Why should one believe in the Bible? Is it true it's something based on circular logic like in picrel?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why should one believe in the Bible? Is it true it's something based on circular logic like in picrel?
Talk religion
All belief systems are ultimately either self-referential or incomplete.
As points out all traditional belief systems are capable of admitting this but atheists basically unanimously pull this moronic rhetorical trick of "uhh my belief is actually a lack of belief lmao" so it's impossible to reason with them. Once we get past that nonsense, then we can have a real discussion on why to believe the Bible. The contents of it are, of course, perfect, but despite the patently inhuman perfection of the text every single unbeliever is going to get hung up on something in it, most likely a result of his adherence to modern pseudo-morality. He can let it go or embrace God completely.
/thread
This doesn't say about it's veracity
Perfect?
The only way to verify it is to find the one that works the best
In that case it's easy. Major religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and others like it are full of claims of outlandish miracles where people display comic book style super powers all the time. But now that we have cameras, satellites with sensors and more developed science, no miracles like these ever happen anymore. Which means none of them work. The only hope for religion then, is a belief system that claims no miracles. I think the ancient Stoic belief was like that. Spinoza too said something of the sort.
>outlandish
Extra terrestrial
את
I'm pretty sure that most religions have a cessationist interpretation that copes with that
>cessationist
Once you know how magnetism works, the wonder is gone from it. This is why these amazing things are no longer called "miracles" in the modern era.
Has any religion ever considered magnetism a miracle though? Miracles aren't just something unusual but something highly unusual
I think primitive tribes might have.
When someone tells you that an interesting fenomina is not a miracle, what they are saying, is, "don't be happy about this. Be stoic about it, because it isn't that amazing"
It's hubris that causes people to become unimpressed with reality. As for me, I will praise God, for he is wonderful.
>miracles
If it wasn't for miracles, there would be no curiosity, and therefore, no science. It is the filling of our souls with wonder, that leads us to explore.
Belief systems exist to give an advantage in survival and reproduction. They undergo a selection process like everything else. Trying to justify them non-empirically (a la natural selection) is a waste of time, indeed.
You literally don’t need a self referential belief system. You can start with the reasonable axiom that you can learn things and build everything off of that.
Otherwise you end up basing your entire life off a lie with zero method of getting out of it
The problem is simplicity. You can start off with the axiom “I exist” and go from there, but the Bible (or any other ““sacred”” text for that matter) already has a complex web of metaphysical assumptions underlying its narrative, so when the only reason you believe the Bible is true is because it says so, then you can always go outside the scope of the Bible and criticize it because ontology and epistemology are more foundational than any set of propositions or historical narratives. For example, if you can conclusively prove a materialist ontology, then it doesn’t matter what the Bible it says, it must either be re-interpreted in light of a materialist metaphysics or rejected outright. Metaphysics and the Bible are not on an equal level. Metaphysics underlies every narrative and so you can always pull the carpet out from under them as long as you criticize it in the right field, namely, philosophy
1.The dictionary defines words.
2. We know this, because it is defined that way in the dictionary.
3. We can trust this definition because
[Go to line 1]
>1.The dictionary defines words.
The dictionary just records already defined words. It doesn't make the definition.
So does the bible.
Before it was written, it was spoken.
>Before it was written, it was spoken.
No, that would be the Quran
The Bible is the written word.
The Quran is the recitation of the written word.
But Jesus is the word made flesh, and he is the person that you are thinking of when you say that something comes before the Bible.
>The Bible is the written word.
You said it was spoken first.
>The Quran is the recitation of the written word.
No, it was first spoken and then written down.
>But Jesus is the word made flesh
You're confusing terms. Logos does not mean the same as word does in English.
>You're confusing terms
What came first, the premise of the logos, or the conclusion of the logos?
In regards to recitation, how many Catholics speak Latin, and how many Muslims speak Arabic. Many people recite words that they no longer understand.
We shall not worship the lords name in vain.
What is logos, but code? What came first, the mouth, and throat, and lungs, and tongue? Or the code that makes these things.
Jesus is the anointed code, and he comes before the sound we call "recitation".
Because the Bible is the Word of God. I don't know God. I only know God through a certain someone, my spiritual father. His God was able to do mighty things, profound things in his life. No. That would be like if Grandpa reproduced with granddaughter to make mom. Lineage, brother.
>Why should one believe in the Bible?
Because it works.
>circular logic
It's not circular. Someone is making a claim and then collecting a dozen witnesses to testify. Stapling it all together into one book doesn't make it one claim.
Modern atheists get presented with the claim of Christ's divinity usually via the Bible, so to them the Bible is the claim, but really it's the evidence.