19 Apr 17
Originally posted by FMFI want to be objective, why that should be weird I cannot say.
As I said, it's a weird corner you have painted yourself into. You aren't trying to prove anything. And you aren't asking him to prove anything. And you refuse to state what you believe about the supposed inspiration of the Bible or even what you think the best arguments are that it is.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAsking people to prove claims of lack of inspiration is a logical fallacy called 'Burden of Proof'. Either you believe the Bible is divinely inspired (you won't say) and can demonstrate that it is (you can't), or there is no issue at stake, as I said before.
More so than those who have sought to prove claims of lack of inspiration, yes.
19 Apr 17
FMF: As I said, it's a weird corner you have painted yourself into. You aren't trying to prove anything. And you aren't asking him to prove anything. And you refuse to state what you believe about the supposed inspiration of the Bible or even what you think the best arguments are that it is.You mean that the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired is not an objective one?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I want to be objective, why that should be weird I cannot say.
19 Apr 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't think it is logically fallacious. If you make the claim that the Bible is uninspired then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is so. If on the other hand you see no evidence of inspiration or that the evidence you feel is not compelling then that is something else.
Asking people to prove claims of lack of inspiration is a logical fallacy called 'Burden of Proof'. Either you believe the Bible is divinely inspired (you won't say) and can demonstrate that it is (you can't), or there is no issue at stake, as I said before.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf there is a claim that the text, which we all agree was written by men, were inspired by a supernatural being, then that claim brings with it the burden of proof. You should look up what the definition of this particular logical fallacy you are using actually is.
I don't think it is logically fallacious. If you make the claim that the Bible is uninspired then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is so.
19 Apr 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFAll claims should be backed up with a burden of proof. If you do not find the proof convincing or compelling then that is something other than making a claim that you cannot substantiate.
If there is a claim that the text, which we all agree was written by men, were inspired by a supernatural being, then that claim brings with it the burden of proof. You should look up what the definition of this particular logical fallacy you are using actually is.
19 Apr 17
FMF: You mean that the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired is not an objective one?You think to take no stance on divine inspiration is "objective", right? You said "I want to be objective" and to that end, you don't want to say that you do in fact believe in divine inspiration.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sorry I have no idea how you managed to extricate that from my text, perhaps you need to read it again. 😕
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by FMFIts well known that I personally believe in divine inspiration. You yourself have stated as much. Why are you asking me now? 😕
You think to take no stance on divine inspiration is "objective", right? You said "I want to be objective" and to that end, you don't want to say that you do in fact believe in divine inspiration.
19 Apr 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFSorry I am not interested in getting into a debate about it at this time. Possibly seven or eight or perhaps even more times I have said as much. You really are a tedious fellow.
Well then go ahead and back up the claim that these human authored texts were inspired by a supernatural being.
19 Apr 17
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause you are describing deliberately not taking the stance that the Bible is divinely inspired as being "objective" and "neutral". So, do you think taking the stance that the Bible is divinely inspired is not "objective"?
Its well known that I personally believe in divine inspiration. You yourself have stated as much. Why are you asking me now? 😕
19 Apr 17
2 edits
So there you have it folks those who claim that the Bible is uninspired have offered nothing more than some airy sentiments that they feel intuitively that its uninspired, Their claims that it was written for political purposes or to control people are also unsubstantiated. Instead they seek to shift the burden of proof onto those who claim that it is inspired. How dastardly!