(September 25, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, I like that, Imma pass it along to the teachers in my family.
In the same way, I fail the folks who come along with "arguments" that they claim makes their faith "reasonable". They must satisfy both requirements for such a designation. When they do not, their claims are, to me, false - as in..not true - there is no middle ground in my conception between those two concepts. If they claim to possess something "reasonable" it must meet those requirements. If they refer to those requirements, they cannot then backpedal - that their claim is not false - even if it is not "necessarily true".
I suppose that I could agree with you if we can agree that claim =/= argument (though a claim *can* be). It's imprecision in terms, I think, that's standing between us.
