Originally posted by 37818
View Post
OK. Explaining it like that. Can we simplify this explanation any? It is true those who propose the teleological argument are coming from a point of view that already believes the proposed conclusion. That cannot be denied. Design, function giving purpose. Definitions being used. DNA is code, instructions, information, the very knowledge which builds life and is life. From our human perspective it fits our understanding of design and function. Does it not? If not how does it not?
Anyway I think this argument, as you presented it, to be a circular argument, needs simplification some how.
Anyway I think this argument, as you presented it, to be a circular argument, needs simplification some how.
That is one type of argument that I have made. To show what I believe as based on the written, called scripture, regarded to be the word of God. Now as for that written being the word of God, the implication being, it is therefore true. God being inerrant, and it being God's word.
But I also make other arguments. A starting premise that there is uncaused existence. What is my scriptural bases for that? I've have given it. But the thrust of the argument, is existence exists, an uncaused existence needs no God. What is my scripture for that? Do you know or remember? Understand, at issue is what is true and what is not true. My citing scriptures which are not received versus making arguments, not citing any scriptures.
Yes. And then my profession of knowing God personally would then be false.
Then how do we recognize truth? There are many belief claims. One can be true [or Some of them can be true, embracing common truths] and all the rest to be false. Or all of them can be false. How we know comes before what we know. So again, how do we recognize truth? The odds are we are going to be wrong.
I will ask you the same question; considering the fallibility of humanity, and the evidence, how do we know????
[
Comment