Can we trust what God says?

[Scrawly]

Some things can be wrong in our interpretation, but most (especially the foundationals) is quite clear.



If I understand you right, then I don't see any problem there. Reason is fine when used ministerially, as a tool for God's glory. After all, reason is one of God's many gifts to us. However, when man uses his reason in a magisterial way, then he's saying that man's mental deficiencies can hinder God's plan to reveal Himself to all men. So I think I agree with you if I understand you correctly. Reason is definitely a tool that's used in the process of interpretation, but our knowledge that the Bible is God's Word does not depend on our reason (i.e., its truth claims don't have to pass the test of man's reason before man can know that God's Word as a whole, whatever details we discover written it it thereafter, is true). It's immediate, rather than mediate, knowledge, meaning it's known to be God's Word without discursive reasoning on our part, even though we then read further and use our reasoning as a tool by which God conveys the content of His message to us.





I'm not sure why you would come to this conclusion. We have epistemic certainty that the biblical worldview is true because God has made us to know that it's true. God can (and does) grant epistemic certainty as to the truthfulness of the overall paradigm of reality that's articulated in His Word, which means I know that everything the Bible teaches is true, even if some of the minor, non-foundational details are still kinda fuzzy, so I'm not sure what God teaches there.
If you don't mind my asking, what do you mean by "presupposition" here?



And that's a beautiful truth that I'm not worthy of knowing about.
But the resurrection, beautiful as it is, doesn't prove the Christian worldview. It doesn't even prove that Christ is the Son of God. At best it proves that a man came back from the dead three days after His death. To the Jews, who accepted the one true God (i.e., did not suppress their knowledge of Him) this was clear proof that Jesus was the Messiah, prophesied about in their own Scriptures. But to the Gentiles it was absurd nonsense. Notice that when Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2, He started pretty much the resurrection---because they were Jews. They spent their lives reading the sacred Scriptures which prophesied about Messiah, and they professed a worldview in which the fact of the resurrection can make sense. But when Paul spoke to the Athenian philosophers in Athens (Acts 17), who did not have a worldview that could make sense of the resurrection, he went the opposite direction, targeting their underlying assumptions. He began by analyzing the worldview of his opponents (verses 22-23) which is always an important step when one is about to perform an internal critique. He noted that they worshiped an "unknown God", and used it as an example of their suppressed knowledge of the one True God, going back to creation and building a rational foundation (or, if you will, articulating the Christian worldview, and its distinctive metaphysic) in which the resurrection could make sense. In verse 28, Paul moved back to his internal critique by pointing out that in God we live and move and exist, the knowledge of which the Athenians betrayed in their own engraved altar, and even in their own poetry. But which worldview can make sense of that fact? Not a worldview in which the gods are made of "gold, silver, or stone", as Paul put it, but rather a worldview wherein the one true God, whom all the Athenians had known their whole lives, created and sustains, and holds them accountable for having known Him, yet denying Him and breaking His law.



While there's nothing wrong with looking into the details of that glorious event, there are a couple problems here.
1.) All evidence is interpreted according to one's worldview, and the resurrection is no exception. As I already noted above, the non-christian will take the fact of the resurrection and reinterpret it to fit their worldview, appealing to the idea that perhaps the laws of physics are not always constant, and perhaps fluctuate slightly at times, or perhaps that there's a naturalistic explanation to be found in the future. "After all", they'll say, "We don't know everything about the universe. Who's to say that there's not a perfectly naturalistic explanation for it?" The resurrection is certainly proof for the Christian worldview, because all men know the God who raised Christ from the dead. For one who espouses the biblical worldview, the resurrection can be nothing but proof. But when men deny knowing that God and espouse a different worldview, they give that fact an alternate interpretation, an interpretation that fits their worldview. In a rational discussion wherein our interpretation of the resurrection is in question, it will do no good to simply present our interpretation of it. It proves nothing and begs the question.
2.) The evidentialist method, though well-intentioned, ends up being somewhat elitist, as all Christians are commanded to give a defense to every man who asks a reason for the hope within, but not all people have access to scientific tools and studies, and not all people have the time nor the energy to read enough books, and study enough material, to be able to answer any objection a non-christian brings. Thus on the evidentialist approach, no Christian can fulfill their duty laid down in 1 Peter 3:15.
Whereas with the presuppositional approach, its a matter of recognizing that (1) the fear of the Lord is the beginning (not the end result) of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), and all knowledge is in Christ (Colossians 2:3), and those who have a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" rather than "in Christ" will end up being robbed of those treasures (Colossians 2:8). So (2) one needs to realize that, no matter what form an objection takes (whether its scientific, historical, logical, etc), its going to appeal to, and depend upon, one or more of the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). Every objection assumes one or more of those, which the Bible says only God can account for. So with presupp, a Christian can acknowledge that it all boils down to one or more of those issues, and then master those issues. And the result is a rock solid argument that glorifies God, obeys His command to not put Him to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4:12), which allows us to actually fulfill God's command in 1 Peter 3:15, and provides a conclusion that's certain. Whereas with evidentialism, there's a lot more work, God get's put on trial (the unbeliever is allowed to place God "in the dock", as C.S. Lewis put it, in order to stand as judge and jury over Him), and at best a probable conclusion (or at least a conclusion that's said to be probable, but I don't believe that can be demonstrated).




I agree. God is clear in Romans 1:18-22 that all men know God in their heart of hearts already, and suppress that truth in unrighteousness, and that they're without excuse for denying Him. One cannot convince someone of what he already knows to be true. Apologetics is not a matter of convincing non-christians that God exists. It's about stripping them of their excuses for denying the God that they suppress their knowledge of, or, as Paul put it, "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God," and "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ". I never forgot Paul's contrast between the "speculations" against God, and "knowledge" of Him. :)




I agree. There's nothing wrong with Christians, who already accept God's authority, looking at the evidence and being comforted by it, so long as they're not questioning the authority and accuracy of God's Word. But if I were to be asked for a reason for the hope within me by a non-christian, and I appeal to evidence, then I've claimed that the testimony of human "experts" or our reasoning about the empirical evidence is a higher epistemological authority than God's testimony---which would directly contradict Hebrews 6:13 & Ephesians 1:21.



I disagree, as the evidentialist approach says that the Bible is to be accepted, not based on God's own testimony, but rather based on the testimony of external evidence, thereby saying that evidence has authority in the debate until its independently established that Christ was correct, and then, after that He has authority in the debate. Jesus disagreed, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18).

Ministerial use of evidence (simply ministering to God's truth, showing that there's a way to interpret the evidence in a way that comports with God's Word) is fine, but magisterial use of evidence (placing God in the dock so that men can stand in judgment over the veracity of His Word, and therefore over the authority and trustworthiness of the God Who wrote it, the God they already know exists) is sinful (though most often unwittingly).

Wow, you're good. I'll try and make a few responding points when I get the time.

[Mr. Black]

Well I already asked you how you picture the fracas went down

Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I asked you what you know for sure, and you replied, "Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass." So you have made the claim that Somson did so. I asked further how---in terms of your worldview---you could know that. You appealed to your senses. I asked how---in terms of your worldview---you could know that your sensory organs are working properly, so that you can be sure that what they report to your brain comport with reality, and is not illusion. How I picture the even going down has nothing to do with you justifying your own claim that Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.

[Mr. Black]

Wow, you're good.

I'm probably a lot dumber than I appear, but thank you for the awesome compliment. :)

I'll try and make a few responding points when I get the time.

No worries. Whenever you have time is just fine. God bless you.

[Mr. Black]

From any perspective everyone must ask the same question,

That's true. In order to provide an answer, you must have an ontic base to ground such a precondition of intelligibility, and an epistemology to make that base known. God is the ontic base in my worldview, as He created us in His image, in His world, and fashioned our minds in such a way as to perceive the world aright so that we can fulfill the commands He would give to subdue the world and have dominion over the animal kingdom.

which no one can answer in the absolute sense.

