Barker's Bulldog

John Loftus stopped by the comments section of my recent post on my debate with Dan Barker. Let's look at his defense of Barker by proxy:

*****

"Paul, I think you fail to see that we're asking how you know the Bible is true and that God doesn't lie, as you so often repeat. You make this statement whenever you're asked about anything in the Bible we question. At some point your belief must touch down to earth where you can defend why you believe the Bible.

*****


1. I think you failed to see that I pointed this out in the debate. I told Barker that he had to prove the story wrong rather than *assume* that it was wrong.

2. If Barker had wanted to know how I know the story was true he should have asked me directly, no? I mean, can I say I won because he failed to tell me his Grandma's recipe for banana muffins? No, I never even asked him that. So, this may be what *you're* asking, but why use the word "we're?" Barker never asked this. His fault, not mine.

3. There's many evidences I have for why I believe the Bible is true. If you are talking about evidence that you'd accept then that would depend on your presuppositions.

4. You fail to see that Barker was trying to make an inductive argument against me. I pointed out the rules for good inductive generalizations and showed that Barker didn't follow them. These are rules even you accept, so why the complaining?

4. Apropos God's own say-so. Now, assume that the Bible is true for arguments sake. Assume that there is no higher weight that can be given to any evidence than God's own word on the matter. Indeed, since He cannot lie, knows everything, etc., then is there any higher authority that I could go to on this matter? If the above is true then why can't I invoke His word? And if I can invoke his word, well that's pretty good evidence for the talking snake.

5. To say therefore that I must give some evidence *other than* God's own say-so is to assume that His word is not the ultimate authority. But this is what's in dispute. Thus we both beg the question. The problem is that my circular argument saves philosophy, yours destroys it.

6. Anyway, listen to the debate and see why I think the Bible's true.


*****

"When we see a snake talking in the Bible and all of our experience says that snakes don't talk, that's what we're asking. To continually respond to every one of our questions about miracles in the Bible with your above response is quite simply begging the question, unless or until you can defend why you believe the Bible is God's word that is grounded in evidence. Evidence. That's what we're asking for, just as you want evidence that a cat spoke in Spanish to Dan Barker."

*****

1. You fail to see that your experience does not count here. You don't have the proper sampling. To assume that the serpent in Genesis was the same as your pet Gartner snake begs the question.

2. I don't respond to every one of your question about miracles this way. Indeed, in the debate I pointed out that Barker could not justify his use of induction, my argument was two-pronged.

3. I've further argued by pointing out the rules of inductive generalizations, showing how you violated them.

4. God's word as God's word is "grounded" in no other evidence than God's own say-so.

WCF

Ch.1

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

5. To say that God's word must be "grounded" in evidence assumes that His word is not ultimate, the point in dispute. So we both beg questions here, I'm just epistemologically self-conscious about my question begging.

6. But I don't just dogmatically assert this. I offer arguments for my worldview, as I did in the debate. We both have an ultimate authority John, it just happens that mine does not destroy the possibility of proving things, yours does. Don't be jealous.

7. I gave you evidence that the snake spoke, i.e., God told us it happened. Don't you even see how you are discounting that as evidence. Now, I would like evidence from Barker. To appeal to *his say-so* and act surprised when I don't accept it while I accepted God's is a bit disanalagous I'd say!

8. I guess you failed to see that part where I pointed out that to have evidence for every belief ends you in an infinite regress. How do you stop the regress John?