Keith's Weblog: Comments on "The authority of the Bible"

by dan foster

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:29:41 +0000

how very convenient.

by Jim

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:44:51 +0000

the Bible must serve as its own final authority.

That is no authority whatsoever. Suppose I wrote a book that also claimed that it was the word of God. If the authority a book rests upon is itself, that book would be just as authorative as the Bible. Since I cannot believe you would concede that, I can only conclude that the authority you assign to the Bible is rooted elsewhere.

by Richard@Home

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:05:03 +0000

It may or may not be the WORD of God, but It's been transcribed by the imperfect hand of Man. How about an errata page at the back? ;-)

by Keith Gaughan

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:52:49 +0000

Ok, I'll bite: that reasoning seems rather circular, ergo insubstantial.

by CS

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:44:42 +0000

I agree with Keith (D), and in response to the circular comments: I think the confusion lies in the fact that we want to prove the Bible is God's Word in human terms (scientifically, historically, philosophically, etc.), but the Bible is proved in a spiritual realm. I think the proof (truth) is revealed to the individual through the Holy Spirit (our link to the spiritual realm).

So, IMHO, it is a waste of time to try to prove the Bible is God's Word, as God reveals this to us at His choosing.

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:34:48 +0000

how very convenient.

That's exactly the kind of lazy response I expected from people who didn't understand my point. The fact is that this is merely a specific application, to the Bible, of a general principle: that your final authority must be self-authorizing. So, it was foolish for Dan to assume that his own worldview somehow didn't have to deal with the same issue.

If your final authority is not the revealed word of God, the only alternative is for you to be your own final authority. As the history of western philosophy has shown, this leads inevitably to pure skepticism (or at least solipsism).

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:47:49 +0000

Ok, I'll bite: that reasoning seems rather circular, ergo insubstantial.

My argument isn't circular. For an argument to be circular means that it assumes its conclusion in its premises. My argument is that your final authority has to be self-authorizing. In other words, it must be given fealty on its own authority.

The argument has the same structure as the argument that there is no largest integer. For any integer n, there is a larger integer n+1. If you assert that an integer m is the largest integer, integer m+1 is larger, so m can't be the largest integer. Similarly, if what you take as your final authority is justified as your final authority based on some other authority, then it isn't your final authority. So, your final authority must be self-authorizing.

by Jim

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:43:15 +0000

No, I agree, the argument is circular. It goes like this:

"Why should I believe that the Bible is the word of your god?"

"Because the Bible says so."

"And why should I believe the Bible when it says that?"

"Because it's the word of God."

That's a classic example of circular logic.

Your analogy to the largest integer is quite apt; if you iterate through the set of integers, you will never reach a "largest integer" - so, if you follow the analogy, you will never reach a state where the Bible is authoritative.

At some point, I have to concede that some people will believe anything and not respond to reason. I think that it's only fair that when faced with reason, you admit that your faith requires you to throw away reason rather than prolong an unsupportable argument.

While I understand the whole concept of "if it made sense then you wouldn't need faith", I think that the fact that one of (if not the) largest organisations in the world is actively persuading people to give up critical thinking is extremely dangerous. I consider the act of thinking for yourself rather than blindly accepting what somebody else has told you is a large part of what makes us human, and thus, the idea of accepting something in a book as a universal truth is a very dehumanising concept to me, especially when you admit that it has no authority beyond its own say-so.

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:05:05 +0000

Suppose I wrote a book that also claimed that it was the word of God. If the authority a book rests upon is itself, that book would be just as authorative as the Bible. Since I cannot believe you would concede that, I can only conclude that the authority you assign to the Bible is rooted elsewhere.

Now you're getting slightly away from my argument above and going into a discussion of what reasons one can have to believe that the Bible (or another book) is the word of God.

It's not simply a matter of a book claiming to be from God. You then have to evaluate that claim. Does the book provide reason to believe that it is from God? Does the book provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of reality? The Bible does, and no other book that claims to be a revelation from God does. (This, of course, is only an outline of my argument.)

