What do you believe and why?

[Archaeopteryx]

If an expression (an assertion, a truth claim) is properly formed (comports with proper epistemic responsibilities); and if that belief is not contradicted by other evidence or in conflict with known facts, then it is intellectually appropriate to accept the expression as true, even if tentatively. To refuse to accept a justified assertion, with no justification for rejecting it, is intellectually irresponsible. Since your only reason for rejecting the assertion that divine revelation is a reality seems to be circular reasoning, then you've failed your intellectual duty to be objective.

Okay, so show that we are intellectually obligated to assent to the claims of your religion.

 

[hankroberts]

Okay, so show that we are intellectually obligated to assent to the claims of your religion.

sigh... For ANY truth assertion, regardless of the topic or the source, if the assertion meets the criteria then one (anyone) has an intellectual obligation to accept it or to justify rejecting it. This is not just true for religious claims, it is true for any claim to truth. Given that the criteria for justified belief are met and the epistemic responsibilities are fulfilled, then one has an intellectual obligation to accept it.

Now Christianity is in fact the only extant religious view which argues its claims are historically verifiable and reliable. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is one's epistemic duty to acknowledge truth.

 

[hankroberts]

In the context that they use it, it would seem that they consider "truth" synonymous with their religion, or their opinion, such as at the bottom of post #56 of this thread, where the poster has a "truth" that does not appear to comport with reality.


Noted.

Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that "divine revelation" was more than simply a product of the imagination, I will change my position accordingly.

In what way do the teachings of Christianity comport with realty?

Who gets to decide what is meant by "properly warrant"? You?

I have no idea what you mean by "justified" true belief. If it is true what would it need to be justified?

Need I justify that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? Need I justify that the Earth is not flat?

I'm using the word the way it is used in most professional literature: how do others use it?

In the context that they use it, it would seem that they consider "truth" synonymous with their religion, or their opinion, such as at the bottom of post #56 of this thread, where the poster has a "truth" that does not appear to comport with reality.

I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble finding this truth claim you refer to: I'm struggling with the entire post, but I'm not seeing what you suggest.

Aside from that, the fact that some people might make a truth claim that is in error does not change the meaning of the term, does it?

Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.

Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand.

Ah, so you have some actual evidence that divine revelation is always imaginary? I'd like to see that. Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition that such things are not real; which is circular reasoning.

Well, while I do indeed assert that the teachings of Christianity are true, what has that to do with our topic?

In what way do the teachings of Christianity comport with realty?

Off topic. Be happy to engage that conversation, but it carries us far from our topic.

"Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify."
But to properly warrant a claim to knowledge, I merely have to properly warrant the belief.

Who gets to decide what is meant by "properly warrant"? You?

My goodness, are you not aware that there are rather well established criteria for properly grounding claims? Plantinga talks about this extensively, if you can wade through his work. Sudduth discusses it. Numerous others do. Three kinds of Knowledge; three elements to proper knowledge; epistemic duties (generally); there is considerable material out there on this...

Knowledge is justified true belief.

I have no idea what you mean by "justified" true belief.

Um, Theory of Knowledge? Knowledge is "justified true belief"?

If it is true what would it need to be justified?

Really?

Need I justify that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? Need I justify that the Earth is not flat?

Actually, yes, you do, if those claims are challenged. Now the ones you offer are so generally accepted it is unlikely anyone will doubt them; but when they were relatively new then they required justification in order to warrant belief.

But for any truth claim, other than those which qualify as intuitive knowledge,
it is appropriate to ask "why do you believe that is true" in the absence of obvious justification.

From some other material:

An Opinion is a statement of something we think or feel or prefer. An expression of personal value or perspective. Opinions are subjective and relative. An opinion may correspond to a truth, but not necessarily. Opinions may be defensible, but do not need to be. “I think dogs are better than cats” is an opinion.

An Assertion (Truth Assertion or Truth Claim – Factual Statement – Declarative Statement) is a statement put forth as a truth claim, or fact.
Often assertions are made without offering any supporting reasoning or evidence. This is a common practice, usually based on the expectation that the truth of the assertion is recognized by those who hear it. As long as no one challenges the truthfulness of the assertion, there is no problem. “Dogs are better than cats” is a truth assertion. An assertion is a claim to knowledge (which we’ll get to in a moment). Often, we erroneously present opinions as assertions (as above), then when we are challenged we have problems defending them. The above assertion is a claim that something is objectively true, when it is actually merely an opinion improperly stated as a truth claim. a proper truth assertion would be "I likedogs better than cats."

An Argument is generally speaking, an assertion or a truth claim, along with reasons or evidence to support that claim.
An argument makes a claim to truth, with justification or reasoning in support of the claim. In Philosophy, debate and Critical Thinking, an argument that cannot be justified is no more than an opinion: it carries no persuasive value or authority. There are good arguments (sound logically and factually) and there are bad arguments (badly structured, flawed in logic or fact). Not all good arguments are presented persuasively, and not all persuasive arguments are good. Likewise, not all bad arguments are obviously bad, and not all unconvincing arguments are bad arguments (one may have a true point but argue it poorly). “Dogs are better than cats, because this book says so” is an argument. It may not be a very good argument, but it meets the form.


There is a LOT of material on this subject out there...

 

[Dave Ellis]

sigh... For ANY truth assertion, regardless of the topic or the source, if the assertion meets the criteria then one (anyone) has an intellectual obligation to accept it or to justify rejecting it. This is not just true for religious claims, it is true for any claim to truth. Given that the criteria for justified belief are met and the epistemic responsibilities are fulfilled, then one has an intellectual obligation to accept it.

Now Christianity is in fact the only extant religious view which argues its claims are historically verifiable and reliable. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is one's epistemic duty to acknowledge truth.

The problem is that there are far more religions that argue that their claims are historically verifiable and reliable. For example, Islam.

However like Islam, Christianity has not met it's burden of proof. Belief in Christianity ultimately requires some form of faith in place of actual evidence. Therefore, it's not a justifiable belief, and the intellectual obligation is to withhold belief until it can demonstrate its claims.

 

[hankroberts]

The problem is that there are far more religions that argue that their claims are historically verifiable and reliable. For example, Islam.

However like Islam, Christianity has not met it's burden of proof. Belief in Christianity ultimately requires some form of faith in place of actual evidence. Therefore, it's not a justifiable belief, and the intellectual obligation is to withhold belief until it can demonstrate its claims.

The problem is that there are far more religions that argue that their claims are historically verifiable and reliable.

Actually, no, there are not: not a single other religion makes that claim. Even Judaism, which could make the claim, refuses to do so, because if the claim is proved true then they must accept the same evidence for the NT claims. Now I have been a student of this subject for several decades, and I can assure you no other religion makes the claim. Look into it...

Belief in Christianity ultimately requires some form of faith in place of actual evidence.

You must be using that term ('faith') in a manner different from my understanding. Historically, the notion that 'faith' only applied where there is no evidence was nonsense. Biblically it is absolutely false. Practically, faith is commonly understood to be based either in experience or reputation. In the Christian Church, "blind faith" (blind belief without evidence) is actually heresy.

I know of a fairly complete monograph on the subject if you're interested.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually, no, there are not: not a single other religion makes that claim. Even Judaism, which could make the claim, refuses to do so, because if the claim is proved true then they must accept the same evidence for the NT claims. Now I have been a student of this subject for several decades, and I can assure you no other religion makes the claim. Look into it...

I've spoken with a number of adherents of other religions, and that claim has indeed been made by them in support of their religions.

If taking the claims of adherents is not good enough, well, that's ultimately all Christianity has going for it as well.

You must be using that term ('faith') in a manner different from my understanding. Historically, the notion that 'faith' only applied where there is no evidence was nonsense. Biblically it is absolutely false. Practically, faith is commonly understood to be based either in experience or reputation. In the Christian Church, "blind faith" (blind belief without evidence) is actually heresy.

I know of a fairly complete monograph on the subject if you're interested.

Let me simplify my point. After having hundreds of debates, and after watching many other debates by professional theologians, after you press long enough for a Christian to back up their statements with some evidence, ultimately they'll admit their belief is rooted in faith.

I have never seen anybody put forward concrete evidence for their theological beliefs at all. I must conclude after this amount of time and the amount of looking that I've done, if someone had concrete evidence I'd have almost certainly seen it by now.

 

[bhsmte]

You must be using that term ('faith') in a manner different from my understanding. Historically, the notion that 'faith' only applied where there is no evidence was nonsense. Biblically it is absolutely false. Practically, faith is commonly understood to be based either in experience or reputation. In the Christian Church, "blind faith" (blind belief without evidence) is actually heresy.

I know of a fairly complete monograph on the subject if you're interested.

If you have evidence to support a certain position, why exactly is "faith" required?

When I turn on a light switch in my house, I don't have faith it will go on, I "trust" that it will go on, based on the evidence of it working every time I flip the switch.

I don't have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, I trust the sun will come up tomorrow, based on many successful times that it has.

