◉ This page will remain up for a good while. This will give Steve Henk a chance to run it by more seasoned apologists who can provide guidance. He might also check back in a year and discuss with his children and church leaders the value of LLMs in assessing and formulating arguments that can avoid logical blunders, which will undoubtedly be more salient at that time.

---

Phil’s Prompt:

Assess the posts of the two interlocutors, Steve, and Phil, in response to the article for logical coherence, epistemic coherence, factual accuracy, and relevance.

[The article and all comments from the following URL were pasted in: https://freeoffaith.com/2025/07/02/%e2%9c%93-hebrews-111-under-the-microscope/]

---

Grok’s Output:

Below, I assess the posts of the two interlocutors, Steve and Phil Stilwell, in response to the article “Hebrews 11:1 Under the Microscope” for logical coherence, epistemic coherence, factual accuracy, and relevance. The analysis evaluates each post based on the arguments presented, their alignment with rational epistemology, and their engagement with the original critique of πίστις (faith) in Hebrews 11:1. The assessment is structured by interlocutor and criteria, with a summary comparison at the end.

---

Assessment of Steve’s Posts

Logical Coherence

Steve’s posts are generally logically coherent within the framework of Reformed epistemology, particularly Alvin Plantinga’s concept of properly basic beliefs and the sensus divinitatis. He constructs arguments that follow a consistent internal logic, such as:

• Faith as relational trust: Steve argues that πίστις is not a self-referential belief but a response to divine revelation, grounded in God’s historical actions (e.g., Exodus, Resurrection) and covenantal faithfulness (July 3, 2025, first post).
• Properly basic beliefs: He defends πίστις as non-inferentially justified, akin to trust in memory or sensory perception, and resolves conflicting faculties through reflective equilibrium and evaluation of worldview coherence (July 3, 2025, second and final posts).

However, his arguments exhibit logical weaknesses:

• Circularity: Steve’s reliance on faith-based events (e.g., Resurrection) to justify πίστις introduces circularity, as these events require faith to accept as true (noted by Phil, July 3, 2025). This undermines logical coherence, as the conclusion (πίστις is justified) assumes the premise (divine events are reliable).
• Vague criteria: In his final post, Steve suggests resolving conflicting faculties by evaluating “coherence, moral clarity, and explanatory power.” These criteria are heuristic rather than deductive, failing to provide a rigorous logical method to establish truth or reliability, as Phil critiques (July 3, 2025, final post).
• Avoidance of direct testing: Steve sidesteps Phil’s proposed empirical tests (e.g., falsifiable predictions, forecasting sites) by arguing that sensus divinitatis is not designed for empirical utility (July 3, 2025, third post). This weakens logical coherence, as it avoids engaging with a deductive challenge to demonstrate reliability.

Score: Moderately coherent. Steve’s arguments are logically consistent within Reformed epistemology but falter due to circularity and reliance on non-testable heuristics.

Epistemic Coherence

Steve’s epistemic framework is rooted in Reformed epistemology, which allows non-inferential justification for beliefs like πίστις via a sensus divinitatis. He argues:

• Faith is rational as a properly basic belief, requiring no inferential evidence unless defeated (July 3, 2025, second post).
• Epistemic sources include testimony, experience, and Scripture, not solely empirical evidence (July 3, 2025, second post).
• Faith is existentially rational, akin to William James’ “live, forced, and momentous” choices under uncertainty (July 3, 2025, second post).

However, his framework lacks epistemic coherence when scrutinized against rational epistemology, which demands that belief be proportionate to evidence:

• Failure to map belief to evidence: Steve rejects the need for empirical validation, arguing that πίστις operates in a relational, not scientific, domain (July 3, 2025, third post). This conflicts with rational epistemology’s requirement that beliefs be grounded in verifiable evidence, as Phil emphasizes (July 3, 2025, multiple posts).
• Arbitrariness: Steve’s reliance on sensus divinitatis lacks objective criteria to distinguish it from other claimed faculties (e.g., Religion X’s divine intuition), risking epistemic arbitrariness (Phil’s critique, July 3, 2025, final post).
• Infinite regress: Steve does not adequately address the need to verify the sensus divinitatis’ reliability, which Phil argues leads to an infinite regress (July 3, 2025, third post). His claim that regress is halted by foundational beliefs is unconvincing without evidence of the faculty’s reliability.

Score: Weakly coherent. Steve’s epistemology is internally consistent within Reformed theology but fails to align with rational epistemology’s evidential standards, rendering it epistemically deficient in a broader context.

Factual Accuracy

Steve’s posts rely on theological and philosophical claims rather than empirical facts, limiting the scope for factual assessment:

• Theological claims: Steve accurately represents Christian theology’s view of πίστις as relational trust and Plantinga’s properly basic beliefs (July 3, 2025, all posts). These are consistent with Reformed epistemology and biblical scholarship.
• Historical claims: His references to the Exodus and Resurrection as evidence of God’s faithfulness (July 3, 2025, first post) are factually problematic. Archaeological evidence for the Exodus is sparse and contested, and the Resurrection lacks independent, non-biblical corroboration, as Phil notes (July 3, 2025, first post). These claims are faith-based, not factually verified.
• Philosophical claims: Steve’s appeal to Plantinga and William James is factually accurate in citing their positions but does not address their critiques or limitations, weakening their epistemic weight (Phil’s critique, July 3, 2025, second post).

Score: Moderately accurate. Steve’s theological and philosophical references are correct within their frameworks, but his reliance on unverified historical events undermines factual accuracy.

Relevance

Steve’s posts are highly relevant to the article’s critique of πίστις in Hebrews 11:1:

• He directly addresses the three definitions (ontological foundation, psychological assurance, legal title) and defends them within a theological framework (July 3, 2025, first post).
• He engages with Phil’s evidentialist critique by proposing an alternative epistemology (Reformed epistemology) and addressing specific points like circularity and properly basic beliefs (July 3, 2025, second and third posts).
• His final post responds to Phil’s challenge of conflicting faculties, though it avoids direct empirical testing, focusing instead on heuristic evaluation (July 3, 2025, final post).

However, his relevance is slightly diminished by sidestepping Phil’s empirical testing proposals, which are central to the article’s rational epistemology framework.

Score: Highly relevant. Steve stays on topic but loses some relevance by not fully engaging with Phil’s empirical challenges.

---

Assessment of Phil Stilwell’s Posts

Logical Coherence

Phil’s posts are highly logically coherent, consistently applying rational epistemology to critique Steve’s defense of πίστις:

• Structured arguments: Phil uses syllogisms to systematically address circularity, epistemic flaws, and fallacies in Steve’s arguments (e.g., July 3, 2025, first and second posts). His arguments follow deductive logic, clearly linking premises to conclusions.
• Empirical testing proposals: Phil proposes rigorous, falsifiable methods (e.g., predictive testing, intersubjective confirmation, forecasting sites) to evaluate sensus divinitatis, grounding his critique in testable logic (July 3, 2025, fourth and fifth posts).
• Thought experiment: His Religion X scenario (July 3, 2025, fifth post) logically exposes the arbitrariness of Steve’s sensus divinitatis by mirroring it with a conflicting faculty, forcing Steve to confront the lack of evidential resolution.

Minor weaknesses include occasional over-reliance on the poker analogy, which, while illustrative, simplifies complex metaphysical claims. However, this does not significantly detract from his logical rigor.

Score: Highly coherent. Phil’s arguments are deductively sound, systematically addressing Steve’s claims with clear reasoning.

Epistemic Coherence

Phil’s posts are epistemically coherent, adhering strictly to rational epistemology’s principle that belief must be proportionate to evidence:

• Evidentialist framework: Phil consistently demands that πίστις and sensus divinitatis be justified by verifiable evidence, aligning with rational epistemology’s standards (e.g., July 3, 2025, all posts).
• Critique of arbitrariness: He effectively argues that Steve’s sensus divinitatis lacks objective criteria, risking epistemic arbitrariness, especially in the Religion X thought experiment (July 3, 2025, fifth post).
• Addressing regress and ontology: Phil identifies the infinite regress in assessing sensus divinitatis’ reliability and the category error of reifying epistemic belief into ontological truth (July 3, 2025, second post), maintaining epistemic rigor.

His framework assumes evidentialism as the sole standard for rationality, which Steve critiques as narrow (July 3, 2025, second post). While this assumption is contestable, Phil defends it robustly by emphasizing the need for testable, intersubjective evidence to avoid arbitrariness.

