Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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?

and you are saying that they are not inspired because. . . .

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Is a shame sir you capitulated so early. I had more ammunition to fire.

😠

It's often bluster and bravado masquerading as truth and knowledge. It's nice that we can wheel you out to slap his chops every so often.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and you are saying that they are not inspired because. . . .

...because they say they are.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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?

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 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 sonship
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?

How do you link this to your particular god figure?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
...because they say they are.

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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

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 sonship
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?

Evidence also indicates that the writing bears the hallmarks of a mind that transcends time. Fulfilled prophecy furnishes us with this realization.

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 carrobie
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.

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?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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?

I 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?

Originally posted by FMF
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.

Actually 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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually that would only make sense if i was contesting whether they were actually inspired or not, but I am not.

But 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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

If 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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not contesting whether they are actually inspired or not, I am asking you why you believe that they are not?

If you contend that they are inspired, then the burden of proof is on you. Until you do, they are just texts.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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?

Yea, I hear that scientist agree about a lot of things from weather to dates.