Neither of those quotes are me agreeing that your errors don’t affect your argument. In fact the whole reason I pointed out your errors is to demonstrate that you have insufficient knowledge to form an argument through hermeneutics.

If someone states that the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, I will point out their error and tell them they are ignorant to physics because they, in fact, are.

I’m not sure how you define ‘predictive power’ in this context, but the knowledge of the textual evidence of the bible gives us a wealth of information applicable to a variety of disciplines. You sound like a positivist. You only value things that can be empirically and materially proven. Positivism is considered outdated for a reason. I would love if I could solve problems wholly empirically and materially, but it’s not possible. I am a postpositivist and holist because they are some of the most pragmatic and useful approaches to solving problems in existence today.

To claim an inability to articulate a position is tantamount to an incorrect position is fallacious.

I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that if you have the correct answer, but you don’t have a valid argument for it, then you don’t have any argument to base your conclusion on. You are relying on either misinformation or emotion, or more likely some combination. Consider these three scenarios:

The sky is blue because I see it -> unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific

The sky is blue because it reflects water -> attempts to be scientific but is wrong

The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering -> correct, scientific explanation

You continually keep trying to appeal to some sort of moral indication that my actions are wrong. Well, here is my moral framework: it is my purpose in life to learn things, and to use that knowledge to correct others.

Neither of those quotes are me agreeing that your errors don’t affect your argument. In fact the whole reason I pointed out your errors is to demonstrate that you have insufficient knowledge to form an argument through hermeneutics.

If someone states that the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, I will point out their error and tell them they are ignorant to physics because they, in fact, are.

I’m not sure how you define ‘predictive power’ in this context, but the knowledge of the textual evidence of the bible gives us a wealth of information applicable to a variety of disciplines. You sound like a positivist. You only value things that can be empirically and materially proven. Positivism is considered outdated for a reason. I would love if I could solve problems wholly empirically and materially, but it’s not possible. I am a postpositivist and holist because they are some of the most pragmatic and useful approaches to solving problems in existence today.

To claim an inability to articulate a position is tantamount to an incorrect position is fallacious.

I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that if you have the correct answer, but you don’t have a valid argument for it, then you don’t have any argument to base your conclusion on. You are relying on either observation, misinformation or emotion, or more likely some combination.

You continually keep trying to appeal to some sort of moral indication that my actions are wrong. Well, here is my moral framework: it is my purpose in life to learn things, and to use that knowledge to correct others.

Neither of those quotes are me agreeing that your errors don’t affect your argument. In fact the whole reason I pointed out your errors is to demonstrate that you have insufficient knowledge to form an argument through hermeneutics.

If someone states that the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, I will point out their error and tell them they are ignorant to physics because they, in fact, are.

I’m not sure how you define ‘predictive power’ in this context, but the knowledge of the textual evidence of the bible gives us a wealth of information applicable to a variety of disciplines. You sound like a positivist. You only value things that can be empirically and materially proven. Positivism is considered outdated for a reason. I would love if I could solve problems wholly empirically and materially, but it’s not possible. I am a postpositivist and holist because they are some of the most pragmatic and useful approaches to solving problems in existence today.

To claim an inability to articulate a position is tantamount to an incorrect position is fallacious.

I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that if you have the correct answer, but you don’t have a valid argument for it, then you don’t have any argument to base your conclusion on. You are relying on either misinformation or emotion, or more likely both. That’s unscientific.

You continually keep trying to appeal to some sort of moral indication that my actions are wrong. Well, here is my moral framework: it is my purpose in life to learn things, and to use that knowledge to correct others.