Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:04:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> As far as I'm concerned, my "conclusions" (our definitions on what exactly
> those conclusions are would undoubtedly differ) are supported by "debate
> and critical thinking". If you refuse to accept anything Biblical however,
> then yes, the debate is totally pointless.
It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others
are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible
is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is
circular.
What if I present a piece of paper on which is typed "Elvis is still alive
as of December 22, 2000" and I claim it to have been typed by Elvis himself?
Of course he couldn't have written it if he weren't still alive, so the
paper itself must be proof that Elvis still lives.
Of course not, because the paper requires as an assumption the very
conclusion it's trying to prove.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) As far as I'm concerned, my "conclusions" (our definitions on what exactly those conclusions are would undoubtedly differ) are supported by "debate and critical thinking". If you refuse to accept anything Biblical however, then yes, the debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
