FISHER
I doubt I can find the time with finals approaching to dig through all
my files since the netscape search engine isn't very good, but here's
what I can recall as a history of Walt Jr. here on the list (not in
exact historical order):
Arrives and engages briefly in inerrancy of Scripture.
Quickly shifts gears and tries a presuppositionalist argument.
--Drops presup argument like a hot potato after my "Work in
progress post" attacking the foundations of the "system", the subject of
presuppostionalism is never mentioned again.
Attempts to attack epistemological foundations of physics
instead, basically on the notion that we are making unjustified
inferences about things we "don't directly observe".
<several more summations snipped>
TILL
Walt's history on this list has been typical, and those who have been on it
from the beginning recognize that he is just like all of the other Xian
":apologists who have come and gone. He came onto the list gung-ho to show
us a thing or two, and when he saw that we were actually showing him a thing
or three or four, etc., he shifted gears to something else. Then when that
didn't work, he shifted to something else, and when that didn't work, he
shifted to something else, etc., etc., etc. Finally, when all efforts had
failed, he began calling us illogical and unreasonable, and then he went
from there to assuring us that his experience on the list had strengthened
his faith. Now he has unilaterally declared victory and informed us that he
doesn't have the time to waste casting his pearls before swine. (How many
times have we heard that?) He wants to communicate privately with members
of the list, as if he wouldn't be wasting time casting his pearls before
swine in private discussions.
FISHER (stating another tactic Walt has resorted to)
Boasts about using posts from errancy in class to demonstrate
how unreasonable and mean skeptics are.
TILL
If Walt is really sincere about demonstrating to his class just how
unreasonable skeptics are, I will offer him an opportunity to pull a major
coup. If he will permit it, I will travel to his seminary at my own expense
and attend his classes with him if I will be given the opportunity to
respond to his examples of logical blunders that skeptics commit and if I
will be given the opportunity to present my own arguments against biblical
inerrancy (to which he may respond, of course).
What do you say, Walt? Is it a deal? Well, I didn't think so.
Here is an alternative offer. How about a debate at his seminary at night
or some time when it wouldn't interfere with classes? If Walt or some
professor at the seminary is willing to defend biblical inerrancy or some
aspect of biblical inerrancy, such as the resurrection, prophecy
fulfillment, the scientific accuracy of the Bible, etc., he can count on me
to be there.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net