(August 18, 2011 at 4:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So the presupposition that god does not exist is just as valid, yes? I'm also wondering why you feel that the status of scriptures inerrancy is not subject to being proven or disproven? Also, if you cannot prove your assumptions, you own words here, does that make the argument sound? Tired of the old axe about presupposing logic. This is complete bullshit. If we found an instance where logic would lead us to the exact opposite position of observable reality we would call bullshit wouldn't we. Descriptive, not prescriptive.
This is now getting interesting my friend.
I will assume there that when you said valid you weren't using is like we were using it above right? Sure you could presuppose that God does not exist, but then I would expect you to construct a worldview that is consistent with this presupposition, and no atheist I have talked to really does. It would be like presupposing that your memory is completely unreliable but then living your life like it was reliable. That is why presupposing God does not exist is not nearly as strong of a presupposition as He does exist.
Well in order to test scripture’s inerrancy claim you would need an inerrant standard to falsify it with. Since one does not exist, you really can’t prove or disprove scripture’s claim. Think of it this way, I have a class of 30 students, one student claims to never lie, but I know that all the other students could lie. I have no way of proving the one student is lying about never lying because if he really was inerrant, he would be the only inerrant standard in the class room. So people who say they can prove that scripture is inerrant are just as wrong as people who say they can prove it is not inerrant. Does that make sense at all?
The argument could still be sound even if I can’t prove it or not. This is why I don’t use that argument. I believe it is sound, you believe it is not sound.
I am sorry, I cannot disagree more about your point about logic. You would still have to make a logical argument as to why you are choosing your observation over logic. Knowledge is impossible without first assuming the laws of logic are a reality.