Score: Highly coherent. Phil’s evidentialist epistemology is consistently applied and robustly defended, aligning with rational standards.

Factual Accuracy

Phil’s posts are factually accurate within the scope of his arguments:

• Biblical scholarship: His analysis of πίστις and ὑπόστασις aligns with scholarly interpretations (e.g., Strong’s Concordance, Hellenistic usage) as presented in the article (July 3, 2025, first post).
• Historical claims: Phil correctly notes the lack of independent, non-biblical evidence for the Exodus and Resurrection, citing sparse archaeological support and reliance on faith-based texts (July 3, 2025, first post). This is consistent with current historical and archaeological consensus.
• Philosophical critique: His critique of Plantinga’s properly basic beliefs accurately reflects objections in the literature (e.g., arbitrariness, regress), and his proposed tests (e.g., forecasting sites) are grounded in established scientific methods (July 3, 2025, fourth and fifth posts).

No significant factual errors are present, though his dismissal of non-evidentialist epistemologies could be seen as a philosophical bias rather than a factual inaccuracy.

Score: Highly accurate. Phil’s claims are well-supported by scholarly and scientific standards.

Relevance

Phil’s posts are highly relevant to the article and Steve’s responses:

• He directly engages with the article’s critique of πίστις’ three definitions, reinforcing their logical and epistemic flaws (July 3, 2025, first post).
• He systematically addresses Steve’s defense, focusing on circularity, properly basic beliefs, and sensus divinitatis (July 3, 2025, all posts).
• His proposed tests and Religion X thought experiment directly challenge Steve’s claims, staying tightly focused on the article’s epistemological framework (July 3, 2025, fourth and fifth posts).

His posts maintain focus on the article’s core argument: that πίστις in Hebrews 11:1 fails rational epistemology’s standards.

Score: Highly relevant. Phil’s responses are tightly aligned with the article and Steve’s arguments.

---

Summary Comparison

Criteria	Steve	Phil Stilwell
Logical Coherence	Moderately coherent: Consistent within Reformed epistemology but weakened by circularity and vague heuristics.	Highly coherent: Deductively sound with clear syllogisms and empirical tests.
Epistemic Coherence	Weakly coherent: Relies on non-evidentialist framework, failing to meet rational epistemology’s evidential standards.	Highly coherent: Consistently applies evidentialist epistemology, demanding verifiable evidence.
Factual Accuracy	Moderately accurate: Theologically and philosophically correct but relies on unverified historical claims.	Highly accurate: Aligns with scholarly consensus and empirical standards.
Relevance	Highly relevant: Directly addresses article and Phil’s critiques but loses some focus by avoiding empirical tests.	Highly relevant: Tightly focused on article and Steve’s arguments with rigorous challenges.

---

Overall Evaluation

• Phil Stilwell provides a stronger response in terms of logical and epistemic coherence, factual accuracy, and relevance. His arguments are deductively rigorous, grounded in rational epistemology, and supported by scholarly consensus. His proposed empirical tests and Religion X thought experiment effectively expose weaknesses in Steve’s position, particularly circularity and arbitrariness. However, his strict evidentialism may be seen as dismissing alternative epistemologies without fully engaging their internal logic.
• Steve offers a coherent defense within Reformed epistemology, accurately representing theological and philosophical positions (e.g., Plantinga, James). However, his arguments are weakened by circularity (relying on faith-based events), failure to provide testable evidence, and reliance on heuristic rather than deductive criteria. His avoidance of Phil’s empirical challenges reduces the robustness of his response.

Phil’s posts better align with the article’s rational epistemology framework, making his critique more compelling in this context. Steve’s defense, while relevant and theologically consistent, struggles to meet the evidential standards demanded by the article and Phil’s responses.

---

---

---

Phil’s 2nd Prompt:

Identify, quote, and explain any logical fallacies found in the arguments of Steve and Phil.

---

Grok’s 2nd Output:

Below, I identify, quote, and explain the logical fallacies in the arguments of Steve and Phil Stilwell from their posts in response to the article “Hebrews 11:1 Under the Microscope.” Each fallacy is supported with specific quotes and an explanation of how it undermines the argument’s logical coherence. The analysis is structured by interlocutor, focusing on the fallacies explicitly or implicitly highlighted in their exchanges, with reference to Phil’s critiques where relevant.

