The Holy Spirit is Valid Evidence For Scripture

Slainte easily won this.

Thank you for that comment. I think it is important for debaters who have been ghosted, get an opportunity to opine on the arguments. How do we learn otherwise? I dont want everyone to agree. I want them to disagree with thought, and substance. Judges can play a great role in that, I think. That is how we become enlightened.

Impressions:

Slainte asked for opinions on their argument, so here goes. I think the circular reasoning argument was decent enough, especially since it went unchallenged. The only issue, and this might be unfair, because PRO never brought it up, is that PRO might've interpreted the resolution differently—that any instances of the Holy Spirit would serve as valid evidence if they occurred. There would be more work needed to get around CON's circular reasoning point, but CON had an opportunity to make their argument stronger by pointing out that non-empirical evidence is not always trustworthy and that human emotions are not the same as facts. PRO might've been planning to argue that there are certain instances of the Holy Spirit (arguing for evidence of miracles, for example) but it's hard for CON to argue against that until PRO gives examples.

It's hard to judge the strength of arguments when CON is not forced to defend them, but they were good enough to get the job done.

Neither, I am arguing that the special revelation given by the Holy Spirit is a valid form of evidence to corroborate the veracity of Holy Scripture. This argument in itself does not require the belief in the existence of God necessarily but rather an open mind to the possibility of His existence. It is a philosophical and scientific argument.

Are we trying to prove that there is a holy spirit, or are we assuming there just is?

Very good questions. It seems someone has accepted the debate already though. I an attempt to answer you however.

Evidence is never understood in a vacuum but rather in the context of a number of corroborative or contradictory evidences. So in terms of the "nature" of said evidence I am referring to, I suppose it would be in the definition domain to describe it as: that which may be known through man's God given faculties of reason based upon a greater context of knowledge and operational methods of discovery and validation. So in that domain, special revelation could be a valid form of evidence.

Yes, you are right. The type of evidence I speak of, in terms of revelation given by God's Holy Spirit, is only sufficient to convince a single person at a time, but if valid, may be sought after by anyone willing to search for it in honesty.

I'm thinking about accepting the challenge, but I first wanted to clarify some details.
" the Holy Spirit of God can provide this corroborated evidence sufficient to make a valid claim of truth."
When you said this, what is the nature of the evidence to which you are referring?
Also, are you saying that this evidence, when presented to others, is sufficient to make a valid claim of truth to them, or are you saying that this evidence is only sufficient to convince a single person, namely the person that the Holy Spirit presents the evidence to, of the truth of a claim? For example, Paul was convinced and His life was altered when God spoke to Him and made him blind in the desert. However, this evidence that Paul experienced could not then be used to make a valid claim of truth to others.