The Paradoxical Lies within your Logic …

[2PhiloVoid]

... and there's still diddly squat of any response to this thread. And I'm still wondering: "What's up with that, skeptics?"

 

[InterestedAtheist]

... and there's still diddly squat of any response to this thread. And I'm still wondering: "What's up with that, skeptics?"

I must admit, I'm not sure what this thread is about.

 

[HitchSlap]

Truth corresponds to reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I must admit, I'm not sure what this thread is about.

An educated person such as you can read, can't you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Truth corresponds to reality.

Does it? I personally don't conceptualize 'truth' as a synonym for Reality ... No, more often than not, and sometimes not, what we think is truth is really either a partial, fragmented half-story, or a misunderstanding. This is one reason why some folks like better the idea of "provisional truth."

 

[HitchSlap]

Does it? I personally don't conceptualize 'truth' as a synonym for Reality ... No, more often than not, and sometimes not, what we think is truth is really either a partial, fragmented half-story, or a misunderstanding. This is one reason why some folks like better the idea of "provisional truth."

Do you consider the Bible to be “provisional truth?”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you consider the Bible to be “provisional truth?”

In various ways, yes it is, because all humanly created statements are open to further hermeneutical study in an ongoing, cyclic way (which is why the field of hermeneutics is considered an art AND a science).

But are you familiar with the term as Darwin thought about provisional truth? Or as a number of modern day scientists think about it?

 

[HitchSlap]

In various ways, yes it is, because all humanly created statements are open to further hermeneutical study in an ongoing, cyclic way (which is why the field of hermeneutics is considered an art AND a science).

But are you familiar with the term as Darwin thought about provisional truth? Or as a number of modern day scientists think about it?

Yes. What would you like to know?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. What would you like to know?

Actually, what I'd like to know in the context of this thread is what you think about the 3rd article (i.e. TRUTH) in the OP............................................................... (which of course would require that you read it).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. What would you like to know?

In reflection on the articles in my OP, I'd like to know what form of TRUTH you're most inclined toward ... even if just "provisionally," of course.

 

[HitchSlap]

In reflection on the articles in my OP, I'd like to know what form of TRUTH you're most inclined toward ... even if just "provisionally," of course.

I'm "most inclined toward" the kind of truth that comports with reality.

You?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm "most inclined toward" the kind of truth that comports with reality.

You?

Oh, the same here! The difference being that maybe I don't expect as much out of human assertions as you do ... "provisionally" speaking, of course!

And thanks for your apparent noncooperation with engaging the locus of this thread ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... still no real answers or discussion here from Skeptics. Mmmm-Hmmm! I guess it would be logical, then, to assume that Skeptics just don't have any good responses to the OP. It wouldn't be the first time, though.

 

[cvanwey]

Which theory and understanding of "Truth" should we go with ultimately, especially when considering the Truth claims which any one person may make about the Bible and/or from personal Christian Experience?

I would reckon to state the following...

If my 'truth' is that Christianity is not true, meaning, Jesus did not rise from the dead to save us, then my truth (in this particular conclusion) MUST be completely flawed Am I close?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would reckon to state the following...

If my 'truth' is that Christianity is not true, meaning, Jesus did not rise from the dead to save us, then my truth (in this particular conclusion) MUST be completely flawed Am I close?

Nope! Not close at all, really.

This thread is more about the supposed use of Logic (and which theory of it is being employed) within one's own perception of...................... "Truth." This is an angle that is a little more complex than what the typical Foundationalist type Skeptic can handle.

 

[cvanwey]

Nope! Not close at all, really.

This thread is more about the supposed use of Logic (and which theory thereof) within one's own perception of...................... "Truth."

Interesting.... Okay...?

You are concerned with the 'which' method approach. Okay...

In regards to the Bible, when it speaks specifically about a resurrection claim, which is arguably the 'meat and potatoes' claim to Christianity, I employ the following methodology for 'truth' to conclude --- the resurrection likely did not happen....

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.
- Reported sources, which stem form a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.
- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.
- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.
- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...
- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via independent and individual eyewitness attestation.
- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.
- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

'Which' methodology would [you] call this exactly? And does the resurrection claim pass the above methodology used? And furthermore, is it a flawed methodology to use? If so, why?

I then also ask... Would you be more-so concerned with WHICH methodology someone uses to discern the truth in the claim of someone breaking into a house, stealing a car, seeing Elvis recently, receiving an answer in prayer from some opposing God, or the many other claims you likely dismiss without such concern or their truth assignment method? Or, would you instead merely ask for the evidence to support the claim?

 

[cvanwey]

This is an angle that is a little more complex than what the typical Foundationalist type Skeptic can handle.

Rather than continuing to edit your answer, after hitting send, please collect your thoughts completely before doing so Just a suggestion....

And I'm willing to bet I just gave you more than you can 'handle'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rather than continuing to edit your answer, after hitting send, please collect your thoughts completely before doing so Just a suggestion....

And I'm willing to bet I just gave you more than you can 'handle'

...you have a handle on it? Is this why you ignored the OP content? Address the OP BEFORE smacking the Bible around. Thanks! [If you had, you'd have seen that this thread has to do with the related idea of Logic and it's use within Truth rather than with biblical content.]

 

[cvanwey]

...you have a handle on it? Is this why you ignored the OP content? Address the OP BEFORE smacking the Bible around. Thanks! [If you had, you'd have seen that this thread has to do with the related idea of Logic and it's use within Truth rather than with biblical content.]

I don't respond to a lot of OP's. I'm not obligated, to my knowledge.

However, I still responded to the very end of your OP, after you goaded your audience in post #33. Be careful what you ask for buddy, you just may get it... And please always remember, this is the apologetics forum. You are here to defend your faith in Christ.

As the very end of your OP states, I have now addressed:

"especially when considering the Truth claims which any one person may make about the Bible and/or from personal Christian Experience?"

So, care to engage in what I stated in post #36 now? Or, are you going to ignore it, like you often do elsewhere?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't respond to a lot of OP's. I'm not obligated, to my knowledge.

However, I still responded to the very end of your OP, after you goaded your audience in post #33. Be careful what you ask for buddy, you just may get it... And please always remember, this is the apologetics forum. You are here to defend your faith in Christ.

It's not goading if it's true.........

As the very end of your OP states, I have now addressed:

"especially when considering the Truth claims which any one person may make about the Bible and/or from personal Christian Experience?"

So, care to engage in what I stated in post #36 now? Or, are you going to ignore it, like you often do elsewhere?

Right. So....................the antecedent consideration would be for the person who is actually engaging the OP to address the WHOLE of the OP and NOT just the last phrase that he/she happens to decide to focus on most.

Furthermore, Apologetics ISN'T and SHOULDN'T be seen as being simply on the defensive and having to only offer answers. A defense can also incorporate bilateral questioning........................or didn't you know that?

MOREOVER, just like there is more than one conception of "the Truth" or more than one type of Logic, there is also more than one approach to Christian Apologetics. People should learn this fact.*

*Reference
Boa, K., & Bowman Jr, R. M. (2012). Faith has its reasons: Integrative approaches to defending the Christian faith. InterVarsity Press.

DeRosse, A. A Survey of Apologetic Methodology.

To all of which I would ALSO add the following considerations, which to me seem to be integral to the whole enterprise of offering another person a so-called 'defense' of the Christian Faith: