Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Consider the following from another thread:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
But isn't this the fallacy of the petitio principi? -- we presume that miracles never happen, because no credible source records them, because any source that does not record them is not credible.
I wonder how many ancient sources would pass this test, incidentally. Or do 'credible sources' only start with the first atheists?
|
How do you judge claims of miracles regarding all ancient sources?
Please be advised that most skeptics would be quite happy if miracles were available to help people with their needs. Such being the case, why do you suppose that skeptics question ancient claims of miracles in the Bible and other religious books? |
But faith is a gift of God and requires no rational explantion that boggles the mind and bogs believers down. That is why I hold that Skeptics are impoverished believers trying hard to prove something they intuitly know is true but do not quite understand it. On this it is said that noetic vision is required to rationalize lyric vision. In poetry it is said that "every bush is a burning bush but only those who see this take off their shoes and the rest just sit around and pick berries." If you put this on a slippery slope it could very well be that 2000 pigs run over cliffs all the time and if you do not agree with this it can be said that you resist enlightenment and are a persecutor of Christians.
11-09-2008, 05:21 PM
Chili split from the fallacy of the petitio principi