In short, it is impossible to deny the truth of the Bible because if the Christian God does not exist truth itself is impossible. So, denying the truth of the Bible makes that very denial non-sensical. The argument I make is an argument from the impossibility of the contrary. Actually, Wikipedia has a fairly good summary of the style of argument I use. I mentioned above that you cannot "prove" the authority of the Bible by appeals to direct evidence (Hume's argument against miracles is worth mentioning here). Hence, this is an "indirect", or transcendental, argument that argues from the impossibility of the contrary.

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:30:26 +0000

I think the confusion lies in the fact that we want to prove the Bible is God's Word in human terms (scientifically, historically, philosophically, etc.), but the Bible is proved in a spiritual realm. I think the proof (truth) is revealed to the individual through the Holy Spirit (our link to the spiritual realm).

So, IMHO, it is a waste of time to try to prove the Bible is God's Word, as God reveals this to us at His choosing.

No no no. That's very bad. It doesn't make any sense to talk about something being "proved spiritually". Things are just proved. You seem to be making a distinction between something being proved logically and someone having the internal conviction of belief. Certainly, internal conviction is important, and I believe that faith is given to us by God, but it has to be belief in the truth.

You should be careful about making the type of statement you just did. For instance, the Mormon's criterion for true faith and true belief is that you experience a "burning in the bosom". Yet that's a subjective criterion.

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:34:15 +0000

It may or may not be the WORD of God, but It's been transcribed by the imperfect hand of Man. How about an errata page at the back? ;-)

That begs the question. For if it is the word of God, God would have kept it whole. If not, then not. But in any case, there's no reason to believe that what we have today is significantly different than the original. There simply isn't documentary evidence to suggest that the Bible has been altered. In any case where there are some manuscripts which differ slightly they put a footnote in your Bible so you're aware of it. In short, textual reasons like the one you offered are no reason to bring the authority of the Bible into question.

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:43:50 +0000

Your analogy to the largest integer is quite apt; if you iterate through the set of integers, you will never reach a "largest integer" - so, if you follow the analogy, you will never reach a state where the Bible is authoritative.

I don't see the argument you're making (for instance, what's the iteration involved?), but regardless, you're misunderstanding my point. I don't say that we should believe that the Bible is the word of God only because it says so (though, we should immediately recognize its inspiration, though as fallen creatures we often don't). Rather I'm saying that if it is the word of God no direct evidence can, in principle, establish that fact. You're confusing my statements about the ultimate authority of the Bible with the reasons for recognizing it.

At some point, I have to concede that some people will believe anything and not respond to reason. I think that it's only fair that when faced with reason, you admit that your faith requires you to throw away reason rather than prolong an unsupportable argument.

No, I've repeatedly said that there are reasons to have faith and believe the Bible. In fact, I'll say a much stronger thing... that the very foundation of reason is belief in the God of Christianity as revealed in the Bible, and to deny that requires that you "throw away reason".

While I understand the whole concept of "if it made sense then you wouldn't need faith", I think that the fact that one of (if not the) largest organisations in the world is actively persuading people to give up critical thinking is extremely dangerous. I consider the act of thinking for yourself rather than blindly accepting what somebody else has told you is a large part of what makes us human, and thus, the idea of accepting something in a book as a universal truth is a very dehumanising concept to me, especially when you admit that it has no authority beyond its own say-so.

You're arguing against a caricature, not my position.

by Jim

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:06:10 +0000

It's not simply a matter of a book claiming to be from God. You then have to evaluate that claim. Does the book provide reason to believe that it is from God? Does the book provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of reality? The Bible does, and no other book that claims to be a revelation from God does.

It's not a matter of whether a book does, it's a matter of whether a book can. Let me frame my point in a different way:

Suppose, all those years ago, somebody just made up the Bible. No god, merely fiction. If this hypothetical scenario were true, then, today, your argument would apply just as equally to this "non-Bible".

In short, it is impossible to deny the truth of the Bible because if the Christian God does not exist truth itself is impossible.

That makes no sense. Can you back up your assertion that truth is reliant upon the existence of the Christian god? It sounds like you are resorting to circular logic again.

For if it is the word of God, God would have kept it whole.

There is unsurmountable evidence to the contrary - unless you are claiming that everybody who believes that the Bible is the word of the Christian god believes and advocates the same thing. Let's take capital punishment as an example:

There are some people who believe that capital punishment is acceptable to the Christian god and teach others this.

