · 02-23-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoodleLovinPessimist

If X is evidence for Y, then, by definition ~X must be evidence for ~Y. If both X and ~X are "evidence" for Y, then neither are actually evidence: X and ~X is not evidentiary: It does not distinguish between Y and ~Y.

This is not true in general. For instance if X represents "N is divisible by 4" and Y represents "N is divisible by 2", then obviously X is evidence of Y, but ~X is not evidence for ~Y i.e. "N is not divisible by 4" does not imply "N is not divisible by 2".

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-23-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesg

Maybe what he means is , if the conspiracists were right, the vatican would have removed all contradictory passages.

How could they have done that when there were already hundreds of copies of each book all over the place? Were they supposed to change every copy of every book?

By the way, no one has proposed any "conspiracy" theory so I don't know where you're getting that.

Quote:

I have not seen any contradictions which could not be explained , it depends on finding someone who is well versed enough.

Could you answer the following?

How did Judas die?
What were Jesus' last words on the cross?
Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod or during the census of Quirinius?
After Jesus ws born did he he go running off to Egypt as Matthew says or did he go straight to Nazareth as Luke says?
Was Jesus descended from Solomon or wasn't he?
Who was the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection?
How many angels were at the empty tomb?
Did the last supper happen on Passover?

I eagerly await your well-versed answers.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 02-23-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyp

This is not true in general. For instance if X represents "N is divisible by 4" and Y represents "N is divisible by 2", then obviously X is evidence of Y, but ~X is not evidence for ~Y i.e. "N is not divisible by 4" does not imply "N is not divisible by 2".

[edited to add: You are, of course, correct, and welcome to IIDB :wave:]

The logical case is the limit. In practice, we have to look at things probabilistically. In this case X is evidence for Y iff P(Y|X) > P(Y|~X). The limit of the probability is P(Y|X) = 1 and P(Y|~X) = 0, which is equivalent to X->Y & ~X->~Y.

In this case P("divisible by 2" | "divisible by 4") = 1 and P("divisible by 2" | "not divisible by 4") = 1/3; therefore the relationship you describe is probabilistically evidentiary.

The theistic in the OP case has P (god exists | no inconsistencies in the bible) = P (god exists | some inconsistencies in the bible) (= 1?), therefore inconsistencies are not evidentiary.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2005, 05:06 PM	#13
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	:thumbs:

02-22-2005, 05:28 PM	#14
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	Easy! "STUPID" ...or, the good ole Beavis and Butthead: "Huh. You're dumb!" Quoted from T.O.M's "Rebuttals Made Easy". If your friend doesn't get the picture, then there's a Q.E.D. for you!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.