Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true.

Thank you for accepting, THEBOMB. I hope for a challenging and enlightening debate. I accept Pro's definition of Biblical Inspiration. As for his expansion of my definition of the Christian God, I accept that these are all attributes believed by Christians to belong to God according to the Bible. I do not, however, necessarily vouch for their veracity, as I will show shortly. I vehemently disagree with Pro on the question of who holds the burden of proof. By asserting a scientifically unfalsifiable claim, he assumes this burden per Russell's teapot [1]. Nevertheless, to get this debate rolling, I propose we compromise and share the burden equally, deferring to voters as the final arbiters of the issue. Con's Argument: The plausibility of Biblical Inspiration is dependent on a God who indeed possesses the attributes listed by Pro in Round 1. In short, Christians believe that God could have "supernaturally directed the human authors of Scripture" because they believe God to exhibit the characteristics that would be required of such an endeavor, namely those of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection. The problem with that, of course, is that they believe God to have these characteristics because they believe the claims of the Bible to be true to begin with. This can be viewed as a fallacious, albeit implicit, assertion of the human authors of the Bible themselves. In essence, Biblical Inspiration dictates that each human author of the Bible, while writing, asserts the following: 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. 2. God is, at the moment, writing these assertions through me. 3. As such, these assertions are true and God is therefore omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect (see #1) This illustrates the fallacious, circular reasoning of Biblical Inspiration. Christians widely site their Bible as the authoritative source for information on the nature of God, but conclusions about the nature of God derived from the Bible cannot be used to support the veracity of the proposed "inspired scriptures", as they would presuppose the veracity of the very same proposed "inspired scriptures." As such, the Bible is NOT NECESSARILY true simply because it is claimed to be a product of God's inspiration, as God's believed nature (and existence for that matter) is jeopardized by the doubt of whether or not God's nature is such that he would be capable (and willing for that matter) of divinely inspiring the human authors to write the Bible. Some possibilities are that: 1. God does not exist. 2. God exists, but does not possess the requisite characteristics for Biblical Inspiration. 3. God exists and possesses the requisite characteristics for Biblical Inspiration, but does not wish to divinely inspire human authors. 4. God exists, possesses the requisite characteristics for Biblical Inspiration, and wishes to divinely inspire human authors, but has deliberately inspired them to write untruths. These are but a few plausible alternatives to the reality asserted by Biblical Inspiration, proving that even though the Bible is claimed to be a product of God's inspiration, it is NOT NECESSARILY true. The resolution is negated. I look forward to reading Pro's arguments. _________________________________ 1- http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot