Thoughts For Young Men,
I'd like to use this thread to give you an opportunity to make any additional claims or arguments that you haven't made yet; my hope is to consolidate the conversation so that we're not chasing each other around all of the other threads. I'll use the comments section of this post to respond to any comments you make on others, and I'll redirect you from those to this one. Just trying to clean up the conversation threads for the sake of clarity.
Please do be advised that the rule forbidding the repeating of refuted claims is in effect. If I've refuted it, and you've provided no reasonable response to the refutation, the claim is dead and will blocked.
Here are where each of the conversations are, as far as I can see:
ReplyDeleteThe Bible constitutes "witnesses to the existence and achievements of God, who left documentation and evidence that is all mutually-supporting"
ReplyDeleteThis has been refuted, since you admit that belief in the validity of the Bible as an information source is based on the assumed conclusion that it's the word of God.
You have not shown that any information source is valid.
DeleteYour position is the same as mine, except that you substitute different information sources for the Bible. If the Bible has been refuted, then so has your view of knowledge, and thus it is impossible for us to know anything.
No, refuting the Bible as a source of knowledge refutes the Bible; it does not invalidate all knowledge. The idea that empirical study is a valid path to knowledge is well-supported by all of the advancements that this approach has led to, such as the internet.
Delete"The idea that empirical study is a valid path to knowledge is well-supported by all of the advancements that this approach has led to, such as the internet."
DeleteHow did you determine that? By empirical study? You're begging the question.
Or if you determined that by some other method, what is it?
So let me get this straight... Are you suggesting that using the senses is not a valid way of transmitting information from the real world to your brain? If so, how did the words on the pages of the Bible get into yours?
DeleteI believe that using the senses *is* a valid way of transmitting information from the real world to my brain. I believe that because it is a logical conclusion based on what God has revealed in the Bible.
DeleteWhat I am asking is why you believe it. How do you know it is valid? You either have to use circular logic, or there must be some other method, some other standard by which you know empirical observation is a valid method of acquiring knowledge. Which is it?
If you haven't figured it out yet, I can keep pushing this argument forever. Even if you use some other methodology to validate empirical observation, that just shifts the question. How do you know that that other methodology (the one you use to validate empirical observation) is correct? It will either be circular logic, or something else again. It simply goes on and on.
You say that I simply keep repeating the same arguments. You're absolutely right! I keep repeating the same arguments because you still haven't (and never can) provided a basis for your worldview.
That is why you need God. The existence of God is not circular logic or an assumed conclusion. The existence of God is the necessary and sufficient condition for everything else.
I'll reply in the comments section of my Observation post.
DeleteEmpirical evidence cannot be validated as a reliable source of information.
ReplyDeleteThis has been refuted, since by definition, anyone can confirm empirical evidence to be true.
I believe empirical evidence can be validated as a reliable source of information, because the Bible says so. However, all evidence is interpreted, and that is where the problems come in. The Bible provides the framework for properly interpreting evidence, and is self-attesting.
DeleteYour methodology, pragmatism, is subjective and is itself not verifiable.
My response to your last comment addresses this one.
DeleteI don't "want" to avoid hell.
ReplyDeleteThis has been refuted by the fact that I do not believe hell exists in the first place.
I completely agree.
DeleteLet me know if there are any I'm missing, or if there are further things you want to discuss.
ReplyDelete