Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
Did I say it was a dichotomy? No, I didn’t. The bible is God’s word, but it is not God. Of course it carries the same authority, because it is God’s word, but it is awkward at best to say “The Bible is the highest authority”.This isn't really a dichotomy. Just as if God were to speak to you directly and tell you something, the Bible carries the exact same authority. It is essentially God's own words written down in a book graciously given to us.
I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?
They don't prove the Bible true, because they're based on presuppositions that the Bible is not true, and moreover, Christian apologists who use such arguments are actually deceivingly concealing their own presuppositions before the unbeliever.
1. I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.
2. How are science, logic, and the findings of archaeology based on presuppositions that the bible is not true?!?
3. It is not a matter of “concealing” presuppositions. In fact, in what way are the arguments being used? Especially using logic, it can be a presuppositional argument. Anyway, in some argument presuppositions don’t enter the picture. So one shouldn’t fault another for “concealing” presuppositions. They aren’t germane to the argument.
Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.
If X, then Y. Say X is ‘objective morality’. Say Y is God’s existence. If X then Y. X, therefore Y. X is “authenticating” Y. Objective morality “authenticates” God’s existence. Uh oh, guess objective morality is outside God. Wrong.Because it's logical. If proposition X were to authenticate proposition Y, then Y could not possibly be authoritative over X, since its authority would be stemming from something outside itself [INSERT ARGUMENT HERE FOR WHY AUTHORITY WOULD BE OUTSIDE ITSELF], removing any intrinsic potency from which it can have authority over X.
Eh? I didn’t claim something lesser can justify something greater. The OP said, “Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.” I asked, “Why suppose this”? And yes, what I responded to is just an assertion. There isn’t any supportive argument to see why it is the case.Furthermore, if this is just an assertion, then so is your claim that something lesser can justify something greater. You would need to positively justify that.