3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatEvidence also indicates that the writing bears the hallmarks of a mind that transcends time. Fulfilled prophecy furnishes us with this realization.
So you are holding these writings as divinely inspired because they say that they are? Does that seem a suitable foundation for such an edifice?
While you're concerned for circular reasoning?
Explain to us how your reasoning can arrive at truth without presupposition that it can.
Do so without circularity.
IE. What reasoning do you have that we can trust your reasoning ?
We have to stand in a "suitable edifice" with presupposition as a foundation that your reasoning can be trusted. Don't we?
Originally posted by sonshipHow do you link this to your particular god figure?
Explain to us how your reasoning can arrive at truth without presupposition that it can. Do so without circularity. IE. What reasoning do you have that we can trust your reasoning ? We have to stand in a "suitable edifice" with presupposition as a foundation that your reasoning can be trusted. Don't we?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou asking avalanchethecat... "you are saying that they are not inspired because. . . .?" is of course what's known as the Burden of Proof logical fallacy.
The Biblical scriptures are not inspired because they say they are. I dunno what type of logical fallacy that is but i have a deep sense of foreboding that it is.
Originally posted by sonshipEvidence also indicates that the writing bears the hallmarks of a mind that transcends time. Fulfilled prophecy furnishes us with this realization.
Evidence also indicates that the writing bears the hallmarks of a mind that transcends time. Fulfilled prophecy furnishes us with this realization.
While you're concerned for circular reasoning?
Explain to us how your reasoning can arrive at truth without presupposition that it can.
Do so without circularity.
IE. What reasoning do you have th ...[text shortened]... able edifice" with presupposition as a foundation that your reasoning can be trusted. Don't we?
There is no such evidence. Prophecy abounds in mystic literature; biblical prophecy is no more convincing than Nostradamus, and often less so.
You keep bandying about these arrogant and idiotic schoolteacher-like instructions. If you are interested in discussing something, get off your high-horse and do it with a modicum of respect.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt isn't a logical fallacy. The fact that they assert that they are divinely inspired should ring alarm bells in any rational mind. It's like a TV advert that tells you that 'scientists agree' about some or other nonsense. Why does it need to tell you that? Because it's authors crave your belief. If it was divinely inspired, why does it need to tell you that?
huh? Does not compute! does not compute!
The Biblical scriptures are not inspired because they say they are. I dunno what type of logical fallacy that is but i have a deep sense of foreboding that it is.
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI am not contesting whether they are actually inspired or not, I am asking you why you believe that they are not? I apologize if this is this not your position?
It isn't a logical fallacy. The fact that they assert that they are divinely inspired should ring alarm bells in any rational mind. It's like a TV advert that tells you that 'scientists agree' about some or other nonsense. Why does it need to tell you that? Because it's authors crave your belief. If it was divinely inspired, why does it need to tell you that?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFActually that would only make sense if i was contesting whether they were actually inspired or not, but I am not. What I am asking is why he doubts or denies their inspiration. It seems to me to be a valid question. For example he might cite fictional events or characters. Glaring inconsistencies. Plagiarism from other sources. Things like that.
You asking avalanchethecat... "you are saying that they are not inspired because. . . .?" is of course what's known as the Burden of Proof logical fallacy.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you do believe - and have contended here umpteen times - that they are divinely inspired, robbie. So any request from you for proof - or a reason why - they are not divinely inspired is a logical fallacy.
Actually that would only make sense if i was contesting whether they were actually inspired or not, but I am not.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you now contend that your question was a "valid" one and ask him to cite evidence that the scriptures are not divinely inspired then clearly this is the Burden of Proof logical fallacy.
It seems to me to be a valid question. For example he might cite fictional events or characters. Glaring inconsistencies. Plagiarism from other sources. Things like that.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYea, I hear that scientist agree about a lot of things from weather to dates.
It isn't a logical fallacy. The fact that they assert that they are divinely inspired should ring alarm bells in any rational mind. It's like a TV advert that tells you that 'scientists agree' about some or other nonsense. Why does it need to tell you that? Because it's authors crave your belief. If it was divinely inspired, why does it need to tell you that?