(June 24, 2013 at 7:45 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Well, if you don't accept that premise, then you have to disprove the claim I made as it is true until you demonstrate that it isn't.
Wait, so you cannot prove that the positive position holds the burden of proof? Then why did you assert that was the case?
Quote:Special pleading.
Not at all, I can justify your assumptions, you cannot justify your own assumptions.
Quote:I'm sorry, have I missed where you have proven the existence of God and validated even one claim you've made?
Apparently you have.
Quote:If I can't, then everything, including you and the concept of your God, may not exist as anything more than an element in my own personal delusion. If I cannot trust my senses, I can certainly never trust anything you suggest which proves the existence of God, because I must process those through my senses as well. So you still lose.
No, you’ve sealed my victory, because now you have to claim to know that God exists as much as you can know anything at all. Either God exists and you can therefore learn about reality, or He does not exist and you can know nothing at all; that’s quite the dilemma to be in.
Quote: I have to assume my senses are reliable because existence itself, as I experience it, relies upon this assumption. Since there can never be 100% certainty that my senses are being honest, this is why it is only valid to trust sensual experiences which can certainly be experienced, without special conditions such as a/s/k, by other people.
Sure, and since only God’s existence can justify your belief in the reliability of your senses, experienced existence also relies upon God existing.
Quote:Your God has many problems with what he has made. Your personal opinion is certainly not relevant next to his, if he's there.
Where does God say He has problems?
Quote:How do you know what the originals said? How do you know they were truly original? How do you know they were accurate, especially when describing events the authors could never have witnessed, not even accounting for the fact that humans are very capable of embellishing, lying, or getting things wrong?
We know because of how documents were copied back then (by hand), if I make an original copy and then ten different people all copy this original, and then those ten copies are spread around the region and ten people copy each of those copies and then ten people copy each of those copies I can then examine these copies and use the similarities between then to obtain the original reading.
Even if I had ten very sloppy people copy the following verse I can obtain what the original said through analyzing the variances in the copied versions.
Copy: In the beginning, God created the heathens and the earth.
Copy: Inn the begin, God created the heavens and the earth.
Copy: In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
Copy: In the beginning, God create the heavens and the earth.
Copy: In the beginning, Dog created the heavens and the hearth.
Copy: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth
Copy: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the heart.
Copy: In the beginning, God created the heavens.
Copy: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earths.
Copy: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the ear.
Original: In (9) the (10) beginning (9), (9) God (9) created (9) the (10) Heavens (7) and (10) the (10) earth (5).(8)
Voila!
Quote:If it's good enough for God, why isn't it good enough for me?
That’s not how God defines evil.
(June 25, 2013 at 7:08 am)Ryantology Wrote: How self-righteous is one who thinks of his own, personal interpretation of a book with a million different working interpretations, is in any way objectively more accurate than someone else's?
How illogical is one who believes that the existence of multiple interpretations necessitates that all interpretations are therefore false.
