When I look at the skeptic side of unbelief and doubt I have to ask myself is this a solid foundation or sinking sand
Do you have an answer yet? You've had an opportunity to read the words of dozens of us. My foundation is reason applied to evidence. Everything I believe has passed that test - either being evidently and demonstrably true like the apple, or sound conclusions derived from such evidence using valid reasoning. Both of those methods reliably produce correct ideas, that is, ideas that can be confirmed to accurately map some aspect of reality. No firmer foundation for belief is possible. No more sound basis for mapping and navigating reality are available to humanity. And my experience in life living that way has been to my liking. What else can anybody hope for from a world view?
The only reasons I see presented by skeptics are the Bible is too old, eye witness accounts can be unreliable, although we see the accounts in the Bible, we aren’t accepting that or any other historian or scholar of the time that disagrees with the skeptic view.
The reason the critical thinker rejects the claims of the Bible is because he requires better evidence than unevidenced claims before believing. The only time I comment on how old the Bible is when commenting on its out-of-date ethical principles. It's not the reason for rejecting its claims of historical fact. Insufficient supporting evidence is. Perhaps you don't understand what a foundational belief skepticism, or the need to question all claims and accept only those that are demonstrably correct as fact, is for the strict empiricist. No apologist can provide that level of evidentiary support.
But why did you give that answer? You seem to be giving reasons why skeptics reject the claims of the Bible, not a response to my position that a solid foundation is based in holding demonstrably correct ideas about reality. You were asking whether that was a solid foundation for belief and navigating life. I argued that it was. Did you want to address that? If you disagree, why? If the answer is that it causes one to miss out on heaven, that's fine, but I'd have to add that basing one's life in that belief is not a very good foundation if there is no heaven. Your world view is based on set of faith-based beliefs that reinforce one another. Mine on evidence properly understood. I consider the latter a firmer foundation.
I just gave a detailed argument for relying on empiricism and reason alone when determining what is true that supplements the one I've made to you, which you may find to be of interest:
Reformed Epistemology
Then when someone testifies who is alive today that Jesus is Alive and He intervened in their life, gave them His Spirit, Eternal Life and victorious living and power over the lust of the flesh, the ability and desire to live a holy life and you have justifications how this isn’t so.
The skeptic has no reason to believe that the theist is properly understanding his intuitions as described in the link above (please refer to the comment on sensus divinitatis there). Fervent belief and a sense of certainty are not evidence that you such people are correct in their god belief, just that they have no doubt.
So have I answered yours and the other skeptics on this thread adequately?
Thanks for asking and trying, but no, you never commented on why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism. I suspect that it is because it helped you to hold a god belief, so you discount other ways of knowing reality.
Let me answer for you: empiricism is the only solid foundation for navigating reality possible. It's what even you use to make most of the decisions in daily life, such as filling up the gas tank because it is low. You combine the evidence of the gas gauge with reason, which informs you that if you don't get gas soon, your car won't run. It's how you pick your clothes and the words you'll speak to others - all based in generalizations (inductions) extracted from prior experience and applied to present circumstances with expectations of what will follow based on that knowledge (empiricism).
Will you be cold if you don't dress properly? Will you offend a friend if you ask her if she's pregnant and she's not? If you have preferred outcomes in any of those situations, like not being cold or offending a friend, you'll turn to empiricism, because whether you realize it or not, that is your firm foundation for navigating life. Then you question whether others doing only that absent the comforting faith beliefs are on solid ground.
