tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post4089955430013605647..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: "Your moral compass is broken"Rhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-9526104341165156792011-03-23T21:25:00.892-05:002011-03-23T21:25:00.892-05:00*YAWN*
Rho,
Do you ever tire of your anti-theist...<i><b>*YAWN*</b><br /><br />Rho,<br /><br />Do you ever tire of your anti-theist denizens' irrational and question begging self-referential diatribes?<br /><br />It's sad how they make themselves their own "god", yet are manifestly blind to the fact.<br /><br />Rebels to the core...as we all once were.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />CD</i><br /><br />Will the circle, be unbroken, by and by Lord, by and by?Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-59951225904280015092011-03-23T14:28:09.367-05:002011-03-23T14:28:09.367-05:00Rho:
The God of the Bible is self-justifying, by...Rho: <br /><br /><b>The God of the Bible is self-justifying, by definition, ...</b> <br /><br />And God is good, by definition. <br /><br />Definitional morality.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-41725399011162037552011-03-23T14:22:46.927-05:002011-03-23T14:22:46.927-05:00With respect to circularity…
Ah, yes, I thought t...With respect to circularity…<br /><br />Ah, yes, I thought that answer would be something like the one you gave, but I didn’t want to jump to conclusions. <br /><br />A viciously circular argument is an untestable or circular argument in which we see that it’s circular, and so we shrug, and we say so it goes. Not much we can do about it. <br /><br />A not-viciously circular argument is one in which we see that our argument is untestable and circular, and so to solve the problem, we appeal to a second argument, concept, claim, referent, point of reference, etc. <br /><br />Unfortunately, as you have already acknowledged, the second claim and/or and the additional referents and definitions also involve, include or require untestable, circular arguments. Again, your claims about “ultimate authorities” are based on untestable and circular reasoning. To solve the problem of cicularity, you've simply assumed that you have can openers. As I said, not very useful. <br /><br />In summary...<br /><br />Viciously circular – One circle. <br /><br />Not viciously circular – Two circles. Or more. <br /><br />Got it.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-78169333598287743432011-03-23T13:24:25.389-05:002011-03-23T13:24:25.389-05:00WALTER SAID:
First, I do not believe that there i...WALTER SAID:<br /><br /><i>First, I do not believe that there is an invisible, intangible spirit floating around convicting people on the propositional "truths" of the Christian mythology.</i><br /><br />Once again, you unbelief has no bearing on objective truth. Whether or not you believe you can fly will not change the fact that you will fall like a rock if you jump off of a cliff.<br /><br /><i>Second, you guys are all supposed to be Calvinists, which means it's your belief that no one is capable of believing the stories contained in your sacred books unless that person has been chosen by God to receive aid by your intangible spirit (total depravity, remember).</i><br /><br />You have an overly-simplistic view of Calvinism.<br /><br /><i>So why persist in trying to argue me into intellectual assent with your religion?</i><br /><br />When did I ever say I was trying to persuade you? You're not making more baseless assumptions, are you? Persuading you would be a nice bonus, but my primary purpose in posting here has been to counter the aspersions you have cast upon my Lord and His Word.<br /><br /><i>The simplest answer from your POV is that I am unregenerated and incapable of believing the tall tales of Christianity.</i><br /><br />You are unregenerate, and incapable of accepting the truth. However, this fact has nothing to do with:<br /><br />1. The value inherent in countering the aspersions that you have cast upon my Lord, and <br />2. The fact that Holy Spirit may regenerate anyone at anytime He chooses, possibly using interactions like these as means to affect His ends.<br /><br /><i>You generally cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.</i><br /><br />You are conflating persuasion with the rational justification of one's position. I nowhere asked you to persuade Christians to believe as you do. I merely asked you to justify your position, giving Christians a rational reason to believe as you do. It is irrational to refuse to justify one's position, simply because doing so would not persuade someone else.<br /><br /><i>It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism. </i><br /><br />1. When did I ever say anything about being infallible? You're not making more baseless assumptions, are you?<br />2. I would be very interested to learn why you think that this is a subject that "warrants cautious agnosticism." But, based on past experience, I won't be holding my breath for a justification of this claim.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321272184376541252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-27542991661516338572011-03-23T12:15:31.773-05:002011-03-23T12:15:31.773-05:00Specifically in this case, it refers to the differ...Specifically in this case, it refers to the difference in the referent of the begged question. <br /><br />In your case, you have no way to self-justify. No reason to trust yourself. You are not a standard by definition.<br /><br />The God of the Bible is self-justifying, by definition, and the alternatives are absurd. He is the precondition for intelligibility. You are not. He is ultimate. You are not. <br />If God does not exist, existence is absurd. If you do not exist, it makes no impact on existence.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67920084691370312082011-03-23T12:05:12.212-05:002011-03-23T12:05:12.212-05:00I should clarify one thing...