There are some people who believe that capital punishment is unacceptable to the Christian god and teach others this.

Both groups believe that the Bible is the word of the Christian god.

If "the word of God" is so uncorruptable, how can both conflicting viewpoints be taught? They can't both be "the word of God".

by ideoplastos

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:15:33 +0000

I've got a burning in my bosom from the tacos I had for lunch... am I a Mormon now?

by Keith

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:12 +0000

Yes.

by CS

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:55:43 +0000

No no no. That's very bad. It doesn't make any sense to talk about something being "proved spiritually". Things are just proved. You seem to be making a distinction between something being proved logically and someone having the internal conviction of belief.

Let me try to clarify the "spiritual realm" of which I'm speaking: I know the Bible is God's Word because of the knowledge imparted to me by the Holy Spirit. But, how can I ever sufficiently prove this to a non-believer who will only base truth on our constrained measures(science, ...)? I can't, and you can't either. The spiritual realm must be considered to prove this.

Things are just proved.

Yep, and in His time they will be.

...the Mormon's criterion for true faith and true belief is that you experience a "burning in the bosom".

Ugh. I'm not talking about feelings here--rather, knowledge imparted to us by the Holy Spirit.

by Keith Gaughan

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:00:54 +0000

You know, I didn't expect a thread war to erupt quite that quickly!

I'm tired: too much BF1942...

by David Chen

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:03:45 +0000

It seems that the entire idea of free-will depends upon the fact that a person is his own final authority. He can choose to believe the Bible, or not.

I don't follow how truth would not exist if the Christian god did not exist. Could you explain it a different way?

by Mark

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:40:56 +0000

I have a question.
What are the non-believers on this page trying to do? Are you trying to find answers to questions that have crippled your ability to believe? Or are you trying to prove another person's faith as incorrect? This is directed towards those answering yes to the latter.

Here's what it comes down to: Keith is simply showing, with this example, that asking for an authority over something that is supposed to have final authority makes no sense. If you can't see that, then you shouldn't write any comment other than "I don't understand."

If you want to get into whether the bible is what it says it is, that's fine, but realize that it is you bringing up this issue to this entry and not Keith. Again, he only provided logical reasoning as to why asking for an authority above something with final authority does not make sense. And finding such an authority would in fact show that the bible isn't the authority it claims to be. If you don't want to hear it, fine, leave.

Christians believe in the bible. What do you believe in? Christians are working for God and trying to give others an opportunity to see and be saved. What purpose are you working for in trying to take that belief away? According to Christianity, your eternal life is far better off if your soul is saved. How would a Christians' 70 years on this planet be better if he/she was more like you and without faith? With your beliefs about the world, what are you trying to "save" him from? A Christians' motivation is the glory of God. What is yours?
It is easy to see why believers want to help others believe as well. I want to understand why the people that don't believe want others not to believe.

So I ask again, what are you doing here? Keith's intentions are, in the very least, kind-hearted. Are yours?

Keith is writing on his personal site, not outside publicly preaching on the street corner, or at your home hitting you in the face with King James. If you don't want to hear it, then leave.

You argue as if proving Keith wrong proves the Bible as such. Do you really think that you've intellectually discovered new arguments against Christianity? Are you so high on yourself that you think you've come up with something that destroys the bible, when far greater minds trying to prove just that haven't been able to?

There is no evidence that directly proves the bible to be wrong. But you see your indirect evidence as enough to believe it to be wrong; are you so ignorant that you can't understand that believers simply see their indirect evidence as enough to believe?

Yes, there are many common arguments against the bible; many are on this page. Do you honestly think that there isn't a biblical answer for all of them? If you think there isn't, do you know there isn't. Instead of spewing out arguments you've heard over the years, why not at least read it so you can make some arguments for yourself? Because proving this “authority” point wrong, which you won’t by the way, wouldn’t prove the bible to be wrong anyway.

by Mark

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:48:50 +0000

Keith will explain this far better than I. I'm just so happy to see someone ask for something to be explained, rather than turn it into a simpler, incorrect idea just so they can argue or make a, what they think to be, quick-witted response.

by Richard@Home

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:47:49 +0000

Mark, It seems to me that most non-christians try to 'save' Christians because they feel they are being duped and lied to. If you 'believed' that its all made up - woundn't you want to help educate those who you believed have been misguided?

