Bill Knott Not to Be Reappointed at Adventist Review

Okay.

You’re right.

Lack of evidence doesn’t prove anything.

But you’re the one who said you think I’m missing something while I have personal experience, and logic faculties which I consider to be properly basic, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit which tell me that your judgments of me are merely incriminations of your self.

Of course, you have no evidence that I do not have such evidence and our mutual lack of evidence is in no way compelling to either, so I repeat: I still deem further conversation foolish on my part as I’m trying to defend my faith in myself and my creator, which faith you deem to be foolish based on the “cut and paste” theology you’ve managed to cobble together from the limited number of books you consider “scripture”.

2 Likes

I have a question, out of curiosity.

You said that you have faith in yourself and your creator.

Faith in oneself I can understand. After all, we can see ourselves everyday.

But how did you end up having faith in a creator? How did you hear about a creator? On what is your evidence of a creator based?

Just asking.

i was actually getting at actual evidence that exists, but that doesn’t, and cannot, register as evidence with someone who isn’t in on it on an experiential level…

you likely know of Matt 24:40-41 (also Lk 17:34-36), generally associated with the 2nd coming, but sometimes used to support a secret rapture, that touches on this aspect of spiritual evidence, where it is totally unknown and unsuspected by those who aren’t in the know…Paul explains it well in 1Cor 2:14-15…he highlights the fact that a spiritual person is aware of a dimension that a non-spiritual, “natural” man, cannot access even if he suspected it, which he doesn’t…

of course both Jesus and Paul could be making things up out of thin air, and pretending that something is real that isn’t…on the other hand, if what they’re saying is real, but inaccessible to unbelievers, there’s no other way they could say it…there’s also no way a believer can prove it to an unbeliever…clearly, this is a very different situation from the lack of definite, definitive evidence, or from what is clearly subjective and arbitrary pronouncements, where both sides of an equation are logically and equally clueless…

i didn’t say i think you’re missing something…i said your view of the inherent inefficacy of inspiration, and it’s reflection of the essential uselessness to the point of nonexistence of the Creator, has the weakness of not factoring in divine assistance to the studying believer, which instantly relieves all issues…

Keep in mind that the Greek word from Peter translated in English as “scripture” merely means “writing”, it doesn’t connote or denote more than that.

4 Likes

This also applies to what you admit is idle-I read “irrelevant”-curiosity.

For example, the question of when or where I first heard about The Flat Earth Society has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I should believe the tenets of their faith.

This is an assertion made not only without evidence but which came up lame before you even powered up your computer this morning due to fact that billions of believers study countless scriptures-many doing so very seriously and purportedly with the help of divine guidance-only to come away with unresolved issues, some two thousand years on.

IOW, you’ve again helped prove my point that you’re primarily interested in SDA-style argumentation as opposed to coherent conversation and that further discussion with you and @Nymous was, and is, foolishness on my part.

If either of you want to argue that I’m wrong-i.e., not a fool-be my guest!?!?

:crazy_face:

I suppose you put yourself on the side of those interested in coherent conversation? :smirk:

Now, I would be interested in knowing how my last questions fit in your so-called SDA-style argumentation.

Right.

So first you imply with your “screwy face” emoji that I probably shouldn’t consider myself proficient at rational conversation.

Then you say I’m evading your question.

Obviously you’re still trying to prove the foolishness of a conversation which was previously stipulated as such, at least on my end, but okay here goes:

The evidence I’ve seen for a creator of everything is everything, all the time, everywhere I go.

I know.

I still haven’t proved anything.

But that was always pretty much a given.

This topic was automatically closed after 18 days. New replies are no longer allowed.