1.) Prove this please.
2.) Are you absolutely sure that your proof for this claim proves it?

[Mr. Black]

Well, like it or not, that is your argument in a nutshell.

No, it's not. An argument the kind of which has been used by philosophers for centuries does not suddenly cease to be an argument just because you refuse to interact with it and arbitrarily declare it to be something other than what it is.

Unfounded assertion.

The only way this statement of yours can be justified is if you've refuted my argument. But thus far you've yet to even touch it. Ergo you are begging the question rather than presenting a reasoned case.

Unfounded assertion.

See above. Ignoring my argument and making arbitrary claims which are only justified after my argument has been refuted does not a refutation make.

You merely assert that if one does not believe in God and the Bible that their world view is absurd.

No, I did not. I presented a transcendental argument for it---which you've yet to deal with. Seriously, dude, please do some reading on TAs.

Explain why you believe a Godless world view is absurd and in what way it differs from a world view grounded in a Creator.

I explained it already. God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. Since He is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility (which means all facts are ultimately derivative of Him), and His revelation of Himself is the epistemology which makes Him known, if He did not exist and have already revealed Himself to mankind, knowledge would not be possible on man's part. Therefore if we don't start with God and His revelation as logically primary in our thinking, we cannot prove anything.
That's a transcendental argument. The only way to refute a TA is not to ignore it or straw man it, but to demonstrate that knowledge is possible apart from the proposed starting point (in this case God). That means presenting---from the metaphysic of your worldview---an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, and cognitive faculties, etc), and an epistemology which makes that base known.

Give a reasoned example if you are able please.

I gave an example last time regarding the reliability of the senses. But let's try another one: the absoluteness of the laws of logic. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. Anyone who reasons must hold to the view that it's absolute, meaning contradictions are impossible. But what worldview can make sense out of such a claim?

The Christian has a basis for this claim.
All things are from, through, and to God (Romans 11:36)
He cannot contradict Himself (2 Timothy 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:18)
He cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18)
He never changes (James 1:17, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6)
He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24, Proverbs 15:3, Colossians 1:17, Job 11:7-9)

Thus the laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. Since God cannot contradict Himself, His thinking is necessarily consistent. Since He is unchanging, His thinking cannot be inconsistent. Therefore the laws of logic cannot be inconsistent, which means contradictions are impossible. Since God is everywhere, continually upholding His creation, His necessarily consistent thinking, by which He upholds the universe, applies everywhere. And since God is eternal (i.e., is beyond time) the laws of logic have always reflected His thinking. So the laws of logic are universal and eternally unchanging. Thus the Christian has every good reason to hold to absolute laws of logic, and thus for saying, not only that contradictions have not happened, but also that they cannot happen.

But without that God to ground said laws, and His revelation to make it known, what basis is there for claiming that the laws of logic even exist, let alone are what we claim them to be, let alone that they're absolute?
How does your worldview make sense of them? What is their nature? Are they made of matter? Are they immaterial? Where do immaterial objects come from in your Godless worldview?
Are the laws of logic universal? Do they change? How would you go about justifying this?

Appealing to our senses and saying, "We've never seen a contradiction in reality" won't help, because the claim is not that contradictions have not happened, but rather that contradictions cannot happen. Even if one were everywhere in the universe, all throughout the past, and could say that no contradiction took place, that still would not answer the question, because that person has not experienced the future. How could he say that contradictions can't take place in the future unless he's already assumed that the laws of logic are of such a nature that they never change---which is the very claim in question?

Are you completely nuts?

1.) No. It would be nuts to think that you can skirt key problems in epistemology, and then just waltz into the marketplace of ideas and expect the view of reality that you offer to be taken seriously.
2.) To say something about being "nuts" assumes a psychological standard from which to deviate. What is that psychological standard in your worldview, and how do you know about it? How do you know you're not insane?

I just told you that, i live in a world in which exists this food which we have given the name pasta and i empirically observed and experienced the sensation of eating it. Thats how i know.

