Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

He he he...You so silly. Again...there is a difference between a hypothesis that has the potential to being confirmed or falsified, and one that lacks the substance of anything that correlates with reality or experience at all (I feel like a broken record).

You’re really in over your head now. You have yet to postulate a coherent definition of what corresponds with reality and what does not. Obviously falsifiable claims are not the only claims that correspond with reality.

Everything you listed as examples of unfalsifiable hypotheses, correlates with reality, and therein has the potential to be falsified (you really don't get this eh?).

You just committed the same embarrassing mistake! You cannot prove that any of those examples correspond with reality without first assuming they correspond with reality. Stop using circular arguments! There is no way for you to verify that your senses, your memory, your ability to reason, inductive reasoning, or deductive logic correspond with reality; and yet you believe they do. You do not follow your own verification standard. The reason you do not adhere to it is because it’s not a logically defensible standard.

The only similar hypotheses comparable to the one you defend, are examples such as the tooth fairy, santa, and other such myths.

Nope, God is the foundation for all knowledge and reasoning. Your total inability and rather embarrassing efforts to postulate a logically defensible autonomous theory of knowledge supports that fact.

So, thanks for reading more stuff that you probably don't understand. You may now go back to plugging your ears, while singing bible songs, stomping your feet and claiming victory while typing back more distortions of the things I say which illustrate perfectly that you don't understand them.

You couldn’t have misrepresented my approach anymore if you had tried. I have been more than willing to listen to your position. I have very patiently allowed you to rather arrogantly try and defend a very roughly stated and poorly thought out version of empiricism, even though as a theory of knowledge empiricism died a painful death nearly 300 years ago. I have demonstrated that without the God of scripture you cannot postulate a defensible view of reality; yet you are going to just stick your fingers in your ears and continue to adhere to a view of reality that is logically self-refuting and therefore false.

Waldork thinks that all he has to do is invoke his vision of a sky-daddy and that trumps all reason.

God doesn’t trump all reason; God is the foundation for all reason. As Texas Sailor has so eloquently demonstrated for all of us, a person cannot possess a logically defensible view of reality without believing God exists. Thank you Texas Sailor.

It's why he isn't even amusing anymore.

Yet I still find you quite amusing Min.

I think it's cute how Waldorf constantly displays the emptiness of theist belief in his attempts to point out flaws in empiricism. The best he could ever hope to manage via this method is make us look as stupid as he is, but he seems to lack the awareness to realize that pointing out the flaws in empiricist thinking only magnifies the flaws of resorting to superstition.

This couldn’t be more wrong. Christian epistemology does not possess any fatal flaws, so by pointing out the flaws in empiricism I am really magnifying the merits of my own view of reality.