SkepticalOne

Since my intention here is not to persuade through exhaustive rational arguments in this specific forum post, yes I have intentionally avoided going down that rabbit hole. That may seem absurd to you, but here we are.

We all have to appeal to some degree of circular reasoning eventually because we all have a final authority. It seems that personal reasoning based on available evidence is yours ("A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid."). So you may have good reason to trust your reason based on evidence or experience. But you must ultimately appeal to your reason to justify your reason:

Now even if you disagree about that conclusion, perhaps it should be asked: what is wrong with circular reasoning?

I'll just make my point so it doesn't seem tangential. Circular reasoning is not necessarily invalid if the reasoning is based on a valid premise:

If the Bible is true, then circular reasoning based on the Bible claiming it is true is not fallacious - though it may not be particularly persuasive to someone else.

But if we use that analogy, you would be the judge and the jury in that you determine the parameters for presenting evidence and declare the verdict. You are the final authority.

My final authority is the Bible. My definition of a justified claim (also provisional) would be "that which the Bible affirms is true, and that which the Bible rejects is false." For example, the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth." Any truth claim that does not affirm that God created the heavens and the earth is then false.

1. If you want to persuade others, then you'll necessarily need to convince them. You alone being convinced isn't sufficient reason for others to be convinced. 
   
2.  I'm actually curious how you define 'justified claim' now, since you seem to think my standards are subjective and unreasonable.  This is my (provisional) definition - A justifiable truth-claim should account for all available evidence and be logically valid. 
   

Have I provided a rational argument trying to prove the existence of God or to establish the credibility of the Bible here? No, so you have not missed it.

What is a justified answer? And who or what decides if it is justified?

You think my answers are unjustified. I think they are justified. So who determines what is considered a justified answer? And by what standard?

Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation

In my defense, I wasn't asking anyone to refute it. I simply stated something in an open forum and people can comment how they choose. If Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is objectively true, it doesn't matter whether I present a convincing argument. Nor does it matter whether you accept it. It is either true or it is false.

Clearly you meant something different, and now you have clarified that.

We don't have to talk about epistemology. But since your answers have fit your username fairly well. It seemed appropriate to ask how you can be so confident that other people are wrong when you don't seem to have a lot of answers yourself.

• No one has convinced you personally that they know what happens after death.
  
• Therefore, no one knows what happens after death.
  

Is that an accurate summary?

How do you know that no one else knows?

So, is that only your specific god or just any god in general? ...and how do you know god is not a meaning you've manufactured?

Because of the contradictory nature of different gods there can only be one true and living God.

The Judeo-Christian God is the only God I defend against attack, not that He needs defending, but because the message is worth telling and gives meaning to the lives of those who will believe because of the message/His revelation. 

Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

So, a good move in chess (according to rules we made up) doesn't make sense? I think the problem is [a] you have a particular answer in your head, and if someone doesn't agree then they must be wrong.

The game was designed with specific rules [...]

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

If you're trying to equate "God" to "true north" you're undermining your argument while fortifying mine. True north is a point on Earth we decided was important. 

I like the analogies. I am establishing that there are objective references we can know. Magnetic north has to be based on true north, and true north is a specific location. You can't have a true North unless there is such a place, just like you can't have a city called London, England located in Sidney, Australia. If you flew from New York to London you would not land up in Sidney.  

I supplied a plain reading of the text which has the god of the Bible condoning humans owning humans in perpetuity. We can either accept the words of the Bible OR human interpretations of the "Word of God". 

I explained to you that God never condoned the type of slavery practiced in Egypt. The text you supplied has to be understood in relationship to what it meant in the ANE AND IN CONTEXT to Old Covenant Israel.

But, perhaps I simply wanted people to read Paul's message in his own words, and then make a decision as to whether they believed it was true or not. You answered quite in line with your username: "I'm not inclined to think Paul's message is true. I see no reason to think Paul was talking about real things." I would have rather seen a different answer since eternal destinies are at stake.

This site has both a debate section and a forum section.

So my simple question: Is Paul's message true?

In my defense, I wasn't asking anyone to refute it

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

2. You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:

• If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.
  

Nope, you are suggesting the biblical God condones slavery. That is not the case, and I spent a great deal of time and effort to establish that with references to biblical text. I also showed how God used a nation to bring judgment on another for the evil done. 

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.

You must believe in God before meaning makes sense.

Is your life meaningful?

I'll answer in the generic "you."

Yes. The reason, because you are created in the image and likeness of God. You seek and look for meaning.  Whether you find Him is a different matter. 

Now, suppose you believe there was no God. Meaning would be something you manufactured that in the long run means nothing. There would be no meaning to our lives once we were dead. You are born, live and die, then nothing matters anymore.  But why are you so bent on finding meaning while you live if you believe God does not exist? Is it just to make you feel happy and worthwhile but in effect you are fooling yourself? Your life in of no more significance than a fly on dung, and in a short period of time you will be forgotten. You are also living inconsistently in a meaningless universe, one that has no meaning to or in it in seeking. 

Case in point: You encounter a pool at the base of a 100-foot cliff. Oh, look, that would be a kick to jump into. Think it might be wise to confirm, at least, that it's deeper than two feet? Hell, no! let's go.  Well, I say, go ahead; you first.

You're talking in circles. Who says a neighborhood murderer intends to kill me? 

On the other hand, who says gender does not have the intent of procreation.

You have a hard time convincing me that intender doesn't, and all I need to to prove it to myself.

As I said; gender has purpose

This is not a given. 

Oh, is it not? Tell me, how many women of history have inserted the ova into a man?

How often is it generally known that a killer resides in the neighborhood?

Anyway I will let yall continue to have at it, just wanted to put in my two cents that the CORE disagreement is rarely reached in these convos 

Should men be forced to forfeit tissue, blood, organs, etc during pregnancy? 

Don't be absurd. Men are not biologically structured for that.

As I said; gender has purpose

Your analogy does not apply because, whether a person can be murdered, or not, [or raped] there must be knowledge of the possibility

It's just a fundamental disagreement on what qualifies as human life so unless the argument is about only that, it's all just arguments that are going to go around forever with no resolution. I haven't ever seen a productive discussion on the actual disagreement, it's just too touchy...but hopefully this helps people understand where the other side is coming from a little

if you imply that the fetus is usurping the mother's right, I'll argue that the mother has given implied consent simply b y virtue of her choice to have sex

No, someone external to the body of another cannot usurp the use of the first person's body.

Let me ask you, can someone use the body of another without consent? If not, then it doesn't matter if the person is 80 years or 8 seconds old - the answer is still the same: no.

Which post of mine? I just did a command-f search for "internal user" in this entire string. Doesn't exist at all until your post #43,  so, you tell me.

It is convoluted logic. Legally, it seems to be sound, but only because a person is not a person until born alive, according to 1 US Code, §8, specifically, and the Roe v. Wade decision by unwritten interpretation. But, what of the also legal Victims of Unborn Violence Act?

It is the doctrine of the the Church of Jesis Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member, and as taught in the scriptures, but not just the Holy Bible, but also the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the pearl of Great Price.

three separate individual gods

Not the Christian Lord.  What he said and did were two different things. Anyone can profess Jesus Christ as Lord. By reading his literature, it is obvious he did not follow the Christ of Scripture but his own made-up version that could justify him dehumanizing, discriminating against, and killing millions of people.

Hitler was a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using?

a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.