Is God real post your thoughts!

[Sly_Wizard]

The Bible is infallible.

 

Well this is a good one to refute, speaking as a mathematician. I'm not sure quite how to apply this, but Godel's Incompleteness theroem would probably be able to disprove this one. The Incompleteness Theorem which is proved by logic along essentially states that no system can be both complete and consistent. I would think this can be applied here, so i'll look into how to specifically apply it to "The Bible is infallible" statement. If nothing else, its a good mental exercise.

 

 

 

I've heard this argument on more than one occasion. I've always found it to be funny, though, because it could, theoretically, be applied to anything, meaning nothing is true, which isn't the intended meaning of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The best way I can see the Incompleteness Theorem being applied to the Bible is in the way that it only speaks to humans in certain situations, not members of another species. Therefore, it's incomplete in that it doesn't contain everything regarding anything. But, really, that's another argument all together :P

[Zierro]

There was no mistake. I said that you skipped my other four responses. I'd like to see the mistake there.

 

 

 

Okay. Let me talk in simplest terms so you can understand this:

 

 

 

I saw your post which only had two responses. I quoted you. I had other tabs up so it took me a while to submit my response. Before I submitted, you edited in your other responses. But you made the assumption that I conveniently skipped over them, when in fact, I didn't even get the chance to.

 

 

 

(Funnily enough, to this point, you still haven't addressed the other four lol.)

 

 

 

I have the right to ignore your responses if I want. You should know that - I see you do it more than anyone else on these forums.

 

 

 

Yes, I said that. Where did I said I didn't? I believe I said you were the one arguing because you felt as if you were owed an apology.

 

 

 

Oh so that doesn't count as arguing but saying you didn't apologize for your mistake does?

 

 

 

You're still being obtuse. See, I asked Ginger the same question. He actually responded with something specific. You, on the other hand, still haven't given anything specific even though you've been asked... A countless number of times. Yet again, it's REALLY not this hard to answer a simple question, you know?

 

 

 

Like I said, the proof that makes you yourself believe that God is his father.

 

 

 

Is that better? Or are you still going to nitpick at it as a way to evade the question?

 

 

 

 

*Points to the homosexuality thread in which he specifically stated it's wrong because the Bible says so, but also that he doesn't care about gay people being gay*

 

 

 

Oh man, this is too good to be true! "Because the Bible says so." You're telling me that you're sticking with the bible through rain, sleet, and snow! :lol: Doesn't the bible clearly state that you're supposed to kill sinners?

 

 

 

Incorrect. There is no evidence which you'll accept-- The evidence being the Gospels. To say it isn't "good" evidence is disingenuous, since the entire character of Jesus is derived from the New Testament. You can't ask someone to "prove" something regarding Jesus when I know and you know that you'll reject the source from which the evidence for Jesus mainly derives. But, see, I said this earlier and, true to form, you missed it.

 

 

 

No, to say it is "good" evidence - and to believe it - is disingenuous. That would be the point I was trying to make by asking you to prove it.

 

 

 

There has to be a question for there to be question TO avoid.

 

 

 

You're making the claim that I never asked you for your proof about Jesus being the son of God? Good lord...

 

 

 

Man is fallible.

 

The Bible is infallible.

 

Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been divinely inspired.

 

Since the Bible was divinely inspired, God exists.

 

 

 

Who says the Bible is infallible? Man... who is fallible. :lol:

 

 

 

And before you say that God was the one who said it... Who are the ones who said God said that? Man... who is fallible.

[Sly_Wizard]

 

P1: Man is fallible.

 

P2: The Bible is infallible.

 

P3: Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been inspired by faeries.

 

P4: Since the Bible was faery-inspired, Pink Unicorn exists.

 

P5: Since Pink Unicorn exists, you must mutilate your genitals and scream "Bloody Murder!"

 

 

 

Good luck proving why this is neither reasonable nor logical.

 

 

 

You were doing so well until P3 and beyond. P5 is just a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

 

 

 

Come on, now. Do you even understand logic?

[Shinjula]

Perhaps I'd better ask, what is meant by infallible?

 

Does the bible contain everything of important to humanity? Does it imply there are no incorrect statements in the bible? Are there any other things bible infallibility means?

 

 

 

Or does it just mean every word in there is true?

 

What about subtext? Is every interpretation of every meaning behind each story is also true?

 

Which meaning of the words is infallible?

 

 

 

Secondly, which version is true? Is the bible so infallible that no matter which version you read, all the words are still true?

 

 

 

(Edited cos i think i got something wrong, going back to check)

[Shinjula]

You were doing so well until P3 and beyond. P5 is just a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

 

Come on, now. Do you even understand logic?

 

 

 

Dont worry, those of us interested in an actual debate do all know that argument by ridicule is no argument at all, just ignore him and enjoy the more intelligent responses, dont feel you need to argue with silly people [unless of course thats what your here for :)]

[Sly_Wizard]

Okay. Let me talk in simplest terms so you can understand this:

 

 

 

I saw your post which only had two responses. I quoted you. I had other tabs up so it took me a while to submit my response. Before I submitted, you edited in your other responses. But you made the assumption that I conveniently skipped over them, when in fact, I didn't even get the chance to.

 

 

 

To which my response was that, even if you didn't have the time to see my other three responses, you saw the first two but decided to ignore the second one. Therefore, given the fact that you only chose to answer one question, it was logical to conclude that because you skipped over one which I definitely know you saw, you skipped over the other four.

 

 

 

Understand?

 

 

 

I have the right to ignore your responses if you want. You should know that - I see you do it more than anyone else on these forums.

 

 

 

Except I make a concerted effort to answer any question directed towards me.

 

 

 

Oh so that doesn't count as arguing but saying you didn't apologize for your mistake does?

 

 

 

You continue to assert that I owe you an apology. I'm still waiting for you to explain how.

 

 

 

Like I said, the proof that makes you yourself believe that God is his father.

 

 

 

I do believe I asked what kind proof which you would accept.

 

 

 

Is that better? Or are you still going to nitpick at it as a way to evade the question?

 

 

 

 

No, because you're STILL not answering the question I specifically asked you.

 

 

 

Oh man, this is too good to be true! "Because the Bible says so." You're telling me that you're sticking with the bible through rain, sleet, and snow! :lol: Doesn't the bible clearly state that you're supposed to kill sinners?

 

 

 

Nope. But, oh, $20 says you're going to go and pull up the OT, to which I will respond to you that Christians are not bound, nor were ever bound, by those specific laws thanks to the New Covenant established by Jesus when he died on the cross.

 

 

 

But, go ahead, amuse me :mrgreen:

 

 

 

No, to say it is "good" evidence - and to believe it - is disingenuous. That would be the point I was trying to make by asking you to prove it.

 

 

 

Ummm... Let's see here. How can I put this in a way you'll understand. Oh, I know! "No!"

 

 

 

You seem to be under the delusion that invoking the New Testament as to why Jesus is the Son of God to be disingenuous, when almost everything about Jesus is contained within the New Testament. Disallowing the use of the New Testament to prove anything about Jesus would be disingenuous.

 

 

 

You're making the claim that I never asked you for your proof about Jesus being the son of God? Good lord...

 

 

 

Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

 

 

Man is fallible.

 

The Bible is infallible.

 

Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been divinely inspired.

 

Since the Bible was divinely inspired, God exists.

 

 

 

Who says the Bible is infallible? Man... who is fallible. :lol:

 

 

 

*Wonders why he bothers*

 

 

 

Simply because man is fallible does not mean he cannot interpret an infallible work.

[Sly_Wizard]

Perhaps I'd better ask, what is meant by infallible?

 

Does the bible contain everything of important to humanity? Does it imply there are no incorrect statements in the bible? Are there any other things bible infallibility means?

 

 

 

Or does it just mean every word in there is true?

 

What about subtext? Is every interpretation of every meaning behind each story is also true?

 

Which meaning of the words is infallible?

 

 

 

Most people take it to mean that everything in there is true. But, in actuality, it's meant in the way that it's correct regarding the interpretations of God, Jesus and their promises. It does a couple of historical date inaccuracies, which would to be expected given the numerous author's of the Bible.

 

 

 

Secondly, which version is true? Is the bible so infallible that no matter which version you read, all the words are still true?

 

 

 

No translation is contextually pure. The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scrolls are, though. Which is why we have (Forgot name of it atm).

[Shinjula]

I've heard this argument on more than one occasion. I've always found it to be funny, though, because it could, theoretically, be applied to anything, meaning nothing is true, which isn't the intended meaning of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The best way I can see the Incompleteness Theorem being applied to the Bible is in the way that it only speaks to humans in certain situations, not members of another species. Therefore, it's incomplete in that it doesn't contain everything regarding anything. But, really, that's another argument all together :P

 

 

 

I think its the completeness aspect which alot of us find difficult to get our heads around, the incompleteness theorem implies that since its asserted that the bible is consistent in some way (see above post for questions on the meaning of infallibility) it can't be complete.

 

So most of us are wondering, ok if its not complete, how do we know how incomplete it is?

 

Does its incompleteness include the fact that to a lot of people it doesnt seem to have relevance to the time we are in now? Because to us it certainly seems to. It certainly doesnt encompass any aspects of post modernism, or relative morality, something modern man has discovered to be of vital understanding in today's world - the question of... we know morality has changed, how do we judge our own morality without judging it relative to anything else?

[Zierro]

To which my response was that, even if you didn't have the time to see my other three responses, you saw the first two but decided to ignore the second one. Therefore, given the fact that you only chose to answer one question, it was logical to conclude that because you skipped over one which I definitely know you saw, you skipped over the other four.

 

 

 

Understand?

 

 

 

But no matter how you want to word it, you still made a mistake and won't apologize for it. Understand? You just never admit when you're wrong and never have. Hell, I bet you think it's still not morally wrong to lure someone in RS. :roll:

 

 

 

Except I make a concerted effort to answer any question directed towards me.

 

 

 

You mean you concerted effort to evade any question directed towards you?

 

 

 

You continue to assert that I owe you an apology. I'm still waiting for you to explain how.

 

 

 

OK. I'll copy and paste in case you missed it :mrgreen: :

 

 

 

Okay. Let me talk in simplest terms so you can understand this:

 

 

 

I saw your post which only had two responses. I quoted you. I had other tabs up so it took me a while to submit my response. Before I submitted, you edited in your other responses. But you made the assumption that I conveniently skipped over them, when in fact, I didn't even get the chance to.

 

 

 

I do believe I asked what kind proof which you would accept.

 

 

 

That was what kind of proof I was looking for. And why are you making the assumption that I'm going to accept it anyways? You already know I'm not. I'm just asking for it to show you how dumb it is, and you avoid answering because you know this.

 

 

 

No, because you're STILL not answering the question I specifically asked you.

 

 

 

I have, quite a few times. You're the one evading it. ;)

 

 

 

Nope. But, oh, $20 says you're going to go and pull up the OT, to which I will respond to you that Christians are not bound, nor were ever bound, by those specific laws thanks to the New Covenant established by Jesus when he died on the cross.

 

 

 

But, go ahead, amuse me :mrgreen:

 

 

 

So you're saying God makes laws for no reason at all?

 

 

 

You seem to be under the delusion that invoking the New Testament as to why Jesus is the Son of God to be disingenuous, when almost everything about Jesus is contained within the New Testament. Disallowing the use of the New Testament to prove anything about Jesus would be disingenuous.

 

 

 

Other way around, bud. You can't prove anything unless you have a basis to work off of. What's your basis? Essentially nothing but faith!

 

 

 

Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

 

 

And I'm the one purposely being obtuse?

 

 

 

 

Simply because man is fallible does not mean he cannot interpret an infallible work.

 

 

 

That's nice but you skipped the part about why it should even be considered "infallible" in the first place. You can't just slap the label "infallible" on something for no reason whatsoever.

 

 

 

I can do the same exact thing: I am infallible and we are in disagreement, therefore you are wrong.

[Sly_Wizard]

I think its the completeness aspect which alot of us find difficult to get our heads around, the incompleteness theorem implies that since its asserted that the bible is consistent in some way (see above post for questions on the meaning of infallibility) it can't be complete.

 

 

 

Following Godel's theorem, nothing can be complete because it would have to contain everything. Not that it necessarily doesn't apply to all people.

 

 

 

So most of us are wondering, ok if its not complete, how do we know how incomplete it is?

 

 

 

The Bible is claimed to contain everything which people need and need to ever know. That is, it's complete in the way humans need it. It's incomplete in the way that non-humans need it.

 

 

 

Does its incompleteness include the fact that to a lot of people it doesnt seem to have relevance to the time we are in now?

 

 

 

Nope. That seems to have little to do with Godel's theorem as much as cultural subjectivity.

 

 

 

Because to us it certainly seems to. It certainly doesnt encompass any aspects of post modernism, or relative morality, something modern man has discovered to be of vital understanding in today's world - the question of... we know morality has changed, how do we judge our own morality without judging it relative to anything else?

 

 

 

...What modern morality? Anywho, without a concrete standard of morality, which DOES exist, you fall into the trap of moral relativism (Waits for the vultures to descend on the mention of moral relativism).

[Shinjula]

Perhaps I'd better ask, what is meant by infallible?

 

Does the bible contain everything of important to humanity? Does it imply there are no incorrect statements in the bible? Are there any other things bible infallibility means?

 

 

 

Or does it just mean every word in there is true?

 

What about subtext? Is every interpretation of every meaning behind each story is also true?

 

Which meaning of the words is infallible?

 

 

 

Most people take it to mean that everything in there is true. But, in actuality, it's meant in the way that it's correct regarding the interpretations of God, Jesus and their promises. It does a couple of historical date inaccuracies, which would to be expected given the numerous author's of the Bible.

 

 

 

Not sure I quite understand that, could you be a bit clearer about what you mean by "correct regarding the interpretations of God, Jesus and their promises." who's interpretations? the authors or the readers? and how are we supposed to distunguish between our interpretation of it and someone elses?

 

 

 

Secondly, which version is true? Is the bible so infallible that no matter which version you read, all the words are still true?

 

 

 

No translation is contextually pure. The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scrolls are, though. Which is why we have (Forgot name of it atm).[/quote

 

 

 

Thats a very uncommon position, at least as far as those christians I personally have encountered? Does that mean you yourself speak aramaic/hebrew/greek and have read them?

 

Also, doesnt that have implications, particularly in the case of aramiac which is a dead language now.

 

It also implies that each individual book of the bible, should be read in its own language, and so no complete translation of the bible into a single language would suffice, that sounds incredibly fragmentary.

 

 

 

it puts very harsh conditions on it infallibility, conditions which would negate any argument ive ever seen which involved the words bible infallibility. No one I've ever heard talking about bible infallibility has ever been talking about the original content before translation, its almost always been people talking about the new american bible or the king james.

 

 

 

[incidentally if you dont agree with their position feel free to say so]

[Lenticular_J]

Yeesh. You guys post a lot when I'm at school. Nothing particularly interests me here, though.

 

 

 

At least you guys are keeping it civil.

 

 

 

Anyone wanna have an atheist vs. theist rap battle to settle this whole thing?

[Sly_Wizard]

But no matter how you want to word it, you still made a mistake and won't apologize for it. Understand? You just never admit when you're wrong and never have.

 

 

 

And that mistake was? You didn't answer my other four questions, nor made an effort to afterward. Hmmm...

 

 

 

Hell, I bet you think it's still not morally wrong to lure someone in RS. :roll:

 

 

 

Nope lol. Don't trade near the Wilderness or be a greedy [cabbage] and you won't get lured.

 

 

 

...Plus Runescape is a game. Where does morality come in to play, here?

 

 

 

You mean you concerted effort to evade any question directed towards you?

 

 

 

You continue to assert that I owe you an apology. I'm still waiting for you to explain how.

 

 

 

OK. I'll copy and paste in case you missed it :mrgreen: :

 

 

 

That is what kind of proof I was looking for. And why are you making the assumption that I'm going to accept it anyways? You already know I'm not. I'm just asking for it to show you how dumb it is, and you avoid answering because you know this.

 

 

 

...Okay. I seriously can't believe you're this daft. I didn't ask if you would accept my proof. I asked what kind of proof you would accept. You know. You, personally? And, to top if off, you still haven't explained as much.

 

 

 

I have, quite a few times. You're the one evading it. ;)

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

So you're saying God makes laws for no reason at all?

 

 

 

From now on, when you respond with a statement beginning as such, I'm just going to respond with a "Yes, that's what I'm saying, since you've already determined as much to be true.

 

 

 

"Yes, that's what I'm saying, since you've already determined as much to be true."

 

 

 

Other way around, bud. You can't prove anything unless you have a basis to work off of. What's your basis? Essentially nothing but faith!

 

 

 

You DO realize that a large portion of scholarly and historical work done concerning Jesus is taken from the New Testament, right? You can't just discredit the New Testament and then ask people to prove something about Jesus to you.

 

 

 

And I'm the one purposely being obtuse?

