Prayer ... SERIOUSLY?!

[eric209]

If you are unwilling to consider that your initial presuppositions might be wrong then there is no discussion to be had as you said.

[Statler Waldorf]

If you are unwilling to consider that your initial presuppositions might be wrong then there is no discussion to be had as you said.

Ah, but you did not answer my question. If the Bible was inerrant, then how could you possibly disprove it when all the sources you are trying to use are not inerrant?

[eric209]

Your asking me to answer an illogical question. You may as well as "If you were a female how could i prove you were a male?"

[Statler Waldorf]

Your asking me to answer an illogical question. You may as well as "If you were a female how could i prove you were a male?"

What? It's not illogical at all, suppose the Bible really is inerrant, how would you prove it was not? You claim to have already done so, but you have only used sources that are errant.

[eric209]

You are being illogical. See Special pleading

[Statler Waldorf]

You are being illogical. See Special pleading

You are dodging the question. If you can't give me a good way to test whether scripture is inerrant then I can't accept your claims that it is not inerrant.

[eric209]

You can also look at the fallacies of Begging the question and Circular logic. I cannot answer an illogical question logically.

You are using special pleading to argue that you have the only source of inerrant knowledge. You are also claiming that the source of its inerrancy comes from the same source which is circular logic. Then you are begging the question by assuming the inerrancy of the source in the premise of the question.

If you wish to provide a question that is logical and not loaded I will do my very best to answer it.

[DeistPaladin]

You are being illogical. See Special pleading

You are dodging the question. If you can't give me a good way to test whether scripture is inerrant then I can't accept your claims that it is not inerrant.

I'm joining this conversation late. Have we already reviewed the contradictions of the Bible (some 350 different issues on which the Bible contradicts itself)? How about where the Bible contradicts even the most remedial knowledge of science?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

You can also look at the fallacies of Begging the question and Circular logic. I cannot answer an illogical question logically.

You are using special pleading to argue that you have the only source of inerrant knowledge. You are also claiming that the source of its inerrancy comes from the same source which is circular logic. Then you are begging the question by assuming the inerrancy of the source in the premise of the question.

If you wish to provide a question that is logical and not loaded I will do my very best to answer it.

---

It's not special pleading at all, if you have another source in mind that is inerrant please provide me with it. If you do not, then I am not making a false assumption. Secondly, everyone has to resort to circular logic eventually (circular reasoning is not invalid, it just doesn't progress), if you do not believe me, give me a reason as to why we should argue logically; remember not to give me a logical reason though or else you will be using circular reasoning! So again, I presuppose scripture is the ultimate standard of truth, you presuppose human reason is. I believe human reasoning can be derived from scripture. I can use outside sources to help refine my understanding of scripture, but I cannot compromise on the fact that scripture is God’s word.

So just for the sake of argument, let's both assume my worldview is correct and scripture is in fact inerrant. Why would you try and test its inerrancy with sources you know to be capable of committing error?

[eric209]

"So again, I presuppose scripture is the ultimate standard of truth." - Statler Waldorf <-- I cant help you here.