The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

I think that people that believe in the Bible are right. I will de-construct the Con case now. First, Con speaks about multiple errors in the Bible. I would need some examples (preferably 2 so the debate won't become unclear). Second, even if (i.e. in case the first argument fails, this one must be rebutted too) there were errors in the Bible, this is not a reason for people not to believe in it. Let's just say that nothing is perfect. Science made mistakes, but it didn't count since it gave correct predictions on average. There are numerous other examples of objects that fail but we still trust them. For example, my clock alarm fails but I don't throw away my watch. If my computer gives a blue screen of death I don't throw it away. The point is that we don't work on absolute values. Rather we use "satisficing" [1] results. Bearing this in mind let's look at the Bible. Does it explain the universe to a non-specialist? Yes. Does it explain it well? No. Can numerous people use it? YES, because it is sufficient for their level of knowledge. Nothing stops a person from learning in better detail about the universe if (s)he wants to become an astronaut, but the Bible is sufficient for somebody who will harvest the land for all his life. Not everybody needs a PHD in physics; it would be a waste of time and resources. Therefore, the Bible is EFFICIENT and satisfices the level of knowledge needed for a large proportion of the population. It is therefore sufficient for that part of population, taking into account their level of knowledge and the time they have to invest in knowledge. Third, Con seems to assume that humans are rational beings and that they should act accordingly. Both ideas are false. Humans are not rational. As multiple game theory experiments show, they act rather irrational in many circumstances [2]. This is not necessary a bad thing, since we survived so far. We make multiple decisions based on other things than logic. For example what I eat is not determined by logic, rather by subjectivity. As a healthy person it is just fine to eat according to appetite and not to what nutritionists say. It is therefore clear that humans are not rational (not even scientists) and this is ok. Based on this people can chose to believe in the Bible just like they chose to have bacon instead of cheese. Being irrational is what makes us different from machines. If we would be always rational we would fail miserably. See for example the Buridan's donkey paradox [3] or the prisoner dilemma [4]. Believing in God because of the Bible doesn't always need ignorance. Lots of intelligent people believe in the Bible and find new meaning in it. See for example The Last Question by Isaac Asimov. [5] Lastly, there is a problem of "sufficient evidence". I will ask Con to state what is sufficient. As stated above. Nothing is sure, but we manage with it pretty good. The bible is pretty good as basis for belief. Think about all the things we take for granted with weaker evidence: we believe that air contains nitrogen because we learn it in school. When we first look at this is seems that it is ok but it is not. We could verify that air contains nitrogen, but we don't actually do it. We just believe what the teacher tells us. Why do we do this as rational beings? For two reasons: we have too little time, we tend to trust things that look ok and work ok. The bible looks ok and it was good enough for 2000 years. It seems like a rational choice to believe in it. 2000 years and billions of people. We buy shampoo for a lot less... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.multivax.com...