I do have faith my favorite baseball team will win the World Series in the next 10 years, even though they have not won one in my lifetime.

 

[hankroberts]

I've spoken with a number of adherents of other religions, and that claim has indeed been made by them in support of their religions.

If taking the claims of adherents is not good enough, well, that's ultimately all Christianity has going for it as well.




Let me simplify my point. After having hundreds of debates, and after watching many other debates by professional theologians, after you press long enough for a Christian to back up their statements with some evidence, ultimately they'll admit their belief is rooted in faith.

I have never seen anybody put forward concrete evidence for their theological beliefs at all. I must conclude after this amount of time and the amount of looking that I've done, if someone had concrete evidence I'd have almost certainly seen it by now.

I've spoken with a number of adherents of other religions, and that claim has indeed been made by them in support of their religions.

Interesting that you are willing to believe anything someone tells you, yet you accuse Christians of being unreasonable in their beliefs. There is not (to my knowledge) a single religious group which makes an official claim that their teachings and principles are historically verifiable and reliable. As to an individual making such a claim, I'd have to see the claim and then ask for justification.

Let me simplify my point. After having hundreds of debates, and after watching many other debates by professional theologians, after you press long enough for a Christian to back up their statements with some evidence, ultimately they'll admit their belief is rooted in faith.

Not any theologian I know, and I know a few, personally. And while some Christians may make that statement, it simply is not true biblically or historically. Faith (biblical faith) is indeed inherent to our Christianity; but the notion that believing something absent proper justification is known as Fideism, and has been identified as heresy for hundreds of years.

I have never seen anybody put forward concrete evidence for their theological beliefs at all.

Where you get your information is not within my control. However, there are plenty of them out there. If you want some references on material that justifies the fundamental teachings of Christianity, I can provide several.

 

[hankroberts]

If you have evidence to support a certain position, why exactly is "faith" required?

When I turn on a light switch in my house, I don't have faith it will go on, I "trust" that it will go on, based on the evidence of it working every time I flip the switch.

I don't have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, I trust the sun will come up tomorrow, based on many successful times that it has.

I do have faith my favorite baseball team will win the World Series in the next 10 years, even though they have not won one in my lifetime.

If you have evidence to support a certain position, why exactly is "faith" required?

How are you using that term ("faith")? I use it exactly as it is used commonly, and as it is used in scripture. Faith is belief that something is true or someone is trustworthy, on the basis of either experience or reputation.

When I turn on a light switch in my house, I don't have faith it will go on, I "trust" that it will go on, based on the evidence of it working every time I flip the switch.

By the common (and the biblical) definition, that is precisely faith.

I don't have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, I trust the sun will come up tomorrow, based on many successful times that it has.

Precisely: you trust (have faith) that it is true based on experience.

I do have faith my favorite baseball team will win the World Series in the next 10 years, even though they have not won one in my lifetime.

But that is NOT faith: that is hope. And depending on the team, one might say it is gullibility.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

sigh... For ANY truth assertion, regardless of the topic or the source, if the assertion meets the criteria then one (anyone) has an intellectual obligation to accept it or to justify rejecting it. This is not just true for religious claims, it is true for any claim to truth. Given that the criteria for justified belief are met and the epistemic responsibilities are fulfilled, then one has an intellectual obligation to accept it.

Now Christianity is in fact the only extant religious view which argues its claims are historically verifiable and reliable. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is one's epistemic duty to acknowledge truth.

You're just repeating yourself now. How does any of this show that we are intellectually obligated to assent to the claims of your religion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How are you using that term ("faith")? I use it exactly as it is used commonly, and as it is used in scripture. Faith is belief that something is true or someone is trustworthy, on the basis of either experience or reputation.



By the common (and the biblical) definition, that is precisely faith.



Precisely: you trust (have faith) that it is true based on experience.



But that is NOT faith: that is hope. And depending on the team, one might say it is gullibility.

We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, not the common usage, which is simply a synonym for confidence, trust or hope. The many meanings of the word provide ample ground for equivocation, so let's be clear that we are talking about 'faith' in the religious sense.

*I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence.

 

[hankroberts]

We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, not the common usage, which is simply a synonym for confidence, trust or hope. The many meanings of the word provide ample ground for equivocation, so let's be clear that we are talking about 'faith' in the religious sense.

*I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence.

Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.

My conversations with the religious.

 

[Davian]

I'm using the word the way it is used in most professional literature: how do others use it?


I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble finding this truth claim you refer to: I'm struggling with the entire post, but I'm not seeing what you suggest.

Yes, he was all over the place. I wonder where he went?

