Ben, there are several things I want to respond to in your previous two posts, but I lack the spare time I need to formulate these responses right now.

No problem. I totally understand.

The burden of proof is on the opponent of this premise to show a location where the Bible is outright, 100% wrong about something or contradicts itself.

Actually no. The burden of proof is always on the party attempting to prove something. We begin by assuming nothing, which means not assuming there is a God/Gods. We then try to prove something existence from there, which leaves the burden of proof with the Bible.

It is demonstrably true or plausible in every aspect, and is without error or contradiction.

Your argument is based on confirmation bias. You're assuming the Bible is correct to begin with and bending all other arguments to suit that premise. Also, Joesph had two daddies, for instance:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Can a sentence be true that says, "The bus route ran from Main Street to First Avenue from 2000 to 2011, and now that route is no longer in service and the bus route runs from Main Street to Green Road."

Yes. According to the premise of your argument the morality prescribed by the Bible can become outdated, if the moral authority of the Bible was absolute why would it ever need to change? What is there to say the 'bus route' that condemns gay marriage hasn't become outdated and should be moved?

Also, you see no problem with the Book of Mormon then, I take it? Just a new bus lane.

I'll take your comments in reverse order:

You are right that, if the moral authority of the Bible were absolute, it would not change. However, these are my own words from earlier: "There is no spiritual or moral value in not eating certain foods, and there never has been. Yes, including under the Mosaic law." Morality has never changed, but ritual has. The New Testament is an acceptable addition to the Old Testament because it does not contradict it. (The Old Testament never claims that the Mosaic law would be forever. In fact, it predicts the coming of the New Covenant to replace the old. See Jeremiah 31:31-33, for example.) The same could not be said about the book of Mormon, which contradicts the Bible.

I would challenge you to show an example of me "bending and argument", or a location where I have unsatisfactorily supported a premise that is being discussed in this thread. The apparent contradiction that you brought up does have argument value, however. Though I do prefer threads that are not filled with thousands of words worth of links, I hope that you don't mind that I link you to an article I wrote (it is, after all, my words), available here.

I believe that you misunderstand the burden of proof. I claim the non-existence of something, namely errors or contradictions in the Bible. For me to fully support this claim, I would have to compare every sentence in the Bible against every other, which would be impossible in this setting (or any other, really). This is why philosophers recognise that the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove the existence, not the non-existence, of something. The burden of proof is on me in other points in this argument, but not on this premise, which is all that I claimed in my original wording.

Even though in many ways I am accepting the idea that the authority of the Bible or the existence of God has to be proven, this is not, strictly speaking, correct. Don't misunderstand me: these beliefs have to be defended with careful reason and logic, and they cannot be accepted if there is unbalanced contrary evidence, but to make a negative assumption about the Bible is to make a positive assumption about something else. To assume that what we physically observe is all that we can work from is already to have taken the naturalist position; it is to assume naturalism and then use naturalism to define the rules of the game. Therefore, as always, the test for truth is internal consistency in a complete system. There are two crucial jobs in argumentative philosophy (debate): 1) defend the consistency your system, which includes showing that it consistent with physical evidence, and 2) showing the inconsistency of your opponent's system with itself or with the evidence we have available. If there is truth, then only one system will be wholy consistent with itself and the world.

This is why philosophers recognise that the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove the existence, not the non-existence, of something.

You're attempting to prove the existence of God.

For me to fully support this claim, I would have to compare every sentence in the Bible against every other, which would be impossible in this setting (or any other, really).

For me to fully refute this claim, I would have to compare every sentence in the Bible against every other which would be impossible in this setting (or any other, really).

If you aren't going to take the time to prove your point, I don't have to take the time to refute it. Remember what you were saying about burden of proof?

but to make a negative assumption about the Bible is to make a positive assumption about something else.

No, actually. Just because you do not understand something doesn't mean you have to except the first theory someone comes up with if it doesn't make sense. Your theory isn't automatically correct even if it is the only one on the table.

Is there perhaps a more appropriate venue for continuing this discussion? It seems that some of our responses are beginning to get lengthy and we've also strayed considerably from the original, much more general question regarding religion.

I agree Adam. No point derailing this thread completely.

I've thought of two possibilities. We could start another Brainstorm for the purpose of continuing the debate we've gotten into. We could also set something up using Google Docs, which would allow us to continue the debate a little less informally.

I'm fine with either option, though I would like to continue the discussion. I think, if we were to "start from scratch" in a way, we ought to define the question much more specifically. For example: "Does God exist?", which is not what we have been discussing.

I'm going to be away from a computer for more than a week, but, afterwards, I'd be thrilled to set one of these up. I'll write myself a reminder.