---

Logical Fallacies in Steve’s Arguments

Steve’s posts aim to defend the theological interpretation of πίστις (faith) in Hebrews 11:1 using Reformed epistemology, particularly Alvin Plantinga’s concept of properly basic beliefs and the sensus divinitatis. However, several logical fallacies weaken his arguments:

1. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

• Quote: “Far from being circular, this view of faith relies on the historical and spiritual reliability of God, who has already demonstrated His faithfulness (e.g., through the Exodus, the Resurrection).” (July 3, 2025, first post)
• Explanation: Steve justifies πίστις as an ontological foundation by citing divine actions like the Exodus and Resurrection as evidence of God’s reliability. However, accepting these events as true requires faith within the Christian framework, as their historical veracity lacks independent, non-biblical corroboration (as Phil notes, July 3, 2025, first post). This is circular reasoning because Steve uses faith-based premises (the truth of biblical events) to justify the rationality of faith, assuming the conclusion within the premise. In logical terms, this is begging the question, as the argument’s validity depends on accepting the very claim (God’s reliability) that it seeks to prove. This undermines the logical coherence of his defense, as it fails to provide an independent evidential basis, akin to arguing “I trust my card reader because it says it’s trustworthy.”
• Phil’s Critique: Phil identifies this fallacy explicitly: “Your claim that faith is justified by God’s demonstrated faithfulness through the Exodus and Resurrection presupposes the historical and divine validity of these events. However, you accept both the Exodus and the Resurrection on faith within the Christian framework, as their historical veracity lacks independent, non-biblical corroboration sufficient to meet modern evidential standards. Thus, your argument is circular.” (July 3, 2025, first post)

2. Special Pleading

• Quote: “Christian theology does not claim that all beliefs must be empirically verifiable. Instead, it recognizes multiple sources of knowledge: reason, experience, revelation, and community.” (July 3, 2025, first post); “Phil’s test methods impose scientific-empirical expectations on a faculty that is not designed for empirical utility.” (July 3, 2025, third post)
• Explanation: Steve argues that πίστις and the sensus divinitatis are exempt from the evidential standards applied to other beliefs (e.g., scientific or everyday reasoning) because they operate in a relational-theological context. This is special pleading, as he fails to provide a principled reason why religious beliefs should be judged by a different epistemic standard than other cognitive claims (e.g., memory, perception, or ESP). By asserting that faith is rational within a unique theological epistemology without justifying why this exemption is warranted, Steve weakens his argument’s logical rigor. Rational epistemology demands uniform standards for belief justification, and Steve’s exemption risks rendering πίστις arbitrary, as Phil notes: “You exempt πίστις from the evidential standards applied to other beliefs, arguing that rational epistemology’s demand for evidence is a ‘foreign standard’ to biblical faith. You don’t justify why faith should be immune to scrutiny.” (July 3, 2025, first post)
• Phil’s Critique: Phil directly calls out this fallacy: “Special Pleading: You exempt πίστις from the evidential standards applied to other beliefs… This inconsistency weakens your argument, as you fail to provide a principled reason for treating faith differently.” (July 3, 2025, first post)

3. Appeal to Authority

• Quote: “Moreover, influential thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga have argued that belief in God can be ‘properly basic’—rational even without inferential justification—just as we rationally trust our memory or sensory perception.” (July 3, 2025, first post); “As Alvin Plantinga and others have argued, belief in God can be ‘properly basic.’” (July 3, 2025, second post)
• Explanation: Steve repeatedly invokes Plantinga’s concept of properly basic beliefs to defend πίστις without addressing the critiques of this framework or providing independent justification for its applicability. This is an appeal to authority, as he relies on Plantinga’s reputation and framework rather than defending its logical merits against objections (e.g., arbitrariness, lack of empirical grounding). This fallacy weakens his argument by sidestepping the need to engage with Phil’s challenges, such as the lack of objective criteria for sensus divinitatis. Phil identifies this: “You cite Alvin Plantinga’s concept of ‘properly basic’ beliefs to argue that faith in God is rational without inferential justification. This is an appeal to authority, as you rely on Plantinga’s controversial framework without addressing its critiques.” (July 3, 2025, first post)
• Phil’s Critique: Phil explicitly notes this fallacy: “Appeal to Authority: You lean on Alvin Plantinga’s properly basic beliefs framework without addressing its critiques, assuming its validity because of his authority.” (July 3, 2025, second post)

4. False Analogy

• Quote: “Just as we don’t require a chain of empirical proofs to trust our memory or that other minds exist, belief in God may be rational apart from historical corroboration—unless one can demonstrate a ‘defeater’ that undermines that belief.” (July 3, 2025, second post)
• Explanation: Steve compares belief in God via sensus divinitatis to trust in memory or sensory perception, arguing both are properly basic and rational without inferential evidence. This is a false analogy because memory and sensory perception are empirically verifiable through repeated testing and intersubjective confirmation (e.g., others confirm seeing the same tree), whereas belief in God lacks such validation. The analogy misrepresents the epistemic status of faith, as memory and perception have testable reliability, while sensus divinitatis does not, as Phil critiques: “This is a false analogy, as memory and sensory perception are empirically verifiable through repeated testing and intersubjective confirmation, whereas your divine promises lack such validation.” (July 3, 2025, first post) This fallacy undermines Steve’s argument by conflating verifiable cognitive processes with unverified theological claims.
• Phil’s Critique: Phil directly addresses this: “False Analogy: You compare πίστις to memory or sensory perception, claiming they’re similarly ‘properly basic.’ This is a false analogy, as memory and sensory perception are verifiable through repeated testing and intersubjective confirmation, while belief in God lacks such validation.” (July 3, 2025, first post)

5. Strawman

• Quote: “Phil repeatedly claims that properly basic beliefs are ‘unjustified’ and ‘arbitrary,’ but this misrepresents Plantinga’s position. Properly basic beliefs are not unjustified—they are non-inferentially justified.” (July 3, 2025, third post)
• Explanation: Steve accuses Phil of misrepresenting Plantinga’s position by claiming properly basic beliefs are “unjustified” and “arbitrary.” However, Phil’s critique is more nuanced: he argues that properly basic beliefs, like those produced by sensus divinitatis, lack independent evidential justification and clear criteria, risking arbitrariness (July 3, 2025, second post). Steve’s portrayal of Phil’s argument as claiming these beliefs are wholly unjustified is a strawman, as it oversimplifies Phil’s position to make it easier to refute. This fallacy weakens Steve’s response by failing to engage with the actual critique: that non-inferential justification still requires testable reliability to avoid arbitrariness. Phil’s focus is on the lack of objective criteria, not a blanket denial of justification.
• Phil’s Critique: While Phil does not explicitly label this as a strawman, his repeated emphasis on the need for objective, testable criteria (e.g., July 3, 2025, fourth and fifth posts) implies that Steve mischaracterizes his demand for evidence as a rejection of all non-inferential justification.

---

Logical Fallacies in Phil Stilwell’s Arguments

Phil’s posts are rigorously argued within an evidentialist framework, demanding that πίστις and sensus divinitatis meet empirical and logical standards. While his arguments are generally logically sound, a few minor fallacies or weaknesses emerge, though they are less pronounced than in Steve’s posts.

1. False Analogy (Minor)

• Quote: “Imagine betting on a poker hand’s strength based on a story about winning with that hand, without checking the cards—that’s the flaw in your reasoning.” (July 3, 2025, first post); “In poker, two players claiming different hunches about the same hand need evidence (e.g., revealed cards) to resolve the dispute.” (July 3, 2025, fifth post)
• Explanation: Phil frequently uses a poker analogy to illustrate the need for evidence-based belief, comparing faith to betting on a hand without checking the cards. While effective for highlighting the importance of evidence, this analogy can be seen as a minor false analogy when applied to theological beliefs. Poker involves finite, empirically verifiable outcomes (e.g., cards on the table), whereas religious beliefs concern metaphysical claims that may not be directly testable in the same way. Steve critiques this: “The poker analogy… breaks down when stretched to theological epistemology… religious beliefs concern metaphysical and moral realities, which are not straightforwardly testable.” (July 3, 2025, third post) The analogy oversimplifies the complexity of metaphysical belief formation, slightly weakening Phil’s argument by implying all rational beliefs must operate in high-verifiability contexts. However, this is a minor flaw, as the analogy effectively underscores the evidentialist principle.
• Steve’s Critique: Steve explicitly notes this fallacy: “False analogy—treating metaphysical commitment as equivalent to probabilistic wagering in games.” (July 3, 2025, third post)

