Neither Jim nor I are defending anything. Instead we are pointing out and have at this point proven that your own worldview is in fact in the very condition which you claim mine is in and that you therefore have no grounds upon which to give any opinion whatsoever about the verity of the Biblical worldview.
That’s what you’re supposed to be doing, Clete. You’re supposed to be defending yourselves, this thread was started as an attack and so far even according to yourself, you have refused to defend yourself. When looking at Christian apologetics I have noticed that most of your arguments are based upon skirting issues. Your form of arguing so far has been to avoid the challenge, start new arguments which are impossible to resolve and to general cause gridlock. This thread was no started in the hopes of defending my own worldview but in the hopes that you could defend yours, and so far you’ve failed.
It apparently would be because Jim has shown you a few different times now that you cannot provide support for the verity of your own worldview.
IF what you and Jim say is true about verity and whatnot, than you would be in the same boat as I. Just because you have a biblical worldview does not mean that your perceptions have been validated, it just means that you have an explanation for where your senses came from. However, there’s nothing unique about that. Evolutionists have their explanations as well. Psychological worldviews have a way to explain these things apart from god. What I’m saying is this: You ask for the impossible/irrelevant to be achieved, therefore, I don’t care. According to you, the validity of my senses is just as “in the air” as your own because you’re still left with the question of “where’s the proof?”
Again, I am not trying to prove anything accept the fact that you cannot prove anything, which has already been done
Like I’ve said before, this was not started so that I could prove anything. This thread was started so that YOU and your like would prove something. If you’re not here to prove something than you shouldn’t be here in the first place. And again, I think you’re talking about yourself here. I deny the idea (the hypothetical idea) that any of my senses must be validated. I believe it to be unnecessary and a cowardly ploy on your and Hilston’s part to avoid meeting the challenge. This is what Christian apologetics are based on, avoidance. If anything Clete, you’ve won the battle for me by not answering my challenge and by satisfying my predictions of your defence.
Okay then answer Jim's questions about how you verify what you think you know. How can you verify that what you think you are experiencing is really happening?
I’ve already answered that question. I called it poppycock. I called it an attempt at distraction and avoidance, I called it a cowardly attempt to skirt the issue. That’s what Christianity is based on, escape routes. Jesus died for you, so now you’re free from sin, and if you do sin you have a place to put your guilt, instead of just dealing with it like a normal person. Are Christians really that insecure?
On the contrary, I have concocted nothing.
You are perpetuating the philosophy of your defense, that is to challenge the challenger before satisfying the initial challenge. Even if I’m wrong, Clete, you, nor anyone else has given me any reason to believe so.
How can you insist that I validate my worldview to you when you cannot validate your own to yourself?
The whole validation thing is something that Hilston initially brought up, I simply asked for the proof that you all claim you have. If you have it, show me. Hilston’s ignoring me now, but you aren’t. You, Aimiel, Lighthouse and Hilston have all said you have proof, but you won’t show it to me. All I asked for was proof, it was you and Hilston who digressed, it was you and Hilston who are avoiding the point. You and Hilston are both coming up with excuses for why you shouldn’t and won’t answer the challenge even after admitting that you are more than capable of doing so.
What is there to admit? That I believe in the truth of the Bible? I admit that readily.
You admit that it is both true and provable, yet you have yet to prove it to me.
If you mean by this our exposure of your hypocrisy then you've got me on this one.
Any hypocrisy that I may have shown has only been manufactured through your efforts of creating side arguments that serve no more purpose than to skirt the issue at hand.
And I will not answer your questions about my worldview until you can convince me that you have a basis upon which to ask those questions.
All right, my basis is this: You’re claiming that what you believe it truth, yet I have yet to see any reason why you would call it truth. Clete, are you seriously going to tell me that that would be your response to anyone and everyone who questioned what you believe? That you won’t answer their questions unless they can do that which is impossible apart from your narrow minded worldview? I’m just asking you to prove what you believe is true, and though you’ve admitted to having the proof, you have yet to reveal it to me. Are you leading me to believe that in the face of any challenge by those who don’t believe you would refuse to show them the proof that you so flagrantly state that you have?
Jim and I have asked you to justify your own presuppositions which you use to form your worldview which you are unable to do.
I deny the necessity. I believe that what you are asking is impossible, especially after Hilston admitted to me that the only way to do it is to convert to a Christian worldview. Do you really expect me to believe that this is the way you confront any one who questions your belief? You throw an impossible challenge back at them and then claim victory? YOU were the one questioned Clete, not I.
Our goal was to expose not only to those reading this thread but to you as well the fact that your challenge is hypocritical
My challenge is practical, Clete. You claim that the words of a 2000 year old book whose authorship is oftentimes in question to speak words of truth, yet even after admitting to having proof of it’s validity you refuse to reveal it. There are common, lay men out there who might expect a GOOD answer to this simple question, yet you’ve given nothing but bullocks.
The fact that this has been so clearly shown to you and that you are unwilling to acknowledge that fact and drop your worldview in favor of something different is proof that you are not interested in finding a logically coherent worldview but are instead interested only in attempting to discredit Jesus Christ and the Body of believers who following and worship Him.
Clete, has it ever occurred to you that either your points don’t make as much sense as you think they do, or that they’re just poppycock to begin with? No, it hasn’t because that would require objective thought, that would require that you admit the possibility of being wrong, and you can’t do that because you would lose your escape route.
If this weren't so pathetic it would be humorous. I have dodged nothing, there is literally nothing to dodge.
Except a simple challenge: If it’s true, prove it. It’s a simple challenge, you claim to be able to meet it, yet you go on to try and discredit me with shallow arguments based on nothing but hypothesis, and then after the quote above you go on to say, “you cannot be this stupid”. Please, Clete. If you have the proof, shutting me up would be as easy as showing me, but instead you’ve perpetuated this silly argument about how I don’t know what color the sky is or what color my shirt it. I know both of those things, they’re self evident, what you believe is not.
You propose to analyze my worldview via logic and reason and yet you have no means whatsoever to establish that logic and reason are even real!
I know they’re real because they are real. You’re making me say some of the simplest stupidest stuff I’ve ever had to utter. Come on, drop this ridiculous hypothetical theory that what I’m seeing MAY NOT BE what I’m seeing despite the fact that what I’m seeing IS WHAT I’m seeing. It’s childish, it’s an escape route, grow up.
Turbo, thanks for the nudge in the right direction, don’t know why but I was kinda embarrassed to ask. I hope I did it right, but I won’t know until I know.
Oh yeah, a question to which I would appreciate a direct answer:
IF (don’t get all worked up, I’m just playing the IF game) I had conclusive, according to hoyle indisputable evidence that Jesus did not exist, would you reject him or would you continue to believe?
