Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (1), and received no answer. Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (2). Again, I received no answer.
Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (6, 7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (8).
As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?
You say legal procedures are designed to find the truth, but that the procedure prevents the consideration of a written testimony from a person if they are not available for cross-examination. Yet, if a person has deceased since their written testimony was made, and their testimony is useful for finding the truth, and especially if that testimony is crucial for finding the truth, then the procedure has actually prevented the truth from being considered and it is then not true to say that the procedure is designed to find the truth.How so, please explain.
You didn't answer this question:You know, I seem to have a hard time communicating with you, as I have mentioned before in our previous discussions.
I have answered your questions, more than once.
The fact that you can't accept them, is rude.
Actually, if you read back to what was originally stated, I am saying that even hearsay of an eye witness will do for something to consider. But as it is, the hypothetical is not even able to produce that, because it is only hypothetical.For some, especially if they like what the hearsay states.
Thank you for explaining and waiting. This seems to be a pretty robust statement. However, what you are saying about assumptions doesn't rest right with me. People can make some pretty unreasonable assumptions, but I wouldn't describe that as "accepting the truth".We all accept the truth that reality exists.
We all accept the truth that we can learn some things about reality.
We all accept the truth falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.
Such as producing anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts? How hard can that be?
A working definition? Something testable, falsifiable? You couldn't find one either?
Sure, you set your own standard. I was discussing what is generally acceptable in practices where discovering truth is a priority.
You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (1), and received no answer. Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (2). Again, I received no answer.
Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (6, 7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (8).
As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?
That post is what stimulated my question in the first place. It does not answer my question.Refer to my post where I described how I approached the various worldviews on offer.
Then know this, that I found the Bible to be the Word of God. It follows necessarily and inescapably that every other worldview is not true, for every other worldview denies that the Bible is the Word of God.
That post is what stimulated my question in the first place. It does not answer my question.
In addition, refer to this response.Refer to my post where I described how I approached the various worldviews on offer.
Then know this, that I found the Bible to be the Word of God. It follows necessarily and inescapably that every other worldview is not true, for every other worldview denies that the Bible is the Word of God.
You know it does not answer my question and yet you refer me to it?I know.
You are entitled to your view. I happen to disagree.You aren't here for a serious discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?