{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/24/2015 10:58:28 PM
1
So because a book is labeled nonfiction, that automatically makes it a reliable source? If I were to go to the library, change the label of a Harry Potter novel, and move it to the nonfiction shelf, would that cause Hogwarts to magically appear?
It's not my presuppositions that make me doubt supernatural claims, it's the absence of any tangible proof.
English
-
https://youtu.be/0d4FHHf00pY
-
Let me get this straight. You're trying to prove the bible is accurate by saying that the things in the bible are possible, because supernatural things are possible, because the bible tells of supernatural occurrences? That's circular reasoning. Try again.
-
No I'm not. I'm saying that supernatural things are possible, because an accurate document (the bible) records them. I'm not trying to prove that the bible is accurate. That's been proven for 1000s of years.
-
You mean 2000 years?
-
No, I mean roughly 3500 years. The old testament books as well.
-
I'm doubting the bible because it describes supernatural events. You show me the supernatural events described in the bible. Again, there's a difference between other-world fantasy, historical fiction, and fact. It's been proven that the bible is not the first. It has not been proven that the bible is not the second or that it is the third.
-
Exactly my point. You reject the bible because of your presuppositions that supernatural events don't occur. Just like the video says. You don't believe supernatural events occur, because you reject all the evidence for supernatural events, merely because you don't believe they occur. That's circular.
-
You still haven't proven the bible to be valid evidence. "Jesus existed therefore he rose from the dead." All you have are non sequiturs.
-
I'm not trying to. Because nothing I show you will change anything cause you'll still reject it based on your presuppositions.
-
You assume that based on your presupposition that your argument is flawless. You accept the bible as correct, so you can't tell the difference between what's supported by archeological data and what has no supporting evidence. The funny thing is that my presupposition was that there was a God and that the bible was fact. Then I discovered critical thinking and all of that went away.
-
Lol, you are talking just like Dawkins in the video. Appeal to your own perceived "intelligence". That's cool.
-
Well apparently you're not willing to continue to have a logical argument, so I guess this has been reduced to a dick measuring contest. I'll have you know that my intellect is at least 3 inches longer than yours.
-
I haven't said one thing about my intelligence.
-
Neither have I, not seriously, anyway. I simply said that it's because of my ability to look beyond my presuppositions that I doubt God.