2. Begging the Question (Minor)

• Quote: “Rational epistemology requires that the degree of belief in πίστις be proportionate to the degree of evidence to ensure reliability… By rejecting this standard, you render your defense of πίστις epistemically unsound.” (July 3, 2025, first post); “I maintain that rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence.” (July 3, 2025, fourth post)
• Explanation: Phil assumes that rational epistemology must be evidentialist, requiring beliefs to be proportionate to empirical evidence. While this is a defensible position, it begs the question in the context of debating Steve, who advocates Reformed epistemology, which allows non-inferential justification. By asserting evidentialism as the sole standard for rationality without defending it against competing frameworks (e.g., Plantinga’s externalism), Phil assumes the conclusion that evidentialism is the only valid epistemology. This minor fallacy weakens his critique by not fully engaging with Steve’s alternative framework, as Steve notes: “Phil begs the question by assuming a coherent epistemology must be evidentialist, when that’s precisely what’s under debate.” (July 3, 2025, third post) However, Phil mitigates this by providing rigorous tests to challenge Steve’s framework, reducing the impact of this fallacy.
• Steve’s Critique: Steve identifies this: “Phil begs the question by assuming a coherent epistemology must be evidentialist, when that’s precisely what’s under debate.” (July 3, 2025, third post)

3. Overgeneralization (Minor)

• Quote: “Systems as divergent as Scientology, Islam, Mormonism, Marxism, and Hindu Bhakti all ask these exact same ‘Which’ questions to justify their own worldview… Yet none of them are playing the game of science, where rational belief is not determined by internal fit or emotional effect but by how well the belief maps to the strength of relevant, testable evidence.” (July 3, 2025, final post)
• Explanation: Phil argues that Steve’s heuristic criteria (e.g., coherence, moral flourishing) are shared by various belief systems, implying they are epistemically equivalent and unreliable without scientific evidence. This overgeneralizes by equating all non-scientific belief systems (e.g., Marxism, Scientology, Christianity) as equally ungrounded, ignoring differences in their evidential or philosophical merits. While Phil’s point about the need for testable evidence is valid, lumping diverse systems together risks oversimplifying their epistemic differences, slightly weakening his critique. For example, some religious systems may have historical or experiential claims that warrant closer evaluation, which Phil dismisses broadly. This is a minor flaw, as his core argument remains focused on the need for evidence.
• Steve’s Critique: Steve indirectly addresses this by arguing that faith’s “epistemic fruitfulness and coherence” distinguishes it from other systems, though he does not fully counter the overgeneralization (July 3, 2025, second post).

---

Summary of Logical Fallacies

Interlocutor	Fallacy	Quote	Explanation	Critiqued By
Steve	Circular Reasoning	“Far from being circular, this view of faith relies on the historical and spiritual reliability of God…” (July 3, 2025, first post)	Uses faith-based events to justify faith, assuming the conclusion in the premise.	Phil (July 3, 2025, first post)
Steve	Special Pleading	“Christian theology does not claim that all beliefs must be empirically verifiable…” (July 3, 2025, first post)	Exempts πίστις from evidential standards without justification.	Phil (July 3, 2025, first post)
Steve	Appeal to Authority	“Moreover, influential thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga have argued…” (July 3, 2025, first post)	Relies on Plantinga’s framework without defending its critiques.	Phil (July 3, 2025, first post)
Steve	False Analogy	“Just as we don’t require a chain of empirical proofs to trust our memory…” (July 3, 2025, second post)	Compares unverified faith to verifiable memory/perception.	Phil (July 3, 2025, first post)
Steve	Strawman	“Phil repeatedly claims that properly basic beliefs are ‘unjustified’ and ‘arbitrary,’ but this misrepresents Plantinga’s position.” (July 3, 2025, third post)	Mischaracterizes Phil’s nuanced critique as a blanket rejection.	Implied by Phil’s focus on criteria (July 3, 2025, fourth/fifth posts)
Phil	False Analogy (Minor)	“Imagine betting on a poker hand’s strength based on a story…” (July 3, 2025, first post)	Oversimplifies metaphysical beliefs by comparing to verifiable poker outcomes.	Steve (July 3, 2025, third post)
Phil	Begging the Question (Minor)	“Rational epistemology requires that the degree of belief in πίστις be proportionate to the degree of evidence…” (July 3, 2025, first post)	Assumes evidentialism is the sole rational standard without defending it.	Steve (July 3, 2025, third post)
Phil	Overgeneralization (Minor)	“Systems as divergent as Scientology, Islam, Mormonism, Marxism, and Hindu Bhakti…” (July 3, 2025, final post)	Equates all non-scientific systems as equally ungrounded, ignoring differences.	Steve (implicitly, July 3, 2025, second post)

