Please start by reading the post and comments at the link above.
Further responses are in light of these previous discussions. I have
included the most recent comment, Evan's "puzzle," below in order to
give some immediate context.

===== Begin Quote: Evan's Puzzle ====
The puzzle roughly goes like this:

The authority of Scripture (whether or not one is committed to
inerrancy) has both deductive and inductive grounding. For example, one
might hold the teaching of Christ's resurrection as authoritative
because of the inexplicable growth of Christianity in the first
century, the defects of alternative hypothesis's, and the consistent
Gospel accounts of the resurrection story itself. All of the above
premises that substantiate the authority of the resurrection claim are
inductive claims. It is imaginable that future textual and historical
studies might strengthen or weaken these premises. However, one might
hold to the teaching of Christ's resurrection on the strength of
deductive premises:

1) My religious experience leads me to believe that I have experienced
the "power of Christ's resurrection".
2) My belief that I have experienced the "power of Christ's
resurrection" leads me to accept the resurrection account in
Scripture.
3) Therefore, my religious experience (in some part) governs my view of
the authority of the resurrection account.

Many believers accept the authority of the resurrection account on both
inductive and deductive grounds. In fact, some accept Scriptures
account of the resurrection without any awareness of the strength or
weakness of the inductive claims involved. This, however, does not
change the fact that the authority of the resurrection account (and
consequently the authority of Scripture itself) has inductive grounding
that hangs on the strength of the premises involved. Our exploration of
the inductive grounds of the authority of Scripture forces us to invoke
at least some claims of science, and more generally, the scientific
method.

The puzzle now seems obvious. If Scripture is our authority in all
scientific matters and the authority of Scripture has inductive
grounding, what are our options if we wish examine historical claims
like the resurrection of Christ?

It seems as we have loaded the dice. If I accept the authority of the
resurrection account (because I accept the authority of Scripture)
BEFORE I start evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence
involved, I have effectively dismissed the inductive grounds for the
resurrection. My controlling presuppositions that I accept as
necessarily true might directly conflict with the contingent claims
that I am about to examine.

Even worse, the foundation of my belief in the authority of Scripture
(and consequently its authority over scientific endeavors) involves
inductive claims that I have not settled, or I would not be examining
the inductive claims in the first place.

Scripture has inductive grounding->I use science to examine the
inductive claims of Scripture->All the while, the authority of
Scripture (which presupposed the truth of both deductive and inductive
claims) must govern my scientific endeavors.

It seems as though this approach simply begs the question.

One might argue that Scripture provides the necessary precondition for
"doing" science at all, and therefore stands as the authority over
science, but this does not evade the problem of importing inductive
claims into a statement like "Scripture is authoritative" without
arguing for them. Further, this approach protects the inductive claims
of Scripture from falsification, because falsification of the
resurrection account would lead to the falsification of Scripture's
authority as a whole. There is a problem here. An inductive claim that
is not falsifiable is not an inductive claim at all! If I am to accept
a priori the authority of Scripture, this seems to deny the obvious
fact that Scripture makes claims must be inductively settled.

I hope you guys find this at least a bit thought provoking. Let me know
what you think.

Thanks!
===== End Quote ====

What's the story with "notsorry"? Is it going to be a virtual form for
discussion or will there be content posted like articles and such?

Interesting idea buddy.

Evan

On Oct 9, 3:40 pm, "Laurence O." <laurence.odonn...@gmail.com> wrote: