Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: StormPrepper
SR: There is no record of David receiving a direct vision from or audience with God.

SP; Right, there's no record. But then again there's no record of anyone peeing in the Bible either... You can disagree if you want, but I'm pretty sure they did...


In logic they call what you are doing an argument from ignorance.  No insult intended.  That's just what they call it.  We don't know that Isaiah didn't also run a brothel and a strip club.  So it must be true, right?  Well, you might say, that would be inconsistent with what we do know about him.  But according to you, what do we know about him?  Apparently the divine record concerning Isaiah, which was sufficient for Jesus and the apostles, is not good enough for you.  As for me, it's good enough, and I will go by the record, thank you very much (my Elvis impression right there. :) )

BTW, here's another great "argument from ignorance." Let's say I contend the Mother Ship, as big as Earth, is always hiding, on purpose, just the other side of the Sun.  Prove me wrong.  Can't prove me wrong?  Oh, then I must be right.  See what that does?  It's a sneaky way of shifting the burden of proof from me to you.  Rhetorically, you claim something is true, then you insist I prove the negative, which of course is impossible to do in this particular case.  

But that won't fly if the judge is paying attention.  The burden of proof is on you.  You made a positive claim that all prophets have this visionary experience, and it is your job to back up the claim from the evidence.  I have shown you clear examples of prophets where there is no record of such an experience. Imagining people might have done something is not evidence. You cannot support your claim from the evidence.  That's not my problem.  It's yours.  Sorry.

Peace,

SR
634 posted on 05/12/2015 11:52:17 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies ]


To: Springfield Reformer; StormPrepper
In logic they call what you are doing an argument from ignorance.

Ahhhh so much "doctrine" is written by silence ...think of the assumption ..and the lost tribes of Israel ....

The fact is using his logic we can not know if his "non prophets " actually did talk to God first and not record it..

637 posted on 05/12/2015 12:40:00 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies ]

To: Springfield Reformer
In logic they call what you are doing an argument from ignorance. No insult intended. That's just what they call it. We don't know that Isaiah didn't also run a brothel and a strip club.

Your logic is what we call appeal to extremes. Your governing premise is that you can't find specific examples of an event recorded for every prophet then it didn't happen for every prophet.

I showed you a reasonable example of a day to day occurrence that isn't listed in the Bible either, but we can reasonably assume the event happened.

You then go to the extreme with an example about Isaiah and space ships in order to keep your argument alive. You all but admit to this with your, "Well, you might say, that would be inconsistent with what we do know about him." statement.

If you can't swallow your own examples, don't expect me to either.

Prophets receiving heavenly visions and visitations is supported by your own words, "would be inconsistent"

Because it would be consistent with nearly all the prophets. There is precedent for my claim.

Rhetorically, you claim something is true, then you insist I prove the negative, which of course is impossible to do in this particular case.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove your claim that there's an exception to the rule. And more importantly, not everything of importance is recorded among the writings of the Bible. John specifically states this fact.

The problem with your logic in regards to God, is that it's not real. You approach it as an academic exercise. As theorycraft, with no real world application. I see this a lot.

The burden of proof has never shifted. It's always been on you because I have the stronger case. I have precedence on my side. If five people make this statement:

[5 Witnesses] I went to the DMV and got my driver's license.

And then a sixth person says, "I got my driver's license too"

It's no stretch or fallacy to assume that the sixth person went to the DMV too.

Therefore, with nearly all the prophets claiming to have seen God, I can with reasonable assurance say that this event is a hallmark of being a prophet.


691 posted on 05/15/2015 10:03:20 AM PDT by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies ]

To: Springfield Reformer
The burden of proof is on you. You made a positive claim that all prophets have this visionary experience, and it is your job to back up the claim from the evidence.

Just FYI...

Num 12
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

720 posted on 06/08/2015 11:46:50 AM PDT by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson