What makes the Bible true?

Originally posted by Regret
If one believes in God, and one believes God spoke to the Hebrews, then the Bible is fact. If one believes that God spoke to man period, and you believe that such men would keep a record of such events, then the Bible is the most conforming to such a belief. Other records that would fit are the LDS scriptures and the Quran, both sets of scripture claim descent from the Bible. The question then runs which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did belief come and the Bible fit the scope of that belief, or did knowledge of the Bible come and belief conform to it? With myself, I have my beliefs as to the logic of deity, a deity must exist within some logical frame. If I deem a religion to hold irrational or illogical beliefs concerning deity, such a religion is probably false. Thus, beliefs concerning creation being "poof there it is" or other creation theories that do not conform to existing scientific fact are illogical. The Bible, as interpreted by the LDS church and expounded upon by its prophets is for me the most conforming with a logical assessment of the possibility of God, thus, since I believe there to be a God, the Bible is the most logical choice of texts to hold as true. In summary, the Bible is true, insofar as it is translated and interpreted correctly, because I believe in a logical God.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Bible is true because you believe in God?

Originally posted by Regret
If God is not such, there is no reason to believe the Bible to be true.

Originally posted by Regret
Basically, yes. Although, key to this is the idea that God is a logical entity. If God is not such, there is no reason to believe the Bible to be true. Now. if you do not believe in God, then there is little reason to believe the Bible to be true. But then, such is an irrational and illogical choice of belief, imo. And an atheist will state the same about a belief in God, so an atheist and myself are at an impass with regard to the subject of belief in God.

That path is not as logical. In assuming the bible is true, it "proves" the existence of god. There is only one illogical step instead of two. And I have a sneaking suspicion that illogicality compounds itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
See, this seems totally wrong. If you take your approach, there are two questions to answer. First, you have to believe in a god, which is very easy to do. Secondly, you have to believe that your god in fact had divine oversight of a very undocumented book, speaking of his existence.

That path is not as logical. In assuming the bible is true, it "proves" the existence of god. There is only one illogical step instead of two. And I have a sneaking suspicion that illogicality compounds itself.

I believe a logical belief in God must hold that God communicates with man regularly. Thus text describing such should be present.

The question is not as to whether God exists or not, it is why the Bible is held as true. My belief in God's existence requires regular communication from God to Man. Such is present in the Bible and LDS scripture. Alone, the Bible lacks current validity due to lack of continued communications that follow the pattern described therein.

As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.

Finally, I have never claimed God oversaw the writing of the Bible. The Bible is only the record kept of the communication between God and man. Valid only as far as man is capable of recording events accurately. My stance is not to the accuracy of the Bible, my stance is to the truth of its claim to communication with God. Because there is not another text claiming communication on the same scale, it is the definitive text for a belief in a God, imo.

Originally posted by Alliance
See, this seems totally wrong. If you take your approach, there are two questions to answer. First, you have to believe in a god, which is very easy to do. Secondly, you have to believe that your god in fact had divine oversight of a very undocumented book, speaking of his existence.

That path is not as logical. In assuming the bible is true, it "proves" the existence of god. There is only one illogical step instead of two. And I have a sneaking suspicion that illogicality compounds itself.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

Electrolysis.

Originally posted by Regret
Late addition, I do not believe "proof" exists to the existence of God, nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God. God is evidence of the Bible's truth, not vice versa. There are no tangible evidences, or proof, of the Bible's truth for someone that does not believe in it.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Regret. There is indeed much *proof* of God's existence. To state that there is none is an insult to God, and is a very contridictory stance if one claims themself to be a Christian. With such a statement, one is also dismissing the notion of God creating this world and everything in it.

Just looking around at the world around us - is where one can find most(if not all) of this evidence. Many disregard this type of *proof*, perhaps because it seems too obvious to them, or perhaps because they've been indoctrinated by worldly philosophies(which I believe is the case with many). Still others I believe - are control freaks, and instead of except to truth - they'd rather lie to themselves, in a vain effort to maintain control(However illusionary this "control" may be).

Regardless, there really is no valid reason for one to disregard such glaring evidence. For as it is repeated many times in the bible - even the "fool" knows there is a God.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse[...]"

Of course there are the wonders of God all around us, but they are no longer proof.

Originally posted by FeceMan
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse[...]"

Of course there are the wonders of God all around us, but they are no longer proof.

Well I guess I was using the term "proof" loosely. I guess to better phrase it - the absolute truth exists, but there is no absolute "proof" to prove its existence (I know it sounds a bit confusing, but bear with me).

This is actually in accordance with the bible - seeing as how God rightfully so admits - that there is no reason for him to prove himself to man. Still - much evidence of his existence is present before us - and that is mainly where I am in disagreement with Regret. Although God does not seem to give us complete knowledge of his presence most of the time - he provides nearly conclusive evidence of it - which is why he himself states in the bible, even a "fool" can testify to his obvious existence.

Originally posted by FeceMan
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse[...]"

Of course there are the wonders of God all around us, but they are no longer proof.

Possibly because things like science, nature, human ingenuity and the rest can explain them just as well as "this is truly a wonder of God."

Late addition, I do not believe "proof" exists to the existence of God, nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God. God is evidence of the Bible's truth, not vice versa. There are no tangible evidences, or proof, of the Bible's truth for someone that does not believe in it.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

And whose stance do you believe is the most unreasonable -

Atheist: "I see no proof of God, in fact I see many rational and logical problems with the concept. Lack of proof and things that point away from a divinity make it nigh impossible I believe. However I do believe in the things I have proof for, and if there was proof in God then I would undoubtedly believe."

Theist: "I believe in God, a belief based upon faith. Granted I may have no empirical evidence to support my claims, but the nature of God makes empirical evidence irrelevant in relation to him, that is - a person who can't accept a deity on blind faith will never find God until they can -because proof will never be a basis for faith and thus belief."

And, depending on that - do you believe God's approach to his creations is sensible? A legal system, a medical system etc. has endeavour to be broad enough to meet the competing needs and mindsets of a varied population. Is the Faith of God capable of meeting the needs of the varied population? It seems it certainly does for those capable of believing based upon subjective, personal things, but does it meet the needs of those who are hardwired to seek proof? Or those whose minds and "hearts" are spoken to by other faiths?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Is the Faith of God capable of meeting the needs of the varied population?

It seems it certainly does for those capable of believing based upon subjective, personal things, but does it meet the needs of those who are hardwired to seek proof?

Or those who are deceived by other faiths?

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I have to respectfully disagree with you Regret. There is indeed much *proof* of God's existence. To state that there is none is an insult to God, and is a very contridictory stance if one claims themself to be a Christian. With such a statement, one is also dismissing the notion of God creating this world and everything in it.

Just looking around at the world around us - is where one can find most(if not all) of this evidence. Many disregard this type of *proof*, perhaps because it seems too obvious to them, or perhaps because they've been indoctrinated by worldly philosophies(which I believe is the case with many). Still others I believe - are control freaks, and instead of except to truth - they'd rather lie to themselves, in a vain effort to maintain control(However illusionary this "control" may be).

Regardless, there really is no valid reason for one to disregard such glaring evidence. For as it is repeated many times in the bible - even the "fool" knows there is a God.

A lot of people think the Bible is a good read, but some take it way too seriously. I never gave it much of a chance.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes.

Not needs as in "I need air and water to live" - needs as in "this fulfills the minimum requirements for me to follow it." This isn't about which religion offers the best free gift on signing up, or which religion has the best sales pitch, this is about religion being able to connect with the varied population that God apparently wants to follow him.

Does the way it approaches humanity meet the needs, the standards of proof, that people ask for? Not really, since there is a large, and growing, population sample who say "I need some proof before I submit to that." And just as many who say "well, Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/etc. doesn't feel right to me, where as Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/etc does." That would seem to imply God's/whoever's message clearly isn't some sort of bright light in the darkness, like some blazing beacon of truth that a person can look at and instantly know this is true, correct, the right path.

Those who are "hardwired to seek proof" would not believe anyway.

Oh? Despite the fact there are plenty of things such people do believe in? Political movements and people and scientific theories and the like? What makes belief in God somehow special? Other then the fact one is meant to do it without proof?

It is one of those arguments Theists have made for a long time - the implication Atheists are somehow pigheaded in their non-belief.

When asked for proof they go "Oh, it wouldn't matter how much proof you were given you wouldn't believe in God."