Aside from that, the fact that some people might make a truth claim that is in error does not change the meaning of the term, does it?

If he were trying to use the word "truth" to mean "what he believed to be true", then yes, he is trying to change the meaning of the word.

Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.


Ah, so you have some actual evidence that divine revelation is always imaginary? I'd like to see that.

I would like to see where I said that. Got a link?

Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition

Where did I state this?

Do I need to be here, if you are going to carry both sides of this exchange?

that such things are not real;

No, it is based on the inability of religionists to show otherwise.

which is circular reasoning.

Only if you misrepresent what I have said.

"Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify."
But to properly warrant a claim to knowledge, I merely have to properly warrant the belief.

My goodness, are you not aware that there are rather well established criteria for properly grounding claims? Plantinga talks about this extensively, if you can wade through his work. Sudduth discusses it. Numerous others do. Three kinds of Knowledge; three elements to proper knowledge; epistemic duties (generally); there is considerable material out there on this...

Knowledge is justified true belief.


Um, Theory of Knowledge? Knowledge is "justified true belief"?

In Plato's time, perhaps. Can we bring this discussion into the 21st century? Or would that be awkward for you?

Really?



Actually, yes, you do, if those claims are challenged. Now the ones you offer are so generally accepted it is unlikely anyone will doubt them; but when they were relatively new then they required justification in order to warrant belief.

I like working with those examples, as they comport with realty (though scientific observations) but are not proven to be true.

But for any truth claim, other than those which qualify as intuitive knowledge,
it is appropriate to ask "why do you believe that is true" in the absence of obvious justification.

From some other material:

An Opinion is a statement of something we think or feel or prefer. An expression of personal value or perspective. Opinions are subjective and relative. An opinion may correspond to a truth, but not necessarily. Opinions may be defensible, but do not need to be. “I think dogs are better than cats” is an opinion.

An Assertion (Truth Assertion or Truth Claim – Factual Statement – Declarative Statement) is a statement put forth as a truth claim, or fact.
Often assertions are made without offering any supporting reasoning or evidence. This is a common practice, usually based on the expectation that the truth of the assertion is recognized by those who hear it. As long as no one challenges the truthfulness of the assertion, there is no problem. “Dogs are better than cats” is a truth assertion. An assertion is a claim to knowledge (which we’ll get to in a moment). Often, we erroneously present opinions as assertions (as above), then when we are challenged we have problems defending them. The above assertion is a claim that something is objectively true, when it is actually merely an opinion improperly stated as a truth claim. a proper truth assertion would be "I likedogs better than cats."

An Argument is generally speaking, an assertion or a truth claim, along with reasons or evidence to support that claim.
An argument makes a claim to truth, with justification or reasoning in support of the claim. In Philosophy, debate and Critical Thinking, an argument that cannot be justified is no more than an opinion: it carries no persuasive value or authority. There are good arguments (sound logically and factually) and there are bad arguments (badly structured, flawed in logic or fact). Not all good arguments are presented persuasively, and not all persuasive arguments are good. Likewise, not all bad arguments are obviously bad, and not all unconvincing arguments are bad arguments (one may have a true point but argue it poorly). “Dogs are better than cats, because this book says so” is an argument. It may not be a very good argument, but it meets the form.


There is a LOT of material on this subject out there...

Indeed. How does it relate to what I asked?

Well, while I do indeed assert that the teachings of Christianity are true, what has that to do with our topic?


Off topic. Be happy to engage that conversation, but it carries us far from our topic.

Agreed. Best to keep the "teachings of Christianity" far way from the topic of what comports with reality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Interesting that you are willing to believe anything someone tells you, yet you accuse Christians of being unreasonable in their beliefs. There is not (to my knowledge) a single religious group which makes an official claim that their teachings and principles are historically verifiable and reliable. As to an individual making such a claim, I'd have to see the claim and then ask for justification.

How did you draw the conclusion that I'm willing to believe anything that someone tells me? I didn't say I believe that Islam is historically verifiable, if I did then I would likely consider myself a Muslim. I don't believe Islam is historically verifiable any more than I believe Christianity is, however that's not what I said.

I said Muslims have made the claims that Islam is historically verifiable, and I have been provided with a number of examples why in the past. I don't agree with their findings however.

That being said, it also must be asked why an official claim to be historically verifiable matters at all? Unless your claims are actually historically verifiable it doesn't matter one bit.

Not any theologian I know, and I know a few, personally. And while some Christians may make that statement, it simply is not true biblically or historically. Faith (biblical faith) is indeed inherent to our Christianity; but the notion that believing something absent proper justification is known as Fideism, and has been identified as heresy for hundreds of years.