And the next question is, how do you know that your sensory organs, by which you supposedly perceive the pasta, are working properly, so that you can be sure that the pasta you supposedly ate is real and not illusion?
When you're asked what solution your worldview provides for the problem of illusion, it's not rational to just shrug it off and pretend the problem is not there.

How do you know you haven't eaten yet?

I explained this in my last comment.

Explain what you mean by your "sensory organs and cognitive faculties being reliable".

The sensory organs convey information that comports with reality, and the cognitive faculties work in such a way as to bring us, by sound reason, to right conclusions, which correspond to reality.

Explain, without the use of mere assertion,

That's an oxymoron. Explanation is, by definition, assertion. If you're looking for more than assertion, then you want something like an argument or proof. But explanation is not that.

why they can only be reliable if they are creations of God.

There's no way to know apart from it. By way of visual aid, imagine two circles: one very small one (circle #1), which contains all the things that man claims to know, and the second circle is very large. This circle (circle #2) contains all facts of which man is not aware.

Let's say that man claims to know a whopping 0.1% of all facts.
The question comes, "How do you know that no fact(s) in the larger circle will one day be discovered to refute anything, or everything you claim to know?" The facts in the large circle are, by definition, unknown to man, so he cannot say that no such fact(s) be in there.
Thus to know anything for sure, one must either (1) know everything (that way you can be sure that there's nothing "out there" that will one day refute any given thing, or everything you claim to know), or else (2) have revelation from God, Who does know everything.

Because they are dependably consistent brother,

This is begging the question. How do you know that the consistent perceptions your senses give you correspond to reality, and are not a consistent illusion?

and consistency isn't dependent upon a God.

Prove this please.

[shunyadragon]

1.) Prove this please.
2.) Are you absolutely sure that your proof for this claim proves it?

1.) Prove this please.
2.) Are you absolutely sure that your proof for this claim proves it?

Source: http://www.songlyrics.com/imagine-dragons/round-and-round-lyrics/

Imagine Dragons - Round And Round

we are all living the same way
we are escaping the same way
circling
we are a part of the same play
we think we're making our own way
circling

you don’t have to hold your head up high

round and round
I won’t run away this time
till you show me what this life is for
round and round
I’m not gonna let you change my mind
till you show me what this life is for

we are afflicted by fiction
building a case for eviction
circling
guarding a tower of ancients
shooting down arrows of patience
and patiently circling

you don’t have to hold your head up high

round and round
I won’t run away this time
till you show me what this life is for
round and round
I’m not gonna let you change my mind
till you show me what this life is for

all the emptiness inside you
is hard enough to fill
without a sense of purpose
were setting up to fail
you don’t have to make it right
just hold your head up high

round and round
I won’t run away this time
till you show me what this life is for
round and round
I’m not gonna let you change my mind
till you show me what this life is for

© Copyright Original Source

[whag]

Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I asked you what you know for sure, and you replied, "Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass." So you have made the claim that Somson did so. I asked further how---in terms of your worldview---you could know that. You appealed to your senses. I asked how---in terms of your worldview---you could know that your sensory organs are working properly, so that you can be sure that what they report to your brain comport with reality, and is not illusion. How I picture the even going down has nothing to do with you justifying your own claim that Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.

Why would you think I was serious about that? I don't believe the Samson legend is literally true, hence the spinach comment.

And please fix your signature.

[JimL]

No, it's not. An argument the kind of which has been used by philosophers for centuries does not suddenly cease to be an argument just because you refuse to interact with it and arbitrarily declare it to be something other than what it is.

All I can do is ask you to do is to give satisfactory reasons to support your presupposition that God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. I order to argue the point, I need reasoned explanations from you, not assertions.

The only way this statement of yours can be justified is if you've refuted my argument. But thus far you've yet to even touch it. Ergo you are begging the question rather than presenting a reasoned case.

I will refute your argument as soon as you give justification for your presupposition that God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience.