 

 

 

For as long as you're content to continue writing out responses which start on blatantly false assumptions (And in some cases blatantly false assumptions passed of as fact), then I'm just going to keep responding with a "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

 

 

That's nice but you skipped the part about why it should even be considered "infallible" in the first place. You can't just slap the label "infallible" on something for no reason whatsoever.

 

 

 

I was unaware that the infallible label is placed on the Bible arbitrarily. It's not. There are people who have years of experiences in exegesis of the Scripture and (Still can't remember the name of the word) who have come to this conclusion, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally.

 

 

 

I can do the same exact thing: I am infallible and we are in disagreement, therefore you are wrong.

 

 

 

See above. No one is talking about slapping arbitrary labels on this just because it's fun.

[Shinjula]

The Bible is claimed to contain everything which people need and need to ever know. That is, it's complete in the way humans need it. It's incomplete in the way that non-humans need it.

 

Actually the exclusion of its usefulness for no humans, doesnt work successfully against it, godels theorem applies even if you shrink the system we are talking about, to one just involving humans, thats the beauty of the argument, it applies to ALL systems. So it cant be complete and consistent as a system for humans either.

 

And since you've now specified a meaning for infallibility which does include both consistent and complete, im now convinced that bible infallibility must be disprovable with the incompleteness theroem.

 

 

 

Does its incompleteness include the fact that to a lot of people it doesnt seem to have relevance to the time we are in now?

Nope. That seems to have little to do with Godel's theorem as much as cultural subjectivity.

 

Yes cultural subjectivity is a very important topic to consider in this subject.

 

 

 

...What modern morality? Anywho, without a concrete standard of morality, which DOES exist, you fall into the trap of moral relativism (Waits for the vultures to descend on the mention of moral relativism).

 

Absence of a morality is still a moral system, whether it is one you would subscribe to yourself is irrelevant to that fact.

 

And yes I suppose the vultures do have to descend on the topic of moral subjectivity, although I hope from our brief exchanges so far you have realised, I am an open minded man who is only interested in a good debate and will not insult you or your intelligence or look down on you for simply having a different opinion to my own.

 

 

 

So, yes, you state that a concrete standard of morality does exist, would you mind justifying that statment, cos I cant see any basis for it?

 

(Just to state my own position - I dont believe moral relativity is a trap at all, i believe it is the source of enlightenment)

[Sly_Wizard]

Not sure I quite understand that, could you be a bit clearer about what you mean by "correct regarding the interpretations of God, Jesus and their promises." who's interpretations? the authors or the readers? and how are we supposed to distunguish between our interpretation of it and someone elses?

 

 

 

The author's interpretations. And, just so you know, Protestants screwed themselves over with "sola scriptura", which is why there are infinitely more denominations of Protestantism than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. At least in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, you have to actually study the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts, whereas in Protestantism all you do is pick up a Bible and read it <_<

 

 

 

Thats a very uncommon position, at least as far as those christians I personally have encountered? Does that mean you yourself speak aramaic/hebrew/greek and have read them?

 

 

 

Well, I have a copy of the Tanakh in Hebrew. For the New Testament I just use an online lexicon =D (The one at http://www.blueletterbible.org works).

 

 

 

Also, doesnt that have implications, particularly in the case of aramiac which is a dead language now.

 

It also implies that each individual book of the bible, should be read in its own language, and so no complete translation of the bible into a single language would suffice, that sounds incredibly fragmentary.

 

 

 

Most of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew. The latter books of the prophets are written in Aramaic. The entire New Testament is written in Greek. So it's not really that big of a problem lol

 

 

 

it puts very harsh conditions on it infallibility, conditions which would negate any argument ive ever seen which involved the words bible infallibility. No one I've ever heard talking about bible infallibility has ever been talking about the original content before translation, its almost always been people talking about the new american bible or the king james.

 

 

 

The KJV sucks, primarily because it's written in old English and most of the words have changed in context. The NIV is better than that one.

[Zierro]

And that mistake was? You didn't answer my other four questions, nor made an effort to afterward. Hmmm...

 

 

 

5 does not equal 2. Besides, why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? That's a double standard.

 

 

 

Nope lol. Don't trade near the Wilderness or be a greedy [cabbage] and you won't get lured.

 

 

 

...Plus Runescape is a game. Where does morality come in to play, here?

 

 

 

I don't want to get too off topic. All I'm gonna say is that looks great on your credibility. :lol:

 

 

 

...Okay. I seriously can't believe you're this daft. I didn't ask if you would accept my proof. I asked what kind of proof you would accept. You know. You, personally? And, to top if off, you still haven't explained as much.

 

 

 

The point is, I wouldn't accept it. Or else I would be Christian, ya know? My main point is that there is no proof.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Yes. Once again, looking great on your credibility. You won't even let the trivial things slide past. You just disagree with everything I say no matter what it is.

 

 

 

From now on, when you respond with a statement beginning as such, I'm just going to respond with a "Yes, that's what I'm saying, since you've already determined as much to be true.

 

 

 

"Yes, that's what I'm saying, since you've already determined as much to be true."

 

 

 

Wow, God makes laws for no reason? And you worship this guy? :)

 

 

 

You DO realize that a large portion of scholarly and historical work done concerning Jesus is taken from the New Testament, right? You can't just discredit the New Testament and then ask people to prove something about Jesus to you.

 

 

 

In case you haven't realized, I wasn't technically asking you to prove something. I'm just waiting for you to say you can't because there is no basis for your argument, but you have way too much pride to admit that.

 

 

 

For as long as you're content to continue writing out responses which start on blatantly false assumptions (And in some cases blatantly false assumptions passed of as fact), then I'm just going to keep responding with a "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

 

 

I love you too.

 

 

 

I was unaware that the infallible label is placed on the Bible arbitrarily. It's not. There are people who have years of experiences in exegesis of the Scripture and (Still can't remember the name of the word) who have come to this conclusion, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally.

 

 

 

There are also people who come to the conclusion that it's fallible, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally.

 

 

 

See above. No one is talking about slapping arbitrary labels on this just because it's fun.

 

 

 

Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Go ahead and slap the label "infallible" on that book. I'll just wait until you put it down and slap "fallible" right over top of it. ;)

[Shinjula]

Ok sure, then you are of a slightly different orientation to the people i have met before who have talked about bible infallibility, and I'll say very little more about things like translation errors and the like (which is something I often debate about with others) and I have to say I do appreciate your position a lot more than theirs, it is on a lot more firmer ground just going for the very most original documents.

 

 

 

There are of course problems with it which may or may not occur, such as the switch in translation which i believe occurs transposing though shalt not suffer a poisoner to live, to thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, and also what seem to be translation errors regarding homosexuality, versus homosexual rape/male prostitution/paedophila. But I'm not convinced that the logical argument about godel and relativism arent a lot more interesting and/or justifiable.

 

 

 

But I'll kinda leave the ball in your court as to which you'd prefer to debate

[Shinjula]

 

I was unaware that the infallible label is placed on the Bible arbitrarily. It's not. There are people who have years of experiences in exegesis of the Scripture and (Still can't remember the name of the word) who have come to this conclusion, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally.

 

 

 

There are also people who come to the conclusion that it's fallible, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally.

 

 

 

Now theres an interesting point, if the bible is infallible, meaning that it contains "everything which people need and need to ever know", wouldnt that imply it also contains the information to satisfy everyone that it is infallible.

 

 

 

By the fact that it doesnt contain that information, it implies that the fact that its falliblity is not something which people need to know?

 

 

 

I would argue that logically it is unimportant that the bible is infallible, since that information is not in the bible.

 

(obviously the counter is true - its also not important that the bible is infallible is it isnt)

 

 

 

[i should just check - the bible doesnt actually claim to be infallible, yes? other people make that claim, not the bible itself?]

[Shinjula]

Actually ive just realised my previous post, entirely coincidentally is precisely godels incompleteness theorem as applied to bible infallibility

 

 

 

If the bible conatins everything we need to know, then

 

 

 

either the bible contains a statment which says its fallible

 

...in which case it is either true and it cannot contain everything we need to know, contradiction

 

...or it is false in which case the bible is wrong, contradiction

 

 

 

or it doesnt

 

...in which case either the bible doesnt conatin everything we need, or bible infallibility is unimportant and cannot be used to jstify anything of importance.

 

 

 

 

 

Yey, knew it could be done. :)

[Sly_Wizard]

Actually the exclusion of its usefulness for no humans, doesnt work successfully against it, godels theorem applies even if you shrink the system we are talking about, to one just involving humans, thats the beauty of the argument, it applies to ALL systems. So it cant be complete and consistent as a system for humans either.