Define "biblical faith". If you're working off the whole "evidence of things unseen" angle, then I must reject your definition. Faith even under that definition is not actual evidence, even if your book tries to redefine it as such.

Where you get your information is not within my control. However, there are plenty of them out there. If you want some references on material that justifies the fundamental teachings of Christianity, I can provide several.

I'd be surprised if you could raise an argument that I haven't seen yet, however feel free to explain your most persuasive argument backed with verifiable evidence.

We'll do one argument at a time, if I can show why your argument doesn't stand up, then we can move on to another one if you wish. That'll keep this from turning into a massive post where I'm addressing 8 arguments at the same time

 

[hankroberts]

My conversations with the religious.

Sorry for the long delay in getting back, folks: still having internet problems.

Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.

My conversations with the religious.

Well, I am religious, and I refute that use of the term. And I can justify that, if you like.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry for the long delay in getting back, folks: still having internet problems.

Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.



Well, I am religious, and I refute that use of the term. And I can justify that, if you like.

Go ahead.

 

[hankroberts]

Go ahead.

Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.

Well, I am religious, and I refute that use of the term. And I can justify that, if you like.

Go ahead.

OK. That will take a bit, and I'll have to pull my notes. I'll get it posted this morning...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.

Well, I am religious, and I refute that use of the term. And I can justify that, if you like.



OK. That will take a bit, and I'll have to pull my notes. I'll get it posted this morning...

Before you do, bear in mind that I will not respond to a gish gallop, particularly one comprised of scripture quotes from every book in the Bible. Over time, I've learned to value brevity in the posts I read and comment on. This isn't to be rude, but simply due to the fact that I don't have the time to dissect a post that is the equivalent of a master's thesis. That said, if you have written a master's thesis-worth on the matter, I congratulate the effort. But someone else will have to be the examiner.

 

[hankroberts]

Yes, he was all over the place. I wonder where he went?

If he were trying to use the word "truth" to mean "what he believed to be true", then yes, he is trying to change the meaning of the word.

I would like to see where I said that. Got a link?

Where did I state this?

Do I need to be here, if you are going to carry both sides of this exchange?

No, it is based on the inability of religionists to show otherwise.

Only if you misrepresent what I have said.

In Plato's time, perhaps. Can we bring this discussion into the 21st century? Or would that be awkward for you?


I like working with those examples, as they comport with realty (though scientific observations) but are not proven to be true.

Indeed. How does it relate to what I asked?

Agreed. Best to keep the "teachings of Christianity" far way from the topic of what comports with reality.

Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.
Ah, so you have some actual evidence that divine revelation is always imaginary? I'd like to see that.

I would like to see where I said that. Got a link?

Sure: in http://www.christianforums.com/t7863783-26/#post67007457

Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand.

Now either you have evidence, or you don’t. Which is it?

Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition

Where did I state this?

I’ll rephrase my comment. You stated “If someone were to demonstrate that "divine revelation" was more than simply a product of the imagination, I will change my position accordingly.” On what basis do you presume that all claims of divine revelation are “simply a product of the imagination”?
The original statement was that divine revelation, like any other revelation, requires the same justification to properly warrant belief. Given that proper justification to believe, what is your justification for rejection?


that such things are not real;

No, it is based on the inability of religionists to show otherwise.

Precisely: circular reasoning.

which is circular reasoning.

Only if you misrepresent what I have said.

Well, heavens, I wouldn’t want to do that. Please explain your reasoning; how you got to the point of presuming that any claim of revelation is false in the absence of any warrant, without engaging circular reasoning.

Um, Theory of Knowledge? Knowledge is "justified true belief"?

In Plato's time, perhaps. Can we bring this discussion into the 21st century? Or would that be awkward for you?

Actually, in today as well. At least several leading philosophers (Sudduth, Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, etc.) think so. (Now of course I'm referring to Propositional Knowledge: there are actually three kinds) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to think it is, as well as Britannica. While some have challenged the view, they haven't offered a working alternative.


There is a LOT of material on this subject out there...

Indeed. How does it relate to what I asked?

You asked if you needed to justify those statements; and I responded by pointing out that any truth assertion must have grounding.

Off topic. Be happy to engage that conversation, but it carries us far from our topic.

Agreed. Best to keep the "teachings of Christianity" far way from the topic of what comports with reality.

Cute, but inaccurate. I have no problem discussing whether/how the fundamental tenets of Christianity comport with reality. But it is a stretch from the topic of this thread. If you’d like to engage that conversation, I’d be happy to do so in a separate discussion.