In much the same way that Christians help others to see and be saved - the non-believes seek to help believers to see and be saved from what they believe to be a falsehood.

BTW - I'm not a Christian - my particular beliefs are irrelivant to this discussion. I wholy agree with Keith's initial premise. The only authority (for a Christian) which trumps the bible is God.

I just don't trust the infallability of mankind. The Druids (for example) NEVER wrote anything down - everything was passes mouth to mouth. This is important as you can guage your targets comprehension and explain things in greater detail, or perhaps using different words where neccessary. The true MEANING is never lost in some dodgy translation.

If I were a Christian, I'd be tempted to learn sansscript (or whatever the earliest versions of the bible were written in) so I knew what I was reading was a close to the 'source' as possible.

by Mark

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:26:16 +0000

I wish that I could believe that, but read arguments between the two groups, and non-believers seem to be arguing with much more malice and sarcasm than “trying to show the truth”. Also, they tend to argue against the bible, and not for "nothingness". Proving the bible wrong would only show that, and not the truth. Proving one thought wrong doesn't provide a correct thought in of itself. So if non-believers were really benevolent in their intentions, then their arguments would be closer to this mold rather than the former. Like I said, Christians feel like they are fighting for your soul. You are saying that non-Christians are trying to show us the real world. Unless you're willing to say that non-beliers are definitely right, then they aren't showing people the truth, just what they believe to be the truth. Is that what Christians are doing? Yes, but Christianity provides motivation. I still can't see a benefit to a non-believer for doing that, out of kindness especially, to a believer, nor can I see their motivation. In general people are selfish, I don't believe the non-believers are out there trying to spread what they think is true out of goodwill, when they will get nothing out of it in return. Outside of faith, people just don’t care about each other that much to do that. With their arguments, they're not spreading truth, just defending their position not to believe.

by Kayode Okeyode

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:09:45 +0000

I think "CS" got it right.

In addition, Keith may wish to read "The Handwriting of God" and "The Signature of God", both books by Grant R Jeffery for more insights into the Authority of the Bible.

In short, just as Man signs his name to his writings, God signed his name to His too in the form of hidden codes, but you need to read it in its original language to find these codes and the only reasons they are being revealed today is because Computers are more powerful today.

...or you could just believe by Faith

by David Chen

Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:52:18 +0000

I think many of those ripping at the Bible are indeed being defensive, but not merely selfishly. I find it very frustrating when some Christians try to force their viewpoint on others, not just by preaching and aggressive social pressures, but by actually implementing legal policies. For instance, the proposed amendment to define marriage as only between man and women. In Olympia, there was a proposed law to make open businesses on Sundays illegal. McCarthy added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance to differentiate the US from the non-Christian communist countries, and now there's huge resistances to removing it. I've met some fundamentalist Christians who vehemently believe the superiority of men over women and refuse to let women talk during service. They often cite verses from the Bible as justification for their actions; there's some rather awful stuff there, possibly taken out of context. Of course, not all Christians are so aggressive.

I value very much people's choice to believe what they wish and live out their lives accordingly, so long as they are not destructive towards others. The greatest thing for me about the US is not that it is a democracy, but because it protects minority rights in order to ensure freedom. Because the US is predominantly Christian and there are many who wouldn't mind forcing some Christian views upon everyone, the Bible symbolizes the threat to the freedom of choosing your own lifestyle.

by David Chen

Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:56:33 +0000

Heh, I meant: for some people, the Bible symbolizes the threat...

by Ian Bicking

Fri, 03 Sep 2004 01:12:20 +0000

Presuming certain fundamental concepts of Christianity (even if I don't believe in them)...

The Bible is certainly not the ultimate authority. In all the circular difficulties of monotheistic, Judeo-Christian theology, they are all resolve to one authority, and one terminal point: God. The Bible is not the ultimate authority, or any authority at all, it is a message. It is a representation of the will of an authority.

Of course, that leads to all sorts of other theological paradoxes. Omnipotence is weird. How can you distinguish will from reality, when God is omnipotent. But faith transcends paradox, consistency, and fact. At least that's what they say.

And indeed, if faith transcends all that, why can it not transcend The Bible itself? True faith seems self-directing, but that too is a paradox. But Kierkegaard probably explores this better than I would here. Especially since I lack faith anyway.

by Jerry Knight

Fri, 03 Sep 2004 07:07:52 +0000

Ian, you're missing the fact that the Bible is the self-stated Word of God. Therefore, the authority of the Bible is inseparably and directly linked to the authority of God. That makes the rest of your argument moot.

And God being omnipotent is not a paradox - all-powerful does not mean all-doing. God surely wills for all to believe, but because He gave us the choice, He's not going to force us.

Also, faith does not transcend "paradox, consistency, and fact" (who says this by the way?). It fills in the gaps that can never be filled by anything else - not reason, not logic, not science. And faith is not directly opposite of reason; Think of it as an extension to reason - where reason cannot go, primarily the authority and truth of God, faith takes over. But reason is still part of the picture, otherwise it is a blind faith that cannot stand up to challenges.

by Revence 27

Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:09:47 +0000

Put a scream center to contain the fools. Keith, you came out clearly. I don't know why anyone would still be lost now, except if they rebeliously chose to. And that's why hell will not be empty. No, I am not ready for a fight.

by Jim

Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:22:18 +0000

I know the Bible is God's Word because of the knowledge imparted to me by the Holy Spirit. But, how can I ever sufficiently prove this to a non-believer who will only base truth on our constrained measures(science, ...)? I can't, and you can't either.

That's one of my points! Framing this as a logical argument rather than a matter of faith is pointless. I won't argue with somebody who says that it's simply a matter of faith and goes against reason.

knowledge imparted to us by the Holy Spirit.

Nobody claiming to be a holy spirit has ever spoken to me.

What are the non-believers on this page trying to do?

Have a rational debate.

Or are you trying to prove another person's faith as incorrect?

Nope. Only that framing it in terms of a logical argument is incorrect.

Keith is simply showing, with this example, that asking for an authority over something that is supposed to have final authority makes no sense.

Why is the Bible "supposed to" have final authority? Because the Bible says so? You honestly don't see the problem there?

Again, he only provided logical reasoning as to why asking for an authority above something with final authority does not make sense.

As logical reasoning, it simply doesn't stand up. You can't use the axiom that the Bible is the final authority in an argument to attempt to prove the bible is the final authority. It's begging the question.

According to Christianity, your eternal life is far better off if your soul is saved. How would a Christians' 70 years on this planet be better if he/she was more like you and without faith?

You want a concrete example? Okay. Christians have to keep Sundays "holy", right? Non-Christians don't. Over the course of seventy years, that's an entire decade of being more free.

With your beliefs about the world, what are you trying to "save" him from?

I'm not trying to save anybody from anything, I consider the whole idea of "saving" somebody from their beliefs to be incredibly condescending.

A Christians' motivation is the glory of God. What is yours?

From a non-Christian's perspective, that statement sounds very twisted. You are appearing to give yourself propoganda slave status to promote somebody else's "glory"? Dehumanising in the extreme - you are a self-sufficient cognitive entity, not an extension of another's will.

I have a complex set of motivations, including, but not limited to, the pursuit of personal happiness, making other people happy, furthering the human race, and learning as much as possible. These are often co-dependent and often conflict.

You argue as if proving Keith wrong proves the Bible as such.

Where do I argue in that manner?

Do you really think that you've intellectually discovered new arguments against Christianity?

Of course not, they are very old arguments, which is why Christians continuing to attempt to use logic to prove their faith is puzzling to me.

There is no evidence that directly proves the bible to be wrong.

I'm not a Bible expert, so please point out where the following argument falls down. I posted it above, but nobody addressed it.

1. The Bible claims that it is the "Word of God".

2. The Bible claims that the "Word of God" is incorruptible.

3. From (1) and (2), The Bible claims that it is incorruptible.

4. I observe that different sets of people believe and preach mutually exclusive points of view and attribute these points of view to the Bible.

5. Since the points of view in (4) cannot all be true, at least one of them must be wrong.

6. If one of the points of view is wrong, that means the "Word of God" has been corrupted.

As you can see, (3) and (6) directly conflict.