You said, "I d...I should clarify one thing...<br /><br />You said, "I didn't make it up".<br /><br />You're right. I apologize. I should clarify. Some other human made it up, and you believe what the other human made up. <br /><br />I did have one question. <br /><br />You said, "Mockery to cover up your philosophical ignorance". I assume that this means that you think that there is a difference between cicular and viciously circular. What is that difference?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-73582635620389960132011-03-23T11:44:04.014-05:002011-03-23T11:44:04.014-05:002) Your tendentious dichotomy between rational arg...<i>2) Your tendentious dichotomy between rational argument and biblical argument is noted and recognised for what it is - question-begging.</i><br /><br />Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that I wasn't allowed to be tendentious. Imagine how difficult it would be if everybody in a debate promoted their own point of view!<br /><br />Oh, wait. That's the entire point of a debate. Anyway, if you can't spot the colossal change in tenor in cases such as Coram Deo's, there's little point in pursuing it.<br /><br /><i>2) Nobody can win an argument on a scientific basis in these cases, as is clearly evident from the lack of agreement even amongst scientists.</i><br /><br />Did a little light bulb just go on over your head, or are you still in the dark?Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-26798837230450078162011-03-23T11:21:19.451-05:002011-03-23T11:21:19.451-05:00"Sorry, that's just incorrect."
So,..."Sorry, that's just incorrect."<br /><br />So, you ARE rejecting your untestable and circular argument?<br /><br />Cool.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-54381098336522182722011-03-23T11:17:04.182-05:002011-03-23T11:17:04.182-05:00But making up an untestable and circular reasoning...<i>But making up an untestable and circular reasoning answer…”God told me”…is not a useful answer. </i><br /><br />I didn't make it up. That's the thing.<br />Besides, precisely how do you know that it's not a useful answer? Be specific. Make an argument, and make sure you tell how you know it.<br />Oh wait, you just said you don't know how you know anything. I guess I'm unclear on why your opinion should be taken seriously. <br /><br /><br /><i>Oh, I see. VICIOUSLY circular. Circular is ok, but VICIOUSLY circular, well, that would be wrong. Sorry, but now you’re just making up differences that don’t actually exist. </i><br /><br />Mockery to cover up your philosophical ignorance. Guess we're done here.<br /><br /><br /><i>I’m leery and wary of untestable and circular answers, including my own.</i><br /><br />You sounded pretty sure just now about your "is not a useful answer" assertions. Why the inconsistency, the hemming and hawing, alluvasudden?<br /><br /><br /><i>You, on the other hand, reject anything that you feel you can claim is untestable and circular, unless it’s YOUR untestable and circular argument.</i><br /><br />Sorry, that's just incorrect.<br /><br /><br /><i>It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism. </i><br /><br />Check the mirror and read the first few sentences of your comment.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-41937672476122971562011-03-23T11:03:53.630-05:002011-03-23T11:03:53.630-05:00“So how do you know anything?”
