[jayceeii]

I believe the argument to be both sound and correct, yet the Bible only defines God poorly, as like a jealous Father, and proving it to be reliable universally is impossible.

You can jump right on premise 2, which has been debated at the forum for many years. It turns out the arguments for its reliability are only believed by those predisposed to do so.

[Lelouch]

You raise a few points that are worth addressing:

1. The Bible’s definition of God as a “jealous Father” is not a poor definition but rather a particular aspect of God’s nature. The Bible uses various metaphors to describe God, such as a loving parent, a shepherd, a rock, and so on. These metaphors are not meant to exhaustively define God but rather to help us understand certain aspects of God’s character and relationship to us.

2. The claim that proving the Bible’s reliability universally is impossible is an overstatement. While it is true that some people may never be convinced of the Bible’s reliability, there is ample evidence to support the Bible’s historical and theological accuracy. For instance, the Bible contains detailed accounts of historical events and people that have been corroborated by other historical and archaeological sources. Moreover, the Bible’s teachings are internally consistent and coherent, which suggests that they were not the product of random human invention but rather of divine inspiration.

3. The claim that the arguments for the Bible’s reliability are only believed by those predisposed to do so is also an overstatement. While it is true that people’s beliefs can influence their evaluation of evidence, there are many scholars and experts who have studied the Bible objectively and come to the conclusion that it is a reliable historical and theological document. For example, the late Oxford scholar F.F. Bruce, who was not a Christian, wrote extensively on the historical reliability of the New Testament.

The argument is a deductive one, which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. You do not provide any specific objections to the validity of the deductive inference from the premises to the conclusion. Therefore, the argument remains sound and stands as a reasonable basis for belief in God’s existence based on scripture.

[Johan]

Same as in the other thread, it seems that premise 2 is question begging. What is the support for it?

[Lelouch]

The objection you raised is a valid one and requires further consideration. In order to address this objection, let us examine the evidence and arguments that support the reliability of the Bible.

First, let us consider the textual reliability of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of ancient texts that have been transmitted over thousands of years through various languages and cultures. Despite this, many scholars agree that the biblical texts have been transmitted with a high degree of accuracy. The texts were copied by hand before the advent of the printing press, which could have introduced errors, but careful copying practices and the use of professional scribes helped to minimize errors. Additionally, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century confirmed the accuracy of the transmission of the biblical texts over time. These scrolls, which date back to the time of Christ, contain copies of many books of the Old Testament, and they are remarkably consistent with later copies of the same texts.

Second, the historical and archaeological evidence supports the Bible’s accuracy. Many events and people described in the Bible have been independently confirmed by historical and archaeological sources. For example, the existence of the Hittite empire, which is mentioned in the Old Testament, was once doubted by scholars but was later confirmed by archaeological discoveries. Similarly, the existence of King David, who is a central figure in many Old Testament narratives, was once questioned, but his existence has since been confirmed by archaeological findings.

Third, the theological coherence of the Bible’s teachings is also evidence of its reliability.

In light of these considerations, we can see that there is significant evidence to support the reliability of the Bible. Therefore, premise 2 of the argument is not question begging, but rather is based on sound evidence and reasoning. As a result, the argument for God’s existence based on scripture is a valid one.

[Johan]

Surely you agree that being transmitted with a high degree of accuracy is not a metric to determine the factuality of the content, right? Given that we can quickly toss out this line of support. Other wise, I would really like to visit parts of middle earth and learn magic.

Archeological evidence supports only the archeological claims, not the text as a whole. Does the existence of New York demonstrate that the avengers and Iron Man exist? No. You can find thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of works of historical fiction that exist. Many of those works contain many factual details that could be confirmed through research or archeology, but does that make them true as a whole? Absolutely not. (I hope you agree). So, we can toss this part too, unless maybe Abe Lincoln actually slayed vampires?

What does theological coherence have to do with anything? It seems backwards to me. Someone took the book and created a theology around it, not the other way around, so it isn’t surprising that it would exist.

None of your “supports” actually did the thing you claimed that they did, so perhaps there is something else to support premise 2, or perhaps we should simply discard it as unsupported.

[Jabberwock]

Premise 1: Writings of Suetonius claim that Augustus was conceived by a supernatural serpent.

Premise 2: Writings of Suetonius are reliable.

Conclusion: Therefore, Augustus was conceived by a supernatural serpent.

Writings of Suetonius have been transmitted over thousands of years through various languages and cultures with a high degree of accuracy. The texts were copied by hand before the advent of the printing press, which could have introduced errors, but careful copying practices and the use of professional scribes helped to minimize errors.

Second, the historical and archaeological evidence supports the accuracy of Suetonius’ writings. Many events and people described in the writings have been independently confirmed by historical and archaeological sources.