skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Randal believes that the Christian god would have his bible written by people so that it is indistinguishable from any other book that people have written - full of contradictions, depicting the flawed human knowledge of the time, unclear, employing the same technics that people use when they write, like irony, etc.
In fact, Randal believes that the Christian god didn't even interfere in any way with the actual writing and compilation of the Christian bible - that was all done by people and people alone. Randal has written that he believes that the Christian god, when he created the universe, did so with the full foreknowledge that people would evolve billions of years later to independently write exactly the book that the Christian god would want them to write, full of human flaws and appearing as an all too human creation, as his bible.
Accordingly, no evidential case could possibly be made that the Christian bible is not divinely "inspired". Randal's beliefs are insulated from evidential considerations such as Loftus' and Babinski's. Of course, this also makes them absurd.
Randal merely defends the position that his belief in the divine inspiration of the Christian bible is 'properly basic'. That is, IF the Christian god DID inspire the Christian bible, then Randal's belief that this is the case may be rational. Of course, this is a tight and perfect circle that begs the questions of whether the Christian god (a) exists and (b) did do this.
So it should be no surprise that TCD has no "evidential force" upon someone who holds extraordinary beliefs without requiring evidence, beliefs that no evidence could possibly address.
What should be surprising is that Randal has the gaul to criticize the authors of TCD for what they have written. Link