WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:
Yes, this is going in circles, because I already told you what I think of those. So I take it, that you got none. I don't know why I should bother with revelation. I don't consider the Bible to be a word of God simply because of the contradiction to historical evidence. I.e. Exodus, Massacre of the Innocents... or even the Epic of Gilgamesh. For the latter, I know what the position of apologists is, so we don't have to argue about that.
"The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them."
I already said that you are correct regarding this. Yet, from the information I can collect is that you accept claims without evidence simply because you like the sound of it. At least, that is what I see from you reasoning.
|
Note that I said historical revelations are important to. It's not like people stopped having revelations after the biblical period (in fact, there are nearly too many to count).
|
If that is important, then you should be a Mormon by now or whatever comes around the corner. So, why don't you follow Joseph Smith?