Common theistic error?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> If you imagine that you believed in the bible as the work of god, not man though then you obviously would trust it. </font>

No, I wouldn't. This right here is a HUGE error! Even if I were convinced that the bible was the word of God, which he wasnted handed down, it still would be wrong to logically conclude that it is accurate. Why would you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because I posited you believed the bible was the work of God and not man. I wasnt suggesting you would logically deduce the bible was infallible - merely suggesting you believed it to be so.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, man has betrayed God before. Not to mention typos, misinterpretations, etc. etc. No... It cannot logically be concluded that it is 100% sure the bible is the accurate word of God no matter what other arguments there are. So going with, "We cannot know the mind of God", makes much more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it can be concluded if you accept the premise that an omnipotent god is ensuring any changes/omissions/translations/etc are made in accordance with his will. I think it is perfectly reasonable to view the bible as infallible dictation (or the church as the infallible arbiter of doctrine) if you are willing to accept this premise. What I think is inconsistent is to later claim that God is unknowable if you justify your belief in the bible with "Wouldnt you do that if you were God?" or something similar.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny-

I think the paradox stems from the circular problem of having an all-knowing and all-powerful God.

If God is all-knowing then He knows what even He will do. This suggests that He is powerless to change His mind and do something else. If He did so, then he would've been wrong the first time, so He can't be all-knowing. And if He can't change what He does, then He can't be all-powerful.

It's late and I'm tired, but I think it goes something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a different paradox (and there are so many!) The omniscience vs omnipotence argument is easier at the start but more difficult when you get into it I think (although God not being able to change his mind is perfectly acceptable if you think he doesnt exist within time - eternal, unchanging, etc etc...)

[Lestat]

I see what you're saying about inconsistency in the two arguments (and I think you're right). I realize I'm getting off track here, but...

Doesn't the very first chapter of the bible clearly indicate that God cannot trust man (the whole forbidden fruit thing)? There are other instances of where man has went against God's word. Yet, it is man who translated Gods words to paper, no? Or are you saying that the bible was literally handed down by God, paper, ink, binding, and all?

My point is, it would be terrible science to assume the bible is the accurate word of God as long as man had any hand in it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying about inconsistency in the two arguments (and I think you're right). I realize I'm getting off track here, but...

Doesn't the very first chapter of the bible clearly indicate that God cannot trust man (the whole forbidden fruit thing)? There are other instances of where man has went against God's word. Yet, it is man who translated Gods words to paper, no? Or are you saying that the bible was literally handed down by God, paper, ink, binding, and all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it's not my position but I believe there are theists who believe that God is ensuring that the bible remains true to his intention. I am pretty sure notready would claim that the original texts of the bible are the actual, direct word of god. I think he would acknowledge that there have been translational or copying errors in some cases, but would maintain that the original texts can be regarded as direct from God.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, it would be terrible science to assume the bible is the accurate word of God as long as man had any hand in it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - I think theists who maintain this are taking it on faith (although I am hoping to hear from some of them in this thread as there may be a reason I havent thought of).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

a) We cannot know God’s mind (therefore [topic under discussion] is inexplicable)
b) It makes sense that God would want us to know about him (therefore we can trust the bible is the word of God, the catholic church is the proper arbiter of doctrine,...or similar)


[/ QUOTE ]

These two are not mutually exclusive. A simple example:

A parent wants his child to know certain things (don't play in the street) but can't teach the child certain other things (what E=MC2 means) and won't teach him certain other things (about sex, for instance, if the child is very young).

[bunny]

You think you can consistently claim to not be able to know God's mind and then argue that the bible must be true since of course God would want us to have access to him?

I would stress I am not saying belief in the bible is inconsistent with the first. I am saying the stated reason for believing in the bible is inconsistent with the first.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You think you can consistently claim to not be able to know God's mind


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't make this claim as a general proposition. Paul said "We have the mind of Christ" and also said "Now we know in part" and "We see through a glass darkly". God said "My thoughts are not your thoughts". Cf Job.

I see no contradiction to state God reveals truth to us but not all truth. If we knew the mind of God exhaustively we would be God.

[bunny]

I've clearly been unclear.

You can conistently say "I think the bible is the true word of God and I believe we cannot know God's mind completely." I dont think you can consistently say "I think the bible is the true word of God because it makes sense to me that he would want us to be able to know him and I believe we cannot know God's mind."

[bunny]

To further muddy the waters...

How do you know which of your assumptions about god's mind are true (ie that he would want us to know him) and which arent?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"I think the bible is the true word of God because it makes sense to me that he would want us to be able to know him and I believe we cannot know God's mind."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anyone who phrases it like this. Try:

"I think the bible is the true word of God because it makes sense to me that he would want us to be able to know him but I believe we cannot know God's mind completely."