No, I did not. I presented a transcendental argument for it---which you've yet to deal with. Seriously, dude, please do some reading on TAs.

No you didn't you presented a transcendental assertion based on a presupposition of necessity without reasoned justification.

I explained it already. God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. Since He is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility (which means all facts are ultimately derivative of Him), and His revelation of Himself is the epistemology which makes Him known, if He did not exist and have already revealed Himself to mankind, knowledge would not be possible on man's part. Therefore if we don't start with God and His revelation as logically primary in our thinking, we cannot prove anything.
That's a transcendental argument. The only way to refute a TA is not to ignore it or straw man it, but to demonstrate that knowledge is possible apart from the proposed starting point (in this case God). That means presenting---from the metaphysic of your worldview---an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, and cognitive faculties, etc), and an epistemology which makes that base known.

Heres the problem that i keep harping on Mr. Black. The above begins with the presupposition that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility of human experience, he is the ontic base, all facts are derived of him, if he did not exist knowledge would not be possible on mans part. You don't produce an iota of evidence nor of reason to back up the assertions that you make, its all mere assertion based upon the presupposition. You make no argument for why this must be so. So give me reasons why God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility? And then give me reasons why knowledge on mans part would not be possible without a God.

I gave an example last time regarding the reliability of the senses. But let's try another one: the absoluteness of the laws of logic. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. Anyone who reasons must hold to the view that it's absolute, meaning contradictions are impossible. But what worldview can make sense out of such a claim?

The Christian has a basis for this claim.
All things are from, through, and to God (Romans 11:36)
He cannot contradict Himself (2 Timothy 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:18)
He cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18)
He never changes (James 1:17, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6)
He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24, Proverbs 15:3, Colossians 1:17, Job 11:7-9)

Thus the laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. Since God cannot contradict Himself, His thinking is necessarily consistent. Since He is unchanging, His thinking cannot be inconsistent. Therefore the laws of logic cannot be inconsistent, which means contradictions are impossible. Since God is everywhere, continually upholding His creation, His necessarily consistent thinking, by which He upholds the universe, applies everywhere. And since God is eternal (i.e., is beyond time) the laws of logic have always reflected His thinking. So the laws of logic are universal and eternally unchanging. Thus the Christian has every good reason to hold to absolute laws of logic, and thus for saying, not only that contradictions have not happened, but also that they cannot happen.

But without that God to ground said laws, and His revelation to make it known, what basis is there for claiming that the laws of logic even exist, let alone are what we claim them to be, let alone that they're absolute?
How does your worldview make sense of them? What is their nature? Are they made of matter? Are they immaterial? Where do immaterial objects come from in your Godless worldview?
Are the laws of logic universal? Do they change? How would you go about justifying this?

Thats easy Mr. Black. The laws of logic are grounded in nature. I can make the same argument as you made above from a natural perspective.
All things are from, through and to nature.
Nature cannot contradict itself
Nature cannot lie.
Nature never changes.
Nature is omnipresent.

Appealing to our senses and saying, "We've never seen a contradiction in reality" won't help, because the claim is not that contradictions have not happened, but rather that contradictions cannot happen. Even if one were everywhere in the universe, all throughout the past, and could say that no contradiction took place, that still would not answer the question, because that person has not experienced the future. How could he say that contradictions can't take place in the future unless he's already assumed that the laws of logic are of such a nature that they never change---which is the very claim in question?

He can assert that contradictions can't take place in nature in the same way that you assert the same with reference to God.

The sensory organs convey information that comports with reality, and the cognitive faculties work in such a way as to bring us, by sound reason, to right conclusions, which correspond to reality.

I agree, they comport with reality and reality comports with them. Thats how it works! Its called evolution. Now why is God necessary for this harmonious relationship between mind and the world it is immersed in to work?

That's an oxymoron. Explanation is, by definition, assertion. If you're looking for more than assertion, then you want something like an argument or proof. But explanation is not that.

No, i want you to back up your assertions with a modicum of reason. For example, explain why your presupposition that God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience is necessarily true?

