... as an agnostic I don't put any credence in the Bible at all.
So you're citing evidence
that you don't believe in?
Any assertion, no matter what it is, amounts to a claim.
So "A = A" is only a claim?
Only to the extent that it is irrational to make a claim one didn't think is true (factual)---any attempt to deceive aside.
Does it follow that it is irrational to offer evidence that you don't think is true?
Shall we rewind?
Skwim said:
"... as an agnostic I don't put any credence in the Bible at all.. "
So you've offered up what you feel is evidence, but have already conceded that you don't buy it. Certainly, you must be prepared to accept that
no one else will buy it either, correct?
...
1.) Is it irrational to offer up the claim as evidence to support the claim?
2.) If only this thread were asking for evidence that anyone had ever made the claim that the universe was created by an intellect
in writing. I think you'd have an airtight case.
...
Please note that in post #30 I put the term "fact" in quotation marks, indicating that it its truth is immaterial.
You believe that the truth value of a fact
is immaterial? Please tell me I've misunderstood you.
You're ignoring the nature of your own request here.
"Please demonstrate that the creation of our universe was driven by intellect."
Obviously no one is going to present some table-top exhibition,
I didn't think
it would
be necessary to make any stipulations as to the form of the demonstration. But please ... carry on.
so the only reasonable interpretation of "demonstrate" is
noun
1. the act or circumstance of proving or being proved conclusively, as by reasoning or a show of evidence
So we've got:
1.) Reasoning.
2.) A show of evidence.
Are you saying that offering up evidence
upon which you place no credence counts
in either case?
Again. I must ask you: How rational is it to cite evidence upon which you place zero credence?
... which is what I've attempted to do; use reason to show that the Bible qualifies as a source for an answer to your challenge; The Bible states that . . . . . .
Again,
the Bible is the claim that the universe was created by intelligence. Do you honestly feel it's sufficient to (re-)cite the claim as evidence for itself? Please explain to me how the following scenario
isn't a fair distillation of what your entire argument boils down to:
Salesman: Madam, this little bottle of pills will cure whatever ails you.
Homeowner: Prove it.
Salesman: Well.
See here on the side of the bottle where it says "This little bottle of pills will cure whatever ails you?"
Has the salesman
actually utilized reason? Has he in fact cited
any evidence?
Or is he merely re-stating the claim?
It's irrelevant. As I say, I don't buy the Bibles explanation; however, that doesn't make it any less an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors.
You really ought to be selling stuff door-to-door. Seriously.
Nope it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors.
What I'd do is irrelev--
Your argument is suffocating in its own froth.
One of ways in which we differ is that I do not use the words "claim" and "fact" interchangeably.
To this point, all you've done is cite the Bible's claim that the universe was created by intelligence as evidence that the universe was created by intelligence.
That proves zilch ... and it earns you this thread's inaugural
stamp.
Thanks for playing.