And while I'm here, Dan S de Merengue, you are quite right, I may have misunderstood. Although not deliberately.

>>...from your last comment it seems that you would prefer to not understand or deliberately misinterpret<<

It came from this statement of yours:

>>...beliefs are to be investigated for their validity or internal consistency as well as how well they align with empirical data.<<

You had previously given the impression that all ideas that have internal consistency - i.e., that make sense in their own closed logic-loop - need to be treated equally. Indeed, you have taken me to task on a number of occasions for not treating your ideas seriously, on the basis that in order to understand them, I need to evaluate them using your presuppositions.

If this is not the case, then I apologize for the misrepresentation. But if so, you should stop suggesting that your own ideas have merit simply because they can only be understood by walking in your shoes. Which entails making the presumption, ahead of time, that because they are based on the Bible, they will automatically have validity.

Agreed?

Dan,

Thank you for your very thoughtful and informative response. I will follow up the leads you have given me, to better understand.

The reason for my questions: Ultimately I search for that which may illuminate a path to joy and fulfillment for our society and for all of humanity, for the key to the brotherhood of nations, for a higher universal truth, and for wisdom. (Mind you, I don't really expect to get there.)

While there is life there is hope, and seeking is better than dreaming.

Pericles,
Yes, agreed. What I presented regarding the need to view an argument consistently within its own parameters leads me open to the charge of circularity. “How do we know the Bible is true? Because it’s the Word of God.” This kind of statement is rightly assessed as being insular or ‘question begging’.

However, I don’t think circularity alone necessarily invalidates a contention. For I think all arguments carry certain presuppositions, sometimes implicit, sometimes openly stated, that eventually reflect back onto themselves and entail circularity. I think it’s good to be aware of your presuppositions or assumptions. And if something is “God’s word” then we would expect it to be “true” if that is characteristic of God. At least there’s still an internal consistency.

Yet I still hold that for two different explanations of events, A and B, only one can ultimately be correct. So in the wider ‘circle of reasoning’ that encapsulates the empirical data, only one explanation will more accurately reflect the facts. Both explanations of events will not simultaneously be true.