Good question. Bu...“So how do you know anything?”<br /><br />Good question. But making up an untestable and circular reasoning answer…”God told me”…is not a useful answer. <br /><br /><br />“How will you test whether evidence exists, and whether your brain can properly interpret evidence?”<br /><br />Again, qood question. Again, making up an untestable and circular reasoning answer…”God told me evidence exists”…is not a useful answer. <br /><br /><br />“You need an ultimate standard.”<br /><br />…Which you’ve created in your mind. <br /><br /><br />“We don't deny our approach is circular. We deny it's VICIOUSLY circular, and contend that your approach IS viciously circular.”<br /><br />Oh, I see. VICIOUSLY circular. Circular is ok, but VICIOUSLY circular, well, that would be wrong. Sorry, but now you’re just making up differences that don’t actually exist. <br /><br /><br />"Whether it's an error depends on what one appeals to as ultimate authority."<br /><br />And your claims about “ultimate authorities” are based on untestable and circular reasoning. So, we’re stuck. No one can know anything about anyting. <br /><br />In the end, I’m leery and wary of untestable and circular answers, including my own. I’m quite aware of the limits of the human mind. <br /><br />You, on the other hand, reject anything that you feel you can claim is untestable and circular, unless it’s YOUR untestable and circular argument. In that case, we suddenly have infallible and absolute Truth and Ultimate Authority. So it goes. <br /><br />Perhaps Walter is right. It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49605680516296835312011-03-23T10:01:19.697-05:002011-03-23T10:01:19.697-05:00I'm not sure that I've made any claims tha...<i>I'm not sure that I've made any claims that I have any revelations or "ulimate authority", so I'm not sure that your response makes any sense.</i><br /><br />So how do you know <b>anything</b>? That answer will help reveal your ultimate authority, if you don't know what yours is.<br /><br /><br /><i> Of course, you had to add the word "ignorant", a word that I did not use with respect to theology.</i><br /><br />I added it b/c it was relevant. Ignorant = you don't know. I said it for a reason.<br /><br /><br /><i>I actually think that it's very important to be able to test one's claims whenever possible</i><br /><br />How will you test whether evidence exists, and whether your brain can properly interpret evidence?<br /><br /><br /><i> I'm certainly not going to say "there is absolutely no way to test my claim"". </i><br /><br />If you're honest, you'll get to a point where you do, out of necessity, make a claim that's impossible to test.<br />That's the point - God is the ultimate precondition for intelligibility. You can't test everything, because eventually you run out of ways to test stuff. You need an ultimate standard.<br /><br /><br /><i> Saying that I've done something, too, confirms that you have done what you're accusing me of doing</i><br /><br />We don't deny our approach is circular. We deny it's VICIOUSLY circular, and contend that your approach IS viciously circular.<br />Out of necessity, everyone's approach reduces to circularity, so it depends on the merits of the circularity, of the authority.<br /><br /><br /><i> I think that you are essentially arguing that we all make the same error</i><br /><br />Close, but not quite. Whether it's an error depends on what one appeals to as ultimate authority. If tGotB, then you're good. If yourself, well, you need to make an argument that you're reliable.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24812869407398364982011-03-23T09:53:48.645-05:002011-03-23T09:53:48.645-05:00"So, first you claim to know stuff by evidenc..."So, first you claim to know stuff by evidence you claim (but can't prove) exists. Then you claim that there is absolutely no way to test the claim that you have access to and can properly understand evidence. The evidence attests that it's evidence, and that's all that's needed. Only the brain you allege (but can't prove) you have has the "ultimate authority" to test the evidence." <br /><br />Well, first, I'm not sure that I've made any claims that I have any revelations or "ulimate authority", so I'm not sure that your response makes any sense. Simply aping my comment...while cute...produces a result that is not really relevant or well thought out. Of course, you had to add the word "ignorant", a word that I did not use with respect to theology. But I guess it made you feel better to do this. <br /><br />In any event, I actually think that it's very important to be able to test one's claims whenever possible, and I think that one must always consider the possibility of error. I'm certainly not going to say "there is absolutely no way to test my claim"". <br /><br />More significantly, to argue that I make the same mistake that you make or that my argument is also circular only confirms that that your argument is in error and is circular. It certainly fails to deny or counter my conclusion that your arguments are untestable and circular. Saying that I've done something, too, confirms that you have done what you're accusing me of doing. Saying that I'm wrong, too, confirms that you're also wrong. Why you would find this helpful to your cause is something that I don't understand. <br /><br />By suggesting that everyone's argument is untestable and/or circular, I think that you are essentially arguing that we all make the same error. That's fine, but it seems to lead to the conclusion that, really, no one can know anything about anything. I would not have expected you to promote such a position.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-21854525060793999182011-03-23T07:13:46.665-05:002011-03-23T07:13:46.665-05:00David,
