What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[edk]

Oh my, we actually agree on something? Although when you say things like the laws of logic are independent of the universe you are not sounding like much of a naturalist. Do you have proof they exist though?

Concepts exist when you think about them. I don't think I can prove logic exists to you better than you do yourself every time you think it.

So you admit there is a good chance that your senses are not reliable and you are experiencing a reality that is not actually real?

No, I admit there is an unquantifiable chance. But when I say "God doesn't exist", I mean in the reality that I can see. There's no point arguing about an outer reality that may or may not exist and is impossible to experience.

I didn’t say infallible, I said reliable. There is no way to prove our memories are reliable, even though we all live like we believe it is true.

Replace infallible with reliable then; I don't think that human memories are totally reliable, but they are a good starting point. See also my previous point.

If you actually believed this though you could not learn or know anything because the principle of induction would have no foundation. I have a feeling that you do not jump off of tall buildings because you assume the law of gravity works the same today as it did yesterday and will work the same tomorrow as it did today. There is no way to logically prove this to be true, even though everyone lives like they believe it is true.

For something to be true I accept empirical as well as logical proof; it is impossible to learn anything about the world using only logic with no empirical basis on which to base one's logical reasoning.

Not a true circular argument, although it has a circular nature to it, I will grant you that. I can use what I have read in the Bible as a new primary axiom to provide a foundation for my initial presuppositions. Everyone has to engage in somewhat of a circular argument sooner or later. It’s not an invalid argument it just can’t be used to prove anything to anyone else.

The argument is circular. You hold an axiomatic belief which is derived from a source verifiable only if that axiomatic belief is true. It still requires itself to be true in order to be shown to be true.

Actually logic and reason are very much a part of it. In fact, in an atheistic universe you’d have no reason to even believe in logic, much less use it. So by doing this, you are acting in a manner that assumes we do not live in an atheistic universe, that there are laws of logic that transcend time and nature and we should use them to discern truth. There is a Biblical basis for that belief, there has never been a naturalistic one.

I believe that there are laws of logic that transcend time and nature, just as the laws of maths for example transcend time and nature, but I don't believe they govern or necessarily apply to the universe, but rather that they can be used to build, from empirical evidence, theories as to how the world works, and to promote or refute those theories. There are infinite possible concepts that transcend time and nature; they don't have to apply to anything real. We just use the ones that do.

---

With all due respect to your wife, she's wrong. You can believe a bear is taking a poo in the woods upon faith all you want. You just have no scientific evidence or logical proof to believe so. I encourage you guys to admit you believe things upon faith; it takes all of your ammunition away when debating Christians.

> You just have no scientific evidence or logical proof to believe so.
This is where you went wrong. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that bears do shit in the woods. There is no evidence to suggest that a god exists, let alone that he is the God of your Bible and that he does everything it says he does.