This is begging the question. How do you know that the consistent perceptions your senses give you correspond to reality, and are not a consistent illusion?

Because they are consistent dude. Because they correspond to everyone elses perceptions. If all of our perceptions are consistent then it doesn't matter if it is some kind of an illusion, its our reality. If you are nothing but data in a computer simulated world then so long as your perceptions corrospond with the illusion then they corrospond with your reality.

Prove this please.

See above.

[whag]

All I can do is ask you to do is to give satisfactory reasons to support your presupposition that God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. I order to argue the point, I need reasoned explanations from you, not assertions.



I will refute your argument as soon as you give justification for your presupposition that God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience.








No you didn't you presented a transcendental assertion based on a presupposition of necessity without reasoned justification.




Heres the problem that i keep harping on Mr. Black. The above begins with the presupposition that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility of human experience, he is the ontic base, all facts are derived of him, if he did not exist knowledge would not be possible on mans part. You don't produce an iota of evidence nor of reason to back up the assertions that you make, its all mere assertion based upon the presupposition. You make no argument for why this must be so. So give me reasons why God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility? And then give me reasons why knowledge on mans part would not be possible without a God.



Thats easy Mr. Black. The laws of logic are grounded in nature. I can make the same argument as you made above from a natural perspective.
All things are from, through and to nature.
Nature cannot contradict itself
Nature cannot lie.
Nature never changes.
Nature is omnipresent.

He can assert that contradictions can't take place in nature in the same way that you assert the same with reference to God.









I agree, they comport with reality and reality comports with them. Thats how it works! Its called evolution. Now why is God necessary for this harmonious relationship between mind and the world it is immersed in to work?



No, i want you to back up your assertions with a modicum of reason. For example, explain why your presupposition that God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience is necessarily true?





Because they are consistent dude. Because they correspond to everyone elses perceptions. If all of our perceptions are consistent then it doesn't matter if it is some kind of an illusion, its our reality. If you are nothing but data in a computer simulated world then so long as your perceptions corrospond with the illusion then they corrospond with your reality.



See above.

Mr. Black is going about this theism thing completely assbackwards.

[seer]

Mr. Black is going about this theism thing completely assbackwards.

How is starting with God ass backwards?

[shunyadragon]

That's true. In order to provide an answer, you must have an ontic base to ground such a precondition of intelligibility, and an epistemology to make that base known. God is the ontic base in my worldview, as He created us in His image, in His world, and fashioned our minds in such a way as to perceive the world aright so that we can fulfill the commands He would give to subdue the world and have dominion over the animal kingdom.

You simply deny any other ontic base, but yours, which is begging the question asserting God is the ontic base in my worldview, as He created us in His image, in His world, and fashioned our minds in such a way as to perceive the world aright so that we can fulfill the commands He would give to subdue the world and have dominion over the animal kingdom.without an argument nor coherent explanation

Could you be wrong about this???

1.) Prove this please.
2.) Are you absolutely sure that your proof for this claim proves it?[/QUOTE]

[whag]

How is starting with God ass backwards?

Because he started with a literalist view and polevaulted over the associated difficulties. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" isn't going to win souls.

Parable of the sower.

[Cerebrum123]

Because he started with a literalist view and polevaulted over the associated difficulties. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" isn't going to win souls.

Parable of the sower.

I get what your trying to say, but the Parable of the Sower is about the hearts of the receivers aka "soil", not the "seed".

[whag]

I get what your trying to say, but the Parable of the Sower is about the hearts of the receivers aka "soil", not the "seed".

Soil receptiveness correlates to the sower's intellectual integrity. If you're a conspiracy theorist science denier, you're already erecting a wall of mistrust. Either that, or you're setting yourself up for major fail if the person you're witnessing to paid attention in high school science.

[Doug Shaver]

There is a difference between an assertion and an argument

Yes there is.

Can you define that difference? You gave an example of each, but your example of an argument looks, to me, just like your example of an assertion.