Gunnar wrote:subgenius wrote:The appeal to Divine authority is infallible.
In the light of the observation stated in my OP, this is so obviously untrue, that it absolutely amazes me that any rational and fully cognizant person can actually believe that!
1. It was not an observation, it was a speculation. By your own premise you are unable to provide anything "truthful" due to your admitted fallibility and lack of confirmation from a Divine, or objective, source. Your argument is based on the premise that perceived "truths" are unreliable. The presence of "evidence" does not alleviate this infallibility because it has no means of being untainted from the fallible perception which gathers it. (and for the record, it is a given that your OP would support your own assumptions - and it is not "obviously untrue" it is just obviously contrary to your OP)
2. To insist that "well, other people agree" is what is the defining aspect of what is "true" or is "factual" is misguided and unsupported by your own argument. For example, if you pray to God about how to treat other people and you receive confirmation that it should be that you should love them as yourself and as you love God then what more is required? Does this precept not overrule any "evidence" one could present to the contrary? After all Christ subscribed to that precept and look what He got for His troubles - the evidence of being persecuted, betrayed, and abandoned are surely considered good evidence against the precept of of love everyone....so what then governs any decision to act otherwise?
Gunnar wrote:By far the most unreliable approach to gaining and discerning truth is faith based appeal to divine authority that is not backed up by tangible evidence--especially if the faith is flatly contradicted by the best available evidence.
1.Your statement here completely disregards what faith means in both theory and application. The exercise of faith is one of the most difficult achievements for temporal man to ever attempt, its very essence goes against all that is selfish and all that is temporal. This fundamental concept is an obvious obstacle for your argument and your apparent misunderstanding of what faith is makes your position both flawed and naïve.
Gunnar wrote: I reemphasize again that the thousands of mutually contradictory religious belief systems whose adherents sincerely claim they are based on an appeal to Divine authority is incontrovertible proof of that!
You have not proven this premise, which stands now as a
False CauseYou are basing your conclusion on
Bad Logic.
As i noted above, you are relying on an accord of opinion across belief systems to validate a method which has already been proven valid.
I have proposed before that your argument here, which is hardly new, is rather like arguing about food. Since no one seems to agree on what tastes good can anyone really say there is good food? Or as you would argue...given all the
mutually contradictory taste buds it must be that one's tongue is the most unreliable method of determining what food actually tastes good (which, given the circumstances is a silly argument to propose, yes? - well this is what you have done with your OP)
Personally, i think you have a paradigm issue with your argument, as in you are trying to judge the fish by how well it climbs a tree.
Gunnar wrote:You remind me of an acquaintance I once knew who told me that he believes that 2 + 2 = 4 only because the Holy Ghost confirmed that to him in answer to prayer.
anecdotal evidence is not a reasonable argument and degrades your position as it relies on weaker minds for affirmation and provides no compelling evidence.
LINK HEREand for what it is worth, there is absolutely no "tangible" evidence that 2+2=4 since numbers do not actually exist...2+2=4 is because we made 1+1=2 (its circular logic to try and prove that the number 2 actually exists).....don't feel bad confusing numbers for something "real" is a common error.
See also Here
