DerekSansone

Hi spuleeah,

First, my consciousness or awareness, is self evident…The moment you attempt to disprove that, you self defeat...

If my material object says "I operate like another independent material object", and as long as the comparison is a general operation, the falsification would be fairy simple. Say, I make the claim that I breath like others breath…Well, this is a universal probability, that all humans need oxygen, if they desire to live…

So this is general. But if I, again, go into specifics, than that of which I compare and specify, must exist to falsify my assertions…If not, they are empty….

So, all of this is not fatal to the makng of the comparision, but it is fatal to the truth of the comparison...

spuleeah

Greetings Derek!

Derek, I am not sure what point of the believer in scripture you think you attack by your first argument. Are you saying that I can't call the bible perfect without defining what I mean by perfect? I would agree with that. If i do not define "perfect" as "objectively comparable to an objective, universal standard of perfectness" then I do not run into the problem you set up as a strawman. I would say all the propositions of scripture are to be believed and held as true. I think this position avoids the ambiguities associated with saying "the scriptures are perfect".
Derek, your second argument is comprised of a host of unverified assertions. There are so many in it, that I have trouble choosing which to attack. You say, "There is no word of God measuring stick independent of the 66 Books"
How do you know this? My point in the previous post is that there is no "consciousness" measuring stick either...and yet the truth of it presents itself. Understanding God's words to be God's words can similarly present the truth of themselves to you. This is the sense in which they are self-verifying. If you wish to require experiments and the like, then you may...but this is just the beginnings of your epistemological assumptions.
Yes, I was referring to that. I cannot find anywhere at christianlogic where you redeem yourself...perhaps you could point that out. I do note from your posts that you seem to be a friendly guy and that is to be commended.

moorezw

Derek-

Both arguments seem to run together. How about rephrasing them like this:

Argument Against Verification of Biblical Truth
1) True statements must be verified to be known.
2) The Bible makes statements, such as "God exists."
3) No objective method has succeeded in verifying the existence of God.
4) No person can claim to have verified knowledge of Biblical Truth.

This seems to me to be more of an argument for faith.

DerekSansone

HI spuleeah,

I am not calling anything perfect or unperfect. I didn’t say the bible is unperfect because it can’t, nor can anyone else, objectivly define perfect. Meanings define existents, either mental or material events or activity…But the gist or theme, of my argument is that if you say something is perfect or true, even, as per your post, what is it’s contrary? Or better yet, true compared to what? Perfect compared to what? Who set the standard for this comparison? If you make this standard with the epsitiemic paradigm from the supposition of the Bible God as the axiomatic foundation you still don’t escape justifying your justification for submitting to that paradigm as the ONLY epistemic axiom. Or foundation…that would serve as the measuring stick, in this case…
So if you believe and hold as true but don’t know factually, you have no veridical basis to even make inferences, you only have vague religious appeal and faith , so ultimately your position has no association with truth validity…Only valid, but speculative interences…

Easy, the impossibility of the objective universally justified existence of the necessary evidence.…Facts are hinged on evidence…It lacks availability. And testability. And is not open to falsification. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity is still open to falsification… I have seen the proposed evidence, and it is insufficient. But reasoning ability is relative so, I liken it to a child falling within the necessary scope of reasoning, to sincerely believe in Santa. But as experience in the cosmos increases, so does the scope of reasoning ability. Deliberation is only as good as your memory alows. Experience is the necessary condition or prerequisite for memory. The totality of who we are, the ultimate characters and essence of our existence is formed laboriously through sensory stimulus, brought about through our experiences…So, I base this rejection of the divine handprints of scripture on available data, and apply the scientific method of verification to all incredible fantastic propositions…

There are plenty of alleged special revelations, none can be proven false, and that is your only loophole…But it’s an argument from silence…

There doesn’t need to be a consciousness measuring stick. That’s like asking for a breathing measuring stick. onciousness it observable in others...We can make inductive inferences, we can observe awareness in others, we can make predictions with consistency. However, your the one who makes the supernatural origin claims about material (bible). But still show no evidence or data that is objective for such assertions...The burden of proof is on your shoulders to establish what a god or divine being is, then, show how this divine being created the bible...or even the men who penned it...

At some point you have to just rest on existence and what is appreciable as a result of it. Awareness is a self evident state that is falsifiable and can be laid out inductively…Yes, indeed it is only true if we have agreed on what true and false means. But then we get into linguistic justification. Who gets to define meanings of material and non material objects? How can one meaning trump over another? It runs the risk of question begging…That’s why I lean more into an annihilating mode….

Then in your worldview, truth is relative…and again takes the objectiveness out of your making moral judgements from your theological platform against others who show a contrast in epistemic paradigms…because all paradigms are broad and based on consensus…But none can be absolute…They are just human conventions…That’s why it’s safer to just use existence as the axiom, and then build your knowledge through experiences, which supports the judgment from a relative position and therefore keeps you away from special pleading for a foundation that has no possible universal correctness…just an intersubjective correctness...

No, you seem to have issue here with my analogy between necessary requirements vs. incredible outlandish specifics. Conscious awareness or being alive, is the necessary condition for the ability to learn the word, “consciousness�…Compared to establishing the bible being the words of a god…This is a false analogy…There is no parallel…

How can the bible verify itself from words within itself penned by man, to be the objective representation of an incorporeal disembodied mental object?

Did you read all of my posts in that thread? Where did Vincent Chueng school me? Are there specifics where I was refuted, or was it a matter of my discontinuing the dialog? I thought I said enough to him over the issue. I admit, I wasn’t prepared for that dialog like I thought…But that was a timing issue, not a matter of concession…

Take care...

D

DerekSansone

Zach, my Buddy, I told you I was comming over here...

Is this another way of saying, "Shut up Derek and get on with it"? :rolling:

They may. They aren't in formal syllogistic fashion yet...

Nice work...

Godfather

Well hello Derek. Your arguments are very thought provoking and well spoke. Unfortunately the audience that these arguments are targeted at will not comprehend them (even under their own will).

They appear too complex, and any fundy would just dismiss it as satan inspired. After all "God is not the author of confusion."
Now if we could get them to apply that principle to their own faith.......

Godfather-

DerekSansone

Godfather huh?

Were you born a Catholic?

The arguments are just a few that I came up with after a debate I was in...During the debate, my opponent (Gene Cook) dropped line after line that was so astoundingly fallacious that I couldn't keep up. After listening to the audio for criticism, I found several claims that could be made into substantial arguments...I may have not uncovered anything new, but at least my take on them is fresh and original.