(April 17, 2013 at 12:05 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(April 16, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I’d be happy to demonstrate it, give me an anti-Biblical concept scheme or view of reality (preferably yours) and I will.
Oh, no, you don't get to weasel out of your claims so easily. Let's revisit them (at the end of this post) and summarize what your claim implies you must be able to demonstrate. Demonstrating that a single anti-Biblical concept is unsound does not in any way shape or form demonstrate your claim, which is that they all are. See below.
(April 16, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I’d be perfectly content with holding the only logically consistent and therefore true view of reality. If you’re fine with absurdity then I am not sure why you are trying to debate this issue.
Your usage of the word "absurd" was not the same definition I was thinking of. You're apparently using it as a synonym for "unsound". We can roll with that.
(April 16, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You sure are demanding, give me something to work with and I will.
Hey, it's your claim, not mine. I'm under no obligation to help you in your case. That albatross is firmly around your neck, not mine.
Here's your claim:
(April 16, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Anti-Biblical conceptual schemes and views of reality can always be reduced to absurdity; only the Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent. That alone would prove that scripture is infallible. That’s not the only proof though; since the Biblical view of reality has elements in it that even atheists agree are true, we can therefore know that the entire conceptual scheme must also be true since it is logically consistent. Therefore, we know again that scripture has to be the infallible word of God and we are justified in using it to test the merit of all other truth claims.
That's quite the weighty claim. Looking only at the first sentence, you've got quite the task ahead of you:
1) The Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent.
2) All extant or possible non-Biblical claims are necessarily not logically cogent and consistent.
I'm fairly certain you can't prove 1), and I'm pretty sure that no one can prove 2).
You're welcome to try, of course.
Just a little reminder, Statler. You've neglected to support your claims. Just giving you another opportunity to do so.
