You: That is no different than saying they are "facts" revealed by the pink uniconrns on Jupiter because a books says so. Who are you kidding?
Me: No, my statement did not state that the only way God revealed himself was through Scripture but that Scripture backs up what has already been revealed and is known by all men. So for example, I could use the teleological argument for the existence of God and prove that God exists independent of Scripture. Scripture is the supporting evidence that proves the only true God. This is precisely what Paul did on Mars Hill.
That's right, once you a priori accept that there is a God and that He "wrote" the Bible, the rest simply falls in place, by design.
True enough. But that does not necessarly preclude that sense experience or even subjective states are not functional within a rationalist way of knowing. One can know by a priori and still use sense experience and subjectivism to complement the a priori. What is for certain is that both empiricism and subjectivism are meaningless without an a priori principle.
No, man is still the one who a priori accepts or rejects God. Those who accept God cannot prove it and those who reject Him ca not disprove it. The final arbiter is still man in his mind, no matter what the truth is. The difference is simply in the a priori rejection or acceptance.
This is good news! I think we are making progress here. I'll take that as a tacit acceptance of the a priori way of knowing. We can now dump empiricism as a stand-alone way of knowing as has been so thouroghly demonstrated by the likes of Thomas Kuhn who showed in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), that the claim of being able to come to the facts in an objective and neutral fashion is all an allusion because everybody brings their own cultural experiences, group loyalities, prejudices and precommitments. There is no such thing as brute, uninterpreted facts.
As far as man being the final arbiter, I mean, c'mon man, haven't we had enough of Kantian subjectivism with it's disassociative dualism? It is rather fascinating watching those advocating natural theology through a postori reasoning falling into inner-subjectivity as they must necessarily complaining about our spiritualist friends who base their knowledge almost exclusively on subjective states. You each start in a different starting point but end up in the same place.
All we Scripturalist are saying is that the God who revealed himself through Creation and our conscience has more fully revealed himself through Scripture and he revealed that he is the Creator of all facts and that all facts must be interpreted based on the creator and determiner of all facts. So no, there is no "leap of faith" since all men know there is a God even though they might repress that knowledge in unrighteousness. Faith merely hears the evidence and it is confirmed by Him who is the ground of all facts. Without that a priori your either lost in relativity or an artificial construct that gives the a priori to a human institution.
Finally, as to your attempt to mischaracterize my analysis of your statement by cutting a portion of your own quote, I'll leave that to your conscience.
That's a false, sweeping generalization because not all men believe God revealed himself through your scripture and what you believe is God's revelation through (your) scripture is not known to all men.
So for example, I could use the teleological argument for the existence of God and prove that God exists independent of Scripture. Scripture is the supporting evidence that proves the only true God.
Nonsense. You cannot prove the existence of God. You can assume it based on man-accepted a priori postulates, or you can simply believe it (blindly). In either case, it is a man-made construct based on an a priori belief. Whether you assume that your postulates are true and then "prove" God based on those assumptions, or whether you simply assume there is God and then retro-prove His existence amounts to the same thing. But it proves nothing.
Paul's authority is presumed. You assume that God exists; you assume that the Bible is God's own word; you assume that Paul is God's mouthpiece because he appears in the Bible.
You take his word that Christ spoke through him on faith and nothing but faith alone. That is your a priori acceptance of postulates; the rest simply fall in line by design, as I said in my earlier post. It is made to fit.
Once you accept that Paul is a mouthpiece of Christ, then everything he says is "true." Trouble is: Paul did not prove that he is a mouthpiece of Christ. We believe that he is. There is a big difference.
But that does not necessarly preclude that sense experience or even subjective states are not functional within a rationalist way of knowing
That's too broad of a generalization to mean anything, really.
One can know by a priori and still use sense experience and subjectivism to complement the a priori
The problem is with the a priori "knowledge." It is not knowledge; it is a belief, or an assumption. It is an anthropomorphic construct. In other words, it starts within us and is projected outward. It originates in us. Man-made.
Of course, they would have no starting point without an a priori postulate. Empiricism doesn't prove anything in absolute terms any more than subjectivism. Empirical models are just that: working models. They are subject to our a priori assumptions (imagination), as you say, just as your subjective models are. Neither can prove anything absolute.
The difference is that empirical models work, they work repeatedly and predictably, on demand. Subjective models don't; they work "on hope," and "mystery."
A priori assumptions are not knowledge; they are assumptions of knowledge.
We can now dump empiricism as a stand-alone way of knowing
Next time you are sick and in need of empirical medicine, why don't you rely on your subjective models and put the health and lives of your loved ones in the realm of hope and miracles instead?
As far as man being the final arbiter, I mean, c'mon man, haven't we had enough of Kantian subjectivism with it's disassociative dualism?
The problem with the Age of Reason and the whole western approach to rationalism as a substitute for subjectivism is that, like subjectivism, rationalism aims to prove the absolute through reason instead of subjective experience.
Neither offers an absolute working model; both are based on human assumptions and a priori postulates originating in human perceptions and interpretations.
When we see a building, it is not unreasonable to assume there was a builder. However, implying anything about the builder does not follow logically.
Thus, if we look at the Universe and say "something" created it doesn't mean we know a great deal about that which created it, or that we are created in the "image" or "likeness" of that which created the Universe. It also does not say anything about the actual process of that creation.
The Scripturalists as you call them assume an awful lot based on the conclusion that something made all this, by filling in the information based on their subjective imagination.
Now, we can believe that it was God who created the Universe and who created us in His image, and who wrote the Bible, but we cannot "know" it or prove it.
Those who advocate "natural theology" are equally forced to believe rather than know. So, they are simply hiding behind a different belief.
That is a completely circular argument. You are "proving" an assumption with the same assumption. Evertyhing except the conclusion that "something must have 'made' all this" is blind faith based on subjective experience.
Without that a priori your either lost in relativity or an artificial construct that gives the a priori to a human institution
Like faith? I agree.
Finally, as to your attempt to mischaracterize my analysis of your statement by cutting a portion of your own quote, I'll leave that to your conscience
I did not try to mischaraterize your analysis and if I cut it off it was not for that purpose. Please re-post it and I will make sure I take it in its entirety. Thank you.