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure that's not true, as if you shrink the set enough Godel's theorem becomes irrelevant. Though, I fail to see how Godel's theory is relevant here, as as I said prior, since it's primarily used in mathematics.

 

 

 

And since you've now specified a meaning for infallibility which does include both consistent and complete, im now convinced that bible infallibility must be disprovable with the incompleteness theroem.

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure it doesn't, mainly because I don't see how you attribute it to anything which doesn't deal with mathematics as it would invariably cause everything to be, at some level, "untrue".

 

 

 

Absence of a morality is still a moral system, whether it is one you would subscribe to yourself is irrelevant to that fact.

 

 

 

This I realize.

 

 

 

So, yes, you state that a concrete standard of morality does exist, would you mind justifying that statment, cos I cant see any basis for it?

 

 

 

I swear I've had this argument before, but oh well.

 

 

 

Moral relativism holds that all moral systems are valid. That is to say, none is more 'right' than another and none is more 'wrong' than another, as to label one system as 'wrong' and another as 'right' is to impose a standard of objectivity upon them. This is, in itself, problematic as holding all moral systems as equal will inevitably lead to a system in which conflicting moral beliefs clash with each other. For example, I'll just use the case of the rapist. If moral subjectivism is to be held as true, then him being a rapist would be deemed as "acceptable" by society at large. However, chances are that most people are not going to share his same sentiments, and will aim to suppress what he considers to be a morally valid position. Once this happens-- Where one system of morality imposes itself upon another-- Moral relativism ceases to exist as a recently valid position has now become invalid. And since this happens in every society, moral relativism doesn't exist. Of course, there's a chance that none of the above would happen and the rapist would be free to do it again and again, which amounts to moral anarchy, which I've never once seen.

 

 

 

...But, beyond that, moral relativism has lead to the whole "You can't legislate morality!" BS which I absolutely hate and think is idiotic. If morality wasn't legislated, people could do whatever they want, when they want without fear of retribution.

 

 

 

And before you say it, universal morals do exist in every society. And, no, slavery has nothing to do with morality. It's a system of labor which was viable in the absence of industrialism. If all machines were to stop working today and we had to resort to manual labor for everything, I can assure you that slavery would return in 100 years.

 

 

 

Edit: And I'm totally tired of arguing with Zierro so I'll just let you think you're right and pretend to care :P

[Shinjula]

Godel's incompleteness theorem is applicable to logic, and since im [attempting] to argue logically, it should be applicable here. Mathematics is not just about numbers it is about structure and language has a structure itself which can be dealt with mathemtatically.

 

 

 

ts kinda one of the breakthroughs maths has made in the twentieth century, most people consider maths such a dry subject but i love it and it can have far reaching consequences. Set theory this century move so far beyond numbers that most twentieth century mathematics is unrecognisable to most people, but the logical statements of my previous post should show excatly how it can be applied.

[Shinjula]

Edit: And I'm totally tired of arguing with Zierro so I'll just let you think you're right and pretend to care :P

 

 

 

Good on yer, that one does just seem to be going round in circles, glad one of you has the brains to stop and move on :)

 

give yourself 10k xp in foruming

[Sly_Wizard]

There are of course problems with it which may or may not occur, such as the switch in translation which i believe occurs transposing though shalt not suffer a poisoner to live, to thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, and also what seem to be translation errors regarding homosexuality, versus homosexual rape/male prostitution/paedophila. But I'm not convinced that the logical argument about godel and relativism arent a lot more interesting and/or justifiable.

 

 

 

No idea what you're talking about with the poisoner and witch thing, but on the homosexuality thing I'm guessing you're on the whole "zimmah" vs. "tow`ebah" thing or arsenokoitai in the NT? Bah, I've had my fair share of arguments about that.

[Shinjula]

Yep cool, well we'll stick with the moral relativism debate...once youve had a chance to look at my bible infalliblity application of godel

 

 

 

sometimes, maths is a thing of beauty.

[Zierro]

[i should just check - the bible doesnt actually claim to be infallible, yes? other people make that claim, not the bible itself?]

 

 

 

"The law of God is perfect."

 

 

 

By the way Sly, I knew you'd avoid trying to prove that Jesus is God's son. I made that call a long time ago. ;)