Glenn: Freethinking

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

DAVE
I am a "believer" as you would term me and agree that it is only logical to
"accept the methods of science and reason..." and most of what you've said
above (in fact, there aren't many instances where it isn't beneficial to
"step backward" first in any evaluation or analysis).  My question is this:
by what authority do you accept "science and reason" as the ONLY means of
discovering truth?  And secondly, and far more importantly, by what
authority do you (or any "freethinker") accept YOUR ability to reason as
"reasonable" (as freethinkers state, the mind is the source of the discovery
of truth - whose mind?  yours?  mine?  someone else's?)  In your line of
reasoning here, there can be no discovery of "absolute truth".  There can,
in fact, BE no absolute truth.  Is this what you are stating?  If so, please
explain.  If not, please correct me.

POOBAH
The only absolute truth that I know exists is that Christians in these parts
far prefer discussing the "nature of truth" to actually giving logical
arguments for why their religion should be given any more consideration than
any other.

<*Yawn*>

Do you have anything to contribute to the topics at hand, Dave? Why don't
you tell us what criteria you use to determine which non-Biblical miracles
you choose to accept and which Biblical miracles you choose to reject
without begging the question of the accuracy of the Bible?

I urge everyone to ignore this baiting into a useless presuppositional
argument.

And no, Dave, it's not because it can't be answered, it's just because it's
off-topic and it's been done before.

• Previous message: Glenn: Freethinking
• Next message: Brian: Freethinking
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]