Which is nothing more then a smokescreen. In such cases one feels like saying "way to try and make out it unreasonable for the Atheist to ask for proof so as to avoid facing the fact ones religion is incapable of meeting their levels of scrutiny." The reality is an Atheist will believe when there is sufficient evidence to do so. The idea that an Atheist would continue not to believe if God made an effort to prove his existence is, from the Atheists I know, incorrect.

Atheist is not "There is a God and we Atheists choose not to follow him" Atheist is "We see no reason to believe there is a God, no evidence for him, and until their is we wont be capable of belief in his existence."

Snaaap, JIA edit.

Very nice. Shame he isn't here to see it.

Originally posted by Regret
Late addition, I do not believe "proof" exists to the existence of God, nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God. God is evidence of the Bible's truth, not vice versa. There are no tangible evidences, or proof, of the Bible's truth for someone that does not believe in it.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

So basically, you are stating that God continually interacts with society, but we don't just see it or understand it because we're ignorant.

First off, this is exactly the context for a self-sustaining delusion, simply on a mass scale.

Secondly, fact is universal. If the ability to understand your god is not universal, then it is not supported by fact. "Nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God" is not a real answer, as that simply implies that non-mormons (or some broader terminology) just cant understand. People convert back and forth, so this is clearly not the case.

If god is just a manner of thinking, thats perfectly logical, understandable, and acceptable. However, if there is no fact supporting god (tangible, logical, or otherwise) there is no factual god.

Originally posted by Regret
A logical God would, imo, communicate with man.

Not in riddles, contradictions, and subjective intepretations.

Originally posted by Regret
The Biblical God, particularly as the LDS believe, has communicated with man more so than any other religion claims.

Simply your beleif. Every religion has claimed communication with thier diety. So far, there is no Concrete validity behind those claims.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe a logical belief in God must hold that God communicates with man regularly. Thus text describing such should be present.

Why can't God speak with his voice ? Why can't he speak to all of us, instead of just a few of us ?

Sounds illogical to me..... ✅

Originally posted by Regret
The question is not as to whether God exists or not, it is why the Bible is held as true.

So......why is the Bible held as true ?

Originally posted by Regret
As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.

Why is Athiesm illogical ?

There are many many many logical reasons as to why your God would not exist, and even fewer logical reasons to support his existance.

Originally posted by Regret
As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.

Why? If Atheist Jim gets an email telling him some Nigerian prince needs Jim to help his money escape the Russian mafia by giving the prince his bank details and sending him his passport - which will see Jim rewarded financially - what does Jim do -

A. Believe it entirely because he am capable of taking leaps of faith

Or:

B. Use his head and realise there is no proof behind these claims, and use his knowledge to know this it's likely a scam and thus dismiss it completely.

The sensible answer is B, to commit to A would see Jim accused of the most terrible naivety and foolishness, and see his bank account emptied.

Now religion isn't an email scam, but the fact remains that for, say Atheist Jim, he is being given a story and asked to believe based on faith alone. He has no proof what is being presented to him is fact, as there is no proof. It doesn't make him feel like it is right. And some of his knowledge indicates there are other, more evidence things that go against the claims made in the holy books of those religions.

What happens? He isn't going to believe. How is his Atheism in the case of a religious claim illogical, where as in the case of the Nigerian prince his dismissal of the claim praised?

Atheism is irrational because believing does not hinder the individual in any manner, unless one ignores fact in favor of blind faith/belief. If religious practices conform to scientifically supported behavior prescriptions, one should have no issue with such a system. It is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence unless doing so compromises sound judgment. Believing in God is merely hoping for something. Hope is not illogical unless it leads to lapse in rational or logical behavior.

Perceived facts are not always universal, and not always fact in the manner they are commonly understood. Man cannot fly was a universal fact, which meant that man would never fly. Man cannot fly, but man can make machines that do. Facts do not always lead to the proper conclusion, especially if not all facts are known. Science changes constantly in the absence of fact. Absence of fact does not bring scientific hypothesis and theory to a halt, it is the impetus for exploration and creativity. Why should lack of facts in religion and theism bring a logical individual to a close-minded absence of theory and hypothesis? Such is illogical for a scientific individual when areas in science do not accept such.