So, first you claim to know stuff by evide...David,<br /><br />So, first you claim to know stuff by evidence you <b>claim</b> (but can't prove) exists. Then you claim that there is absolutely no way to test the claim that you have access to and can properly understand evidence. The evidence attests that it's evidence, and that's all that's needed. Only the brain you allege (but can't prove) you have has the "ultimate authority" to test the evidence. <br /><br />It's circles within circles. And it's brilliant. It's bloody, unbeatably brilliant. I luuuuuve ignorant philosophy. It's sooo easy.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-48364031371491883592011-03-23T06:39:10.968-05:002011-03-23T06:39:10.968-05:00So why persist in trying to argue me into intellec...<i>So why persist in trying to argue me into intellectual assent with your religion? The simplest answer from your POV is that I am unregenerated and incapable of believing the tall tales of Christianity.</i><br /><br />Your problem with the One true and living God, and thus Christianity isn't intellectual, Walter, it's moral/ethical.<br /><br />As has been pointed out several times you hate God because you are a rebel sinner, as are all the sons of Adam by nature.<br /><br />I have also pointed out that unless divine grace rescues you, that will certainly die in your sins.<br /><br />Additionally I pointed you to God's revealed will for your life, which is to repent of sins and flee to Christ for forgiveness, but you refuse because you love your sin.<br /><br />The facts are plain for all to see.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-50976056154959197252011-03-23T06:06:50.396-05:002011-03-23T06:06:50.396-05:00Aside from those that I mentioned previously, not ...<i>Aside from those that I mentioned previously, not the least of which is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which you have willfully chosen to ignore and suppress.</i><br /><br />LOL. I wondered when that accusation would show up. First, I do not believe that there is an invisible, intangible spirit floating around convicting people on the propositional "truths" of the Christian mythology. Second, you guys are all supposed to be Calvinists, which means it's your belief that no one is <b>capable</b> of believing the stories contained in your sacred books unless that person has been chosen by God to receive aid by your intangible spirit (total depravity, remember). So why persist in trying to argue me into intellectual assent with your religion? The simplest answer from your POV is that I am unregenerated and incapable of believing the tall tales of Christianity.<br /><br /><i>The point is that you have not given the Christian any good reason to accept the claims that you have made about Christianity.</i><br /><br />You generally cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into. And years of experience has taught me not to waste too much time with people caught in the grip of a religious ideology. With that, I bid y'all farewell. It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-6436717524352878372011-03-22T22:48:58.406-05:002011-03-22T22:48:58.406-05:00Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simp...<i>Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question...And quoting proof-texts from the bible as if the bible can self-authenticate its own authority is circular and silly. </i><br /><br />If you are referring to my previous post, then you need to read it more carefully, for what you quoted does not beg the question. And for that matter, I have not as yet quoted any proof-texts from the Bible. So how about dealing with the arguments that I have presented?<br /><br /><i>There is no reason for me to accept that the mostly anonymous and often pseudonymous writers of these old texts were under any form of divine inspiration.</i><br /><br />Aside from those that I mentioned previously, not the least of which is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which you have willfully chosen to ignore and suppress.<br /><br /><i>I find it hard to believe that old texts of *mostly* unknown authorship and provenance is the best way God can find to communicate with us.</i><br /><br />1. What is the metric by which possible methods of divine revelation are to be measured?<br /><br />2. On what basis is this metric to be applied to God? Simply because you think that X is the best way for God to reveal truth to man does not mean that X is actually the best way for God to reveal truth to man.<br /><br />3. If God wants to reveal Himself in a way where some will not understand or believe Him, what is that to you? In fact, God has intentionally revealed Himself in certain ways at certain times such that some would not believe His message (cf. Mk. 4:11-12). In other words, on what basis is God obligated to reveal Himself in a manner that is "best" in some regard? Simply because you think that God should have revealed Himself in certain way does not mean that God actually should have revealed Himself in that way.<br /><br /><i>As far as Christians having no reason to believe as I do, that is fine by me.</i><br /><br />The point is that you have not given the Christian any good reason to accept the claims that you have made about Christianity.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321272184376541252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-17311993131021214792011-03-22T22:26:35.349-05:002011-03-22T22:26:35.349-05:00"God's own self-revelation attests that i..."God's own self-revelation attests that it is His own self-revelation, and there is no test or higher authority that can be brought to bear on His ultimate authority."<br /><br />So, first you claim to have a revelation from God. Then you claim that there is absolutely no way to test the claim that you have a revelation from God. The revelation attests that it's a revelation, and that's all that's needed. Only the alleged supernatural source of the revelation has the "ultimate authority" to test the revelation. <br /><br />It's circles within circles. And it's brilliant. It's bloody, unbeatably brilliant. I luuuuuve theology. It's sooo easy.