A brief, critical response to the Scripturalist claim that sense perception is unreliable, and/or does not produce knowledge. This article refutes Vincent Cheung’s argument that John 12:27–30 constitutes “an inspired example against empiricism.” It does not deal with the question of epistemic justification; merely with the biblical view of sense experience, and the problems inherent in Vincent’s own position.
Continued from part 1 « Click here for Angels Depart’s second statement; below is my response— Hello again Angels. I am briefly going to reply to some of your comments, before moving on to establish an argument proper. Since there are a number of issues you addressed in your statement which are incidental to the [...]
Although I do not customarily engage in structured debates online, preferring to write proactively rather than reactively, I do occasionally post polemics, and replies to letters. It seems to me that a debate is only a hair removed from such things, inasmuch as it is effectively a polemic in which the opposing party is given [...]