I'm just so happy to see someone ask for something to be explained, rather than turn it into a simpler, incorrect idea just so they can argue or make a, what they think to be, quick-witted response.

If that was aimed at me, then you haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying. Earlier, I posted:

"Can you back up your assertion that truth is reliant upon the existence of the Christian god?"

"If "the word of God" is so uncorruptable, how can both conflicting viewpoints be taught?"

I'm asking for explanations too, and I'm not getting them.

Also, they tend to argue against the bible, and not for "nothingness". Proving the bible wrong would only show that, and not the truth. Proving one thought wrong doesn't provide a correct thought in of itself.

No, but at least it gets them looking for a "correct thought". Non-believers don't claim to have all the answers, and all the answers are not necessary to disagree with the Bible.

I still can't see a benefit to a non-believer for doing that, out of kindness especially, to a believer, nor can I see their motivation. In general people are selfish

Speak for yourself, I don't need faith to be kind.

In Olympia, there was a proposed law to make open businesses on Sundays illegal.

Actually, that's the case over here in the U.K. Certain businesses are restricted on Sundays. It used to be a lot worse, but recent laws have relaxed the issue somewhat. I don't see why I, and the rest of the non-Christians in this country, should be told what we can and can't do because of a belief we don't have.

I value very much people's choice to believe what they wish and live out their lives accordingly, so long as they are not destructive towards others.

Ditto.

Ian, you're missing the fact that the Bible is the self-stated Word of God.

Define "the Bible". Are you talking about the original copy? Or are you claiming that humans are perfect and will never introduce misprints, never make corrupted copies, never mistralsate something, and generally never make mistakes? Or are you claiming that, if that should happen, that God will step in and fix the copy of the Bible that they are producing?

If you are talking about the original copy, have you read this original copy? If not, on what basis do you presume that the copy you have read has not been altered from its original message?

I think a lot of Christians could gain some insight by studying Satanism. Before you knee-jerk, you should know that some Satanists believe that the Bible and the god it talks about is actually a deception by what you would consider to be Lucifer. If you don't take the Bible to be an authority, yet still believe in a god, this is another conclusion you could arrive at. And no, I am not a Satanist, I'm just advocating asking questions rather than submitting blindly to what a book says.

Put a scream center to contain the fools. Keith, you came out clearly. I don't know why anyone would still be lost now, except if they rebeliously chose to. And that's why hell will not be empty. No, I am not ready for a fight.

Keith wasn't very convincing, and when you call people names, neither are you. Threatening me with hell is meaningless if I don't believe in it.

by Keith

Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:41:41 +0000

I'm way behind on responding, but I'd like to apologize for leaving Revence's comment. I should have deleted it. I've told him in no uncertain terms to go away. If he doesn't take the hint he'll be banned from my site.

by Mark

Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:39:45 +0000

Jim, that comment about a quick-witted response was not about you. Actually, none of that post was directed towards you, just wanted to clear that up. You do seem to have at least a slight shade of anger in your wording, but that could be due to talking to too many people that you feel "will believe anything and not respond to reason". Or from mistaking my comments as being directed at you.

<It's not a matter of whether a book does, it's a matter of whether a book can.>

That's not what the argument here is, which, I think, is why aren't understanding each other.

This argument is not about whether the Bible can or cannot be the final authority, or about it's ability to stay true and whole over time.

The argument is simply: If P, then not Q. We're aren't talking about whether P is true or even if P is possible, just that- If P, then not Q. Meaning, for any instance you put in P, then the instance of Q is not possible. If ["A" is the tallest building](P), then there are no [buildings taller than "A"](Q). If ["A" is the highest authority](P), then there is no [higher authority than "A"](Q). Yes, the height of a building is easier to prove than the Bible's claim of final authority, but it is the same argument structure. So the argument says nothing about whether "A" (the Bible being the final authority) is true or not, just that if it is true, then Q (the existance of a higher authority) is not possible.

To clairfy, here's an example where P is not possible, but "If P, then Q is not possible" still makes sense. If you could jump so high that you can go beyond the Earth's gravitational pull, then you will not be pulled back to Earth by it's gravity.

The Bible is "supposed to" have final authority because it's "supposed to" be the word of God. Okay, let's try this:

Say you work for a large company. You come to work, and on your desk is a copy of the company's new rules and regulations. The first page reads:

I have been written by the owner of this company and I am the final authority on company policy. I am the rules and regulations of this company. For any situation, you will find the final answer in my pages. There are no exceptions, I am the boss' words.

Now, after thinking about how weird of an opening that is to a company rules and regulations book, you might check around to make sure it's legit. But once proven to be so, would you see that: the book saying that it, itself, is the final authority is not an argument, but merely a fact about the book?

If a book is red and also happens to say it is red, you wouldn't say it was red because it says it's red. You'd say it's red because it is red, and hey look, it also happens to say it is inside.

It is the final authority because it is from the owner and he says in it that it is the final authority. If the Bible is the final authority, it is not because it says it is, but because God says it is. The word of God has the authority of God, just as the word of the company's owner has the authority of the owner. Yes, this is an imperfect example because:
1. The origin and legitimacy of the Bible is not as easy to prove.
and
2. The owner is human and may have made a mistake, where God, in theory, does not make mistakes.

by Ian Bicking

Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:33:20 +0000

Responding to Jerry:

Ian, you're missing the fact that the Bible is the self-stated Word of God. Therefore, the authority of the Bible is inseparably and directly linked to the authority of God. That makes the rest of your argument moot.

That doesn't make any sense. The Bible has no will and no power. It is (Christians presume) linked to God, but it is not God. You seem to be claiming that The Bible could be a proxy for God. That seems almost sacrilegious.

As far as faith, it certainly seems to do much more than fill in gaps. But I don't claim it is an opposite to reason. Merely that reason is not a basis for faith (NOT that faith is unreasonable). I would assume we agree on this.

As for the paradox, it's hardly so easy to explain. Could God create a rock so heavy he could not lift it? Could He create humans and give them free will, knowing they would sin, yet simultaneously not be responsible for their sin? Is there any way that reality is not the exact expression of His will? Is He any less responsible for inaction as for action?

These are questions that theologians spend their lives trying to answer, and they all center on the paradox of omnipotence. If it was an easy question to answer, I think it wouldn't keep coming up.

Decarte, for instance, decided that this universe was the exact expression of God's will; that this is the best of all possible worlds. All from a line of thought driven by God's omnipotence. Spinoza took those ideas and ended up with a Pantheistic worldview; that God's creation and His will were indistinguishable; that there was no cause and effect, that all was the inevitable flow of events, without free will.

I could go on, but I'm not well read enough But these lines of inquiry extend through the ages.

Personally, I find these mental gymnastics to be too much trouble, when they are trying to resolve a paradox that is better avoided. When I see a paradox, I look for a false premise. God personified seems rather foolish to me, and an omnipotent personified God even worse. So I'm not a Christian, and I don't actually worry too much about these paradoxes. But if I was a Christian, they'd be keeping me up at night.

by scott

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:56:54 +0000

My main thoughts:

if bible = word of god,
and bible was written (and re-written) by man,
and, according to bible, god gave man free will,

ergo: bible is an untrusted source.

so, until god himself appears to me and says hey scottos, how's it going, I put no faith in what the bible or religious people tell me.

that means I can sleep at night after religious friends "joking" about the fact that I am going to purn in everlasting hell!

I've had a few existential "crises" in my short time here on earth, and I am envious of the comfort that people have in the belief in a sublime afterlife. but I digress.

just my 0.02, scott.

by The Apologist

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:16:04 +0000

Scott:

ergo: bible is an untrusted source.

cannot follow from

and, according to bible, god gave man free will,

that's just a quibble with your argument. The primary problem with most arguments against faith in anything is that they are made in bad faith. That being said, it's interesting to see you guys torture logic this way. I'll cop to my Charasmatic Evangelical Christian roots and say that this has been very entertaining. Also educational.

by The Apologist

Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:22:50 +0000

Also Scott, this:

until god himself appears to me and says hey scottos, how's it going,

is what prayer is all about. And this:

I've had a few existential "crises" in my short time here on earth, and I am envious of the comfort that people have in the belief in a sublime afterlife.

is often the motivator of said prayer. That isn't to say I wish you any restless nights.