Uri, you entirely missed the point I have stated concerning the Bible. The validity of the Bible solely rests on the fact that God does speak with his voice to man, the text is merely record of such occurrences. If God ever spoke to man, record of such events should exist, if God continues to speak to man in the present, God would have to have spoken to man in the past.

Method of communication can take any form: poetry, riddle, parable, direct language, etc. All forms have been used in most forms of communication, including teaching. In fact, teachers and philosophers contemporary to Biblical time frame used the same methods present within the Bible, and are often praised for the methods.

There are logical objections to the existence of God. There are logical arguments for the existence of God. There is no logical argument for the need to disregard belief if belief does not negatively impact any aspect of life or decision making. Belief in God does not require any negative impact on life or decision making.

Originally posted by Regret
Atheism is irrational because believing does not hinder the individual in any manner, unless one ignores fact in favor of blind faith/belief. If religious practices conform to scientifically supported behavior prescriptions, one should have no issue with such a system. It is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence unless doing so compromises sound judgment. Believing in God is merely hoping for something. Hope is not illogical unless it leads to lapse in rational or logical behavior.

It seems like a case of inherent belief vs. conscious belief.

Humans have some "beliefs" they don't even have to think about, so ingrained are they - and when asked specifically they can think and go "why, yes, I do believe in that, I just never thought about it." Or alternatively they can go "now that I think about it, I never believed that."

First - do you believe it is a conscious thing, believing in God? If so then you must recognise that it is useless to maintain a belief "just in case" - how many times have I heard a Christian say "but why not simply pray and go to Church in case there is a God? That way you're insured" - which is absurd. Why dedicate time and effort pretending to believe in something you don't? You say it isn't harmful just to believe - but why do it? Without the required motivation - proof as it were - why try?

And that is there thing - you make it sound as if the natural state of a person is believing in a God and Atheists are working to suppress the natural, inherent belief. Which isn't the case. Religious belief is, from all history and psychology I have seen, an acquired trait. There is no God gene, no divine belief instinct. There is behaviour that inspires people to seek out answers - and for a long time a religion provided them in the absence of science.

Atheism is in no way illogical simply because of its nature. It seems very logical to me. "I don't believe in a God" - what is illogical about that? A good many of them have heard the religious claims and have decided, on the balance of evidence that there is no God. Not believing in a God is not hindering them, nor is in anyway detrimental. It seems far more a case of doublethink to try to believe in something you don't believe in simply because that belief wouldn't cause "any harm" - hell, an Atheist could say the same thing - "Lack of proof doesn't support your God, were is the harm in you not believing?" - except that isn't the case because there is apparently a God who can't understand the nature of doubt, or why some people don't believe in him. "It is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence" - that makes me laugh. I can't help it. And your claim that as long as a religion conforms to scientific practices - most religions have profound difficulty reconciling themselves with scientific fact. And ultimately - in the event of conflict between an evidence claim and a claim with some evidence - I will believe the evidenced claim over the unevidenced one. It would be illogical to do otherwise.

There are logical objections to the existence of God. There are logical arguments for the existence of God. There is no logical argument for the need to disregard belief if belief does not negatively impact any aspect of life or decision making. Belief in God does not require any negative impact on life or decision making.

What are the logical arguments for God? And, if critically analysed, tallied with evidence and the like which is the most probable - the logical argument for, or the logical argument against?

There are people who don't believe in God because there is no evidence for him. Just like people don't believe in fairies or dragons. They are not going to perform some mental gymnastics in order to continue to maintain belief in something they don't think exists. And I don't know how you can expert them to do so.

Especially when there is no real benefit religious belief would have in their lives. Does an Atheist need religion to be complete/happy/functional/successful/motivated/creative/etc? No. What valid, logical reason do you have, other then "it wouldn't disrupt their lives" for them to attempt the illogical feat of believing in something they do not believe exists, and without evidence will be unable to believe exists?

Once again - there are no Atheists who say "I believe there is a God but I will disregard that belief and be a nonbeliever" - however there are many Atheists who will say "I have never seen any evidence to convince me there is a God, and in the face of a multitude of competing, yet unevidenced claims, I face the conclusion there is no God, and as such will not be able to consciously believe in one, unless one of the groups provides some proof to justify that belief."