I have. And see the the second section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman about A common mistake among people identifying Scotsman fallacies
Once again, I wasn't accusing you of this fallacy but was hearing a precursor.
No, that is not my position. My position is that the Bible contains the Word and if you truly seek, you will find it in there. If you are interested in making mischief and proving a point, you will also find it in there.
"The Word...if you truly seek"?? Are you talking about "the word of God"? Your words here are really vague but if this is what you are saying, then can you demonstrate how you know the bible is "the word of God" or even contains "the word of God"? How did you come to this conclusion? In fact, when was the first time you started believing this?
Regarding "making mischief" I often find it as an easy cop-out for nearly every religious person (who believes THEIR religious text is divine) to encourage others to lower their standard of evidence. I'm sorry, I will not play that game. This reference to "making mischief" is absurd b/c it hints at the presumption that your bible is divine (which hasn't been demonstrated). Why should we think this collection of books is (at all) authored by some supernatural being - just b/c it says so, or b/c someone sold you on the idea of fulfilled prophesy? Science makes predictions about the world all the time (and they come true). Should we call those people divine?
That is your opinion with which I disagree. Just because you state that something is illogical and unsound to you does not make it so. For the avoidance of doubt, my view is that I have made a hypothesis that God exists and through continuous revelation, in time, more will be revealed. For now I take it on faith.
Faith is not a pathway to truth. It is unreliable in helping us separate fact from fiction (and no, I do not accept the assertion that faith is "trusting the evidence"). Faith is believing something, as you are now, when you don't have a good reason to do so (i.e. just "taking it on faith"). It is trusting IN SPITE of the evidence. Why would you do that? Why would you (by your own words) take a mere hypothesis and base your entire life upon it? It sounds to me like you do not (contrary to your words) have just
a hypothesis. You have a pre-commitment.
Secondly, if I point out something as illogical in your argument (in this case question begging), denying it just displays intellectual dishonesty. You've already admitted that you have a "hypothesis" and that you are "taking it on faith". That very much is assuming your position in advance. A hypothesis is the beginning of inquiry, NOT the end.
Third, avoidance of doubt? Why would you want to avoid doubting? This sounds very much like credulity.
The God that I believe in is unfathomable as it is not in man's gift to comprehend this mystery.
So you believe in some-thing (or whatever) that is "unfathomable" (i.e. - that you can't think about)? It really sounds like you are contradicting yourself here. How can you believe in something for which you have no idea (i.e. - cannot fathom)? If you couldn't fathom it, why believe in it? Indeed, why base your entire life upon it!
The bible quite clearly looks to contradict this. It points to all sorts of things that are, supposedly, "fathomable" about this alleged Yahweh deity.
I take it you don't like that one. I think you may be confusing 2 things. How to pray and the power to work miracles. These are 2 separate things. The fact that the central premise of this discussion considers the 2 as the same is a matter for you. What I want you to see clearly is that prayer and DOING MIRACLES are separate. Can we agree on that before I proceed?
Quoting "the Lord's prayer" isn't relevant to Jesus alleged own words in Mark 16, John 14, and elsewhere. The old comeback, "it wasn't God's will to heal this time" doesn't work because it directly contradicts Jesus' own alleged words. And this brings us to your main problem (which you already admitted, in a round about way, above). You have a precommitment to your "hypothesis". You have STARTED with your conclusion NOT A HYPOTHESIS.
A hypothesis can sometimes be called a working assumption. Is that what you have, an assumption? So you've assumed your interpretation of the bible. You've assumed it has words from God in it, and you've assumed that we should interpret it favorably instead of critically, like we do with all other alleged holy books. Why would you do this?
So you can cherry pick, but I can't? That is absurd.
HA! This is excellent! So you are admitting that you are cherry picking, and then,
trying to accuse me of it too? Even if it were true that I was cherry picking bible verses (which I don't for a second admit), two illogical wrongs don't make a right, do they?
I have pointed out other passages which contradict the passage you are trying to provide. They provide MORE context, not less, and instead of admitting that your "hypothesis" is in error, you are instead trying to turn the tables? That sounds like confirmation bias. It doesn't really seem that you are being critical enough of this hypothesis (i.e. - you committed yourself to your conclusion in advance). Would you practice this same methodology (i.e. - assuming your hypothesis is true) with other holy books?
The problem I find with this line of thinking is that you seem to think that a miracle belongs in a special category such as healing amputees. I have a much wider domain of miracles. e.g. The fact that I am awake today and typing this message is a miracle. If you limit your thinking to define a miracle as narrowly as those you are trying so hard to enlighten, then you are in danger of ending up with a closed mind. I am here because I have faith that you are all open minded - right?
Regarding miracles, Jesus seems to have put them a "special category" too. He said (supposedly) that if the pharisees didn't believe him they should believe "the works" he allegedly did. Were those works just breathing, eating food, drinking water, or being alive? No, his writers were pointing to alleged violations of the laws of physics. Your method for distinguishing a miracle from a rare event, a natural event, or something common is quite indistinguishable from having NO miracles at all. By your definition, there is no reason to have science b/c every occurrence in the natural world could be called "a miracle", at which case the word has no meaning whatsoever. If you're going to call nature a miracle, why not just call it nature? That word simply has way too much baggage attached to it which opens the door for all types of quackery, trickery, and absurdity.
Secondly, an open mind is one that is not practicing confirmation bias or assuming ones "hypothesis" in advance (and then trying to defend it in the face of contrary evidence). Someone with an open mind is, generally, not fixed
to a "faith" or a presumed conclusion. In my life, I have demonstrated at least twice that I have an open mind (b/c I allowed my worldview to change with the evidence at least twice), have you?
And as to 'Faith in error' ? That is another absurdity. Faith by definition is subjective. It can therefore not be in error. It is your opinion vs mine. So can we drop that as that is an intellectual blind alley?
No, we can't. Whether or not faith is practiced in a subjective manner is irrelevant to the question of discovering it's error. If you'd like to debate the definition of what faith is, that is another matter. But I hold that faith is believing something when you don't have good reason to do so, b/c if you had good reason you wouldn't need faith (as you alluded to above - basing your entire life on an alleged hypothesis), and that is
in fact possible to demonstrate.