by Half banana 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
will just be looked as a failure to supply a response.
I didn't realise there was a question.
But if we demand an answer in full from others, we must supply ours as well, in full.
Answer to what exactly? If you could be more succinct I might spot the question amid the rhetoric.
Cofty, you know there is a question involved. That's what this thread is about, asking believers to supply an answer to the OP's question about their stand.
The majority of Christians claim to have a response in their critical approach, an approach you said you immersed yourself in and claim "it was much ado about nothing."
If a believer said the same thing in response to the OP's question or even just your own well-thought out views, namely, "I've immersed myself in your views and found them much ado about nothing" that would be seen as a failure on their behalf to respond.
The same goes for us when we don't respond to their answers to the question as supplied in their voluminous works. We might win arguments on this forum in the settings we create for ourselves, but they won't work in a real world setting with people who base their belief on these critical analytical arguments. We need to help equip others who may be faced with this in order to prove successful against even the most "challenging" religious "rhetoric" which you call it.
I am sure your views would demolish any argument any theist could throw at you, but if you kept it to yourself it does nothing. You and your views are far more valuable than to be merely kept locked away.
Half bananas ( Q) Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
David Jay " This thread is about asking believers to supply an answer to the O.P, which is can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?
The Rebel, ( A) Of course a believer can make the case for " the superiority of faith over knowledge" and that's all the O.P asked. However the closing arguments might make humourrous entertainment.
The Rebel.
What is the difference between faith and inductive logic or beliefs based on inference?
Luther I think that's absolutely the key question. There is no firm basis for any sort of knowledge. Every approach relies on fundamental contradiction. For example empiricism as you mention. If we make the statement:
Only things for which there is empirical evidence are true.
Then where is the empirical evidence to back up that statement? Of course there can't be any. You either believe that statement or you don't. Thus the fundamental distinction between faith and fact inevitably collapses.