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45569559168061808022011-03-22T22:03:17.318-05:002011-03-22T22:03:17.318-05:00Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simp...<i>Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question. There is no reason for me to accept that the mostly anonymous and often pseudonymous writers of these old texts were under any form of divine inspiration. And quoting proof-texts from the bible as if the bible can self-authenticate its own authority is circular and silly.</i><br /><br />Actually what's circular and silly is your self-referential demand to appeal to an authority above the ultimate authority of God Himself. <br /><br />God's own self-revelation attests that it is His own self-revelation, and there is no test or higher authority that can be brought to bear on His ultimate authority.<br /><br />Ultimate authorities are sorta funny like that.<br /><br /><i>I find it hard to believe that old texts of *mostly* unknown authorship and provenance is the best way God can find to communicate with us. As far as Christians having no reason to believe as I do, that is fine by me. Christians have as much right as atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews to believe what they choose to believe.</i><br /><br />Of course you think this because you act as your own ultimate authority, which is <i>actually</i> silly and circular.<br /><br />But there are truly none so blind as those who refuse to see.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-66392694592161470572011-03-22T21:15:00.102-05:002011-03-22T21:15:00.102-05:00Only the inspired authors experienced the act of r...<i> Only the inspired authors experienced the act of revelation, but in writing down the revealed message (the act of which is part of the act of revelation itself in many cases), its propositional content is available to anyone who reads the message</i><br /><br />Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question. There is no reason for me to accept that the mostly anonymous and often pseudonymous writers of these old texts were under any form of divine inspiration. And quoting proof-texts from the bible as if the bible can self-authenticate its own authority is circular and silly. <br /><br />I find it hard to believe that old texts of *mostly* unknown authorship and provenance is the best way God can find to communicate with us. As far as Christians having no reason to believe as I do, that is fine by me. Christians have as much right as atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews to believe what they choose to believe.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-40827469489318305812011-03-22T20:57:08.881-05:002011-03-22T20:57:08.881-05:00BTW, I think the spam filter just ate the comment ...BTW, I think the spam filter just ate the comment I posted previous to my last comment. If Rho can't get it back, I'll repost it.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321272184376541252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81555494475697416522011-03-22T20:52:20.718-05:002011-03-22T20:52:20.718-05:00Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a...<i>Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a universe and designing life should have no problem revealing itself directly to me, if it so chooses to do so.</i><br /><br />I agree that God has no problem in this regard. The question is this: why should He reveal Himself further to you, given that you have already rejected the abundantly clear revelation that He has already given you in creation and in His Word?<br /><br /><i>To loosely quote Thomas Paine: A revelation from God is only a true revelation to the first person that receives the message directly from God. When that person relays that message to another, the second person has only received an anecdotal account of a revelation.</i><br /><br />This conflates revelation, in the sense of the act of revelation, with revelation, in the sense of the revealed message. Only the inspired authors experienced the act of revelation, but in writing down the revealed message (the act of which is part of the act of revelation itself in many cases), its propositional content is available to anyone who reads the message. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration states that the original autographs of Scripture contain the exact words that God wished to use in communicating His revelation, and thus the written document (the original autograph) is the revealed message itself. Thus, your contention that what is recorded in Scripture is an anecdote does not follow from, and is contradicted by, the theology of Scripture. Once again, you are making assertions that no Christian has any reason to accept.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321272184376541252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-65933839563547974372011-03-22T20:51:40.022-05:002011-03-22T20:51:40.022-05:00What you are doing is attempting to shift the burd...<i>What you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me to somehow prove that your fantastical claim is false.</i><br /><br />Not at all. I was simply pointing out where the burden of proof has been all along. After all, you were the one who made the claim that "all your information about God comes from 'other sources.'" And to paraphrase Dan Barker, "the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim."<br /><br /><i>I can no more prove that a deity didn't write the 66 books of the bible, than you can prove that a deity actually did.</i><br /><br />1. I never said anything about "proof." A proof would be nice, but anything is better than nothing. To fail to at least try to justify one's position (i.e. give an argument for why it should be accepted) simply because one cannot "prove" one's position is irrational.<br /><br />2. The issue relevant to my earlier comments is not whether "a deity" did or did not inspire Scripture, but whether or not God (the God of the Bible) inspired it. Other unbelievers have claimed that the God of the Bible could not have written the Bible, I simply want to know how you would (attempt to) justify the claim you have made.<br /><br />3. I have not said anything above "proving" whether or not God inspired Scripture. As with (1), "proof" is not the issue at hand here.<br /><br /><i>You see, we know that humans have written millions of books throughout recorded history, and I have no reason not to assume that the 66 books you revere as sacred are any different than all the rest.</i><br /><br />1. Concerning the divine inspiration of Scripture, the issue is not whether or not the 66 books of Scripture have human authorship. The issue is whether or not such authorship was inspired by God.<br /><br />2. There are relevant factors pertaining to Scriptural inspiration that you have either failed to mention, or intentionally ignored, such as the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological confirmation, etc.<br /><br />3. One must distinguish between prior and posterior probabilities. If one wishes to evaluate Scripture on evidential grounds, as you seem to be doing, such an evaluation should be made in terms of posterior probabilities. In terms of prior probabilities, if one assumes the principle of indifference, then the probability of the inspiration of Scripture is the same as the probability of the inspiration of every other non-inspired book. However, this ignores any relevant evidential factors, such as those mentioned in point (2). If these and other relevant factors were to be taken into account, the posterior probability of the inspiration of Scripture would be significantly greater than the posterior probability of any competing hypothesis. Thus, even under an evidential analysis, the claim of Scriptural inspiration would be justified.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321272184376541252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84709433203779651742011-03-22T20:45:38.258-05:002011-03-22T20:45:38.258-05:00Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a...<i>Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a universe and designing life should have no problem revealing itself directly to me, if it so chooses to do so. To loosely quote Thomas Paine: A revelation from God is only a true revelation to the first person that receives the message directly from God. When that person relays that message to another, the second person has only received an anecdotal account of a revelation. I am under no obligation to believe the anecdotal tales of ancient, superstitious men.</i><br /><br />Your boundless enthusiasm for rank absurdity is truly breathtaking, Walter.<br /><br />It's an act of sheer mercy that God doesn't reveal Himself directly to you, because His unveiled glory would kill you instantly, and expedite you to hell even faster than your current pace.<br /><br />God has graciously chosen to reveal Himself through His Word, veiled in the flesh in Christ Jesus, and inscripturated under the divine supervision of His Spirit.<br /><br />God sovereignly and infallibly superintended the inscripturation of His Word, which is the product of His mind (2 Pet. 1:21).<br /><br />The fact is that both you and Thomas Paine are flat wrong, and you don't and can't live in a manner consistent with same artificial standard as you set forth for belief in God's self-revelation.<br /><br />Ironically since neither you nor I personally heard Thomas Paine utter the quote you cited, we're under no obligation to believe the anecdotal account that attributes it to him.<br /><br />But your childish complaint that God hasn't chosen to reveal Himself in the manner that you would personally prefer is duly noted.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-91453591947060849512011-03-22T19:41:00.982-05:002011-03-22T19:41:00.982-05:00Cont.
Further, an omniscient deity capable of cre...Cont.<br /><br />Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a universe and designing life should have no problem revealing itself directly to me, if it so chooses to do so. To loosely quote Thomas Paine: A revelation from God is only a true revelation to the first person that receives the message directly from God. When that person relays that message to another, the second person has only received an anecdotal account of a revelation. I am under no obligation to believe the anecdotal tales of ancient, superstitious men.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-54949589035055551002011-03-22T19:29:48.167-05:002011-03-22T19:29:48.167-05:00This is what you claim, but it is a claim without ...<i>This is what you claim, but it is a claim without justification or demonstration, and thus neither I, nor Rho, nor CD, nor any other Christian here has any reason to accept it. If, as you contend, the Bible is merely the product of ancient people, with no divine inspiration, then this should not be too difficult to demonstrate.</i><br /><br />What you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me to somehow prove that your fantastical claim is false. I can no more prove that a deity didn't write the 66 books of the bible, than you can prove that a deity actually did. You see, we know that humans have written millions of books throughout recorded history, and I have no reason not to assume that the 66 books you revere as sacred are any different than all the rest. So basically, I consider your claims that these books are the words of a deity to be without justification or demonstration as well. In fact, most arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.com