(April 7, 2017 at 8:59 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:(April 6, 2017 at 4:06 pm)SteveII Wrote: Bart Ehrman is a NT skeptic with an important-to-note bias--he does not believe in God. Am is supposed to type out a list of scholars who disagree with him? That would be an appeal to authority.
God forbid anybody be skeptical of the supernatural. The fact that he does not believe gives him more credibility than the scholars/apologists that do believe.
Why is that (not believing gives him more credibility)? Is this a principle, that can be applied elsewhere?
For me, it depends on the reasons, not the position. I may even agree with someones conclusions, but not with their reasons or method, I don't think that makes them more credible.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
