Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

What of those who received different information "in the spirit"?

If the information contradicts the information I have received and the information I have received is true, then they have received false information.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know that?

Because Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the information contradicts the information I have received and the information I have received is true, then they have received false information.

Isn't it possible that you have received false information or reached the wrong conclusion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because Jesus is the Son of God.

This claim is in need of support.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you assess the truth value of a claim, if not through some form of testability?

You assess the claim by using a method of assessment suitable for the claim. A claim subject to being verified by empirical means can be assessed by said means. A claim that is not must be assessed by other means.

 

[bhsmte]

If the information contradicts the information I have received and the information I have received is true, then they have received false information.

How do you test (independently and objectively), whether the information you have received, is true or not?

 

[bhsmte]

You assess the claim by using a method of assessment suitable for the claim. A claim subject to being verified by empirical means can be assessed by said means. A claim that is not must be assessed by other means.

Give us examples, of how you access truth, when empirical means are not possible.

 

[bhsmte]

Because Jesus is the Son of God.

Do you believe this on faith? Or, can you demonstrate this independently of your holy book and with objective evidence?

 

[anonymous person]

Given that your theological commitments are not amenable to reason, in what sense are they reasonable?

Being a proponent of the view of the ministerial use of reason as a servant to the gospel does not entail that my beliefs, especially beliefs that for me are properly basic, are not amenable to reason. It just entails that reason serves the gospel, not that the gospel is unreasonable.

 

[bhsmte]

Being a proponent of the view of the ministerial use of reason as a servant to the gospel does not entail that my beliefs, especially beliefs that for me are properly basic, are not amenable to reason. It just entails that reason serves the gospel, not that the gospel is unreasonable.

Explain; "ministerial use of reason".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Explain; "ministerial use of reason".

It means that any use of reason that contravenes his faith is regarded as "illegitimate."

 

[bhsmte]

It means that any use of reason that contravenes his faith is regarded as "illegitimate."

In other words; stick to the story, no matter what.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Being a proponent of the view of the ministerial use of reason as a servant to the gospel does not entail that my beliefs, especially beliefs that for me are properly basic, are not amenable to reason. It just entails that reason serves the gospel, not that the gospel is unreasonable.

But that is simply another way of saying that your theological commitments are not amenable to reason, or that you will dismiss as "illegitimate" any use of reason that might contravene those commitments or point to the need for revision.

 

[bhsmte]

But that is simply another way of saying that your theological commitments are not amenable to reason, or that you will dismiss as "illegitimate" any use of reason that might contravene those commitments or suggest the need for revision.

He got that from Willy Craig.

When well evidenced reality contradicts scripture, scripture always takes priority.

Hey, it is the easy button on steriods.

 

[anonymous person]

What would I be upset by? Your refusal to answer the questions put to you? That reflects poorly on you, not me.

I don't know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You assess the claim by using a method of assessment suitable for the claim. A claim subject to being verified by empirical means can be assessed by said means. A claim that is not must be assessed by other means.

You seem to have repeated what you said here, to which DogmaHunter responded:

What don't you understand about my question?
Here it is again:

How do you assess the truth value of a claim, if not through some form of testability?

Also, you mentioned in your other post that if a claim can't be tested empirically, then one has to assess the truth value thereof through "some other means".

I asked what those "other means" were.

Are you going to answer it? After all YOU said it.

Please, answer the questions.

What are those "other means"?
How to assess the truth value of a claim, if not through some form of testing/verification?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You assess the claim by using a method of assessment suitable for the claim. A claim subject to being verified by empirical means can be assessed by said means. A claim that is not must be assessed by other means.

I asked you "how".

So what are these "other means"?

 

[The Cadet]

You assess the claim by using a method of assessment suitable for the claim.

Great. How do you do this? This answer is utterly unhelpful; it's like if you say, "I have a method", we ask, "What is that method", and you respond "I have a method". Please provide an example.

 

[bhsmte]

I asked you "how".

So what are these "other means"?

He has really said it in so many words; if evidence contradicts his interpretation of scripture, the evidence must be denied.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is related to this question from another thread:

As @The Cadet noted, faith can be used to justify whatever one wishes, so it cannot be relied on for knowledge.

How does "demonstration of the Spirit" work and how can it be used to establish which supernatural claims have merit?