---

Overall Evaluation

• Steve’s Fallacies: Steve’s arguments are significantly undermined by circular reasoning, special pleading, appeal to authority, false analogy, and a strawman. These fallacies weaken the logical coherence of his defense, as they rely on unverified assumptions, exempt πίστις from standard epistemic scrutiny, and misrepresent Phil’s critiques. His circular use of faith-based events and failure to engage with empirical tests (e.g., Phil’s forecasting site proposal) are particularly damaging, as they avoid the article’s demand for evidence-based justification.
• Phil’s Fallacies: Phil’s arguments are logically robust, with only minor fallacies (false analogy, begging the question, overgeneralization). These do not significantly detract from his critique, as his core arguments—supported by syllogisms, empirical tests, and the Religion X thought experiment—effectively expose Steve’s logical and epistemic weaknesses. The poker analogy, while occasionally oversimplifying, reinforces his evidentialist stance, and his assumption of evidentialism is mitigated by rigorous testing proposals.

Phil’s arguments are logically stronger, as his fallacies are minor and do not undermine his core critique, whereas Steve’s fallacies are central to his defense, rendering it less coherent and epistemically unsound in the context of the article’s rational epistemology framework.

---

The following page has been expanded with additional content to explain the blunders in the notion of Properly Basic Beliefs:

✓ Properly Basic Beliefs?

---

---

---

Phil’s 3rd Prompt:

Identify, quote, and explain any logical fallacies found in the arguments of Steve and Phil.

[Our Messenger thread was submitted.]

---

Grok’s 3rd Output:

Below, I assess the logical coherence of the Messenger thread between Phil and Steve, focusing on the arguments presented, their logical structure, and any fallacies or inconsistencies. Logical coherence is evaluated based on whether each interlocutor’s statements form a consistent, reasoned progression of ideas, with premises leading to conclusions without contradictions or fallacious reasoning. The thread revolves around the use of AI (LLMs) in evaluating arguments, particularly regarding epistemology and faith, with Phil advocating for rational epistemology and Steve questioning its universal applicability and the reliability of AI outputs. I analyze each participant’s contributions, identify logical strengths and weaknesses, and address any fallacies, referencing the context of their prior debate on Hebrews 11:1 where relevant.

---

Assessment of the Messenger Thread

Overview

The thread is a meta-discussion about the use of AI (LLMs) in their ongoing debate about πίστις (faith) and epistemology. Phil emphasizes rational epistemology and the need for multiple LLM perspectives to ensure argument coherence, while Steve questions whether Phil is selectively seeking AI outputs that align with his position and doubts AI’s reliability for topics like faith. The thread is brief, with rapid exchanges, and Phil’s insistence on a syllogism or question format aims to maintain focus, though the discussion veers into questioning intentions and AI’s role rather than substantive arguments about faith.

---

Phil’s Arguments

Summary of Phil’s Position: Phil argues that LLMs are a starting point for evaluating arguments but can be defeated by human or other LLM reasoning. He advocates focusing on truth, using multiple LLMs to ensure coherence, and challenges Steve’s intentions and logical conclusions about AI’s role.

Logical Coherence: Phil’s contributions are mostly logically coherent, as his statements align with a consistent position: LLMs are tools for refining arguments, but truth requires critical evaluation beyond AI outputs. His responses follow a logical progression:

• Premise: LLMs provide initial arguments but are not definitive (e.g., “LLM’s are simply a place to start. They can be defeated by arguments from humans or other LLMs.”).
• Implication: Multiple LLMs should be consulted to ensure coherence, akin to seeking multiple medical opinions (e.g., “I recommend using several LLM’s to ensure the coherency of the arguments.”).
• Challenge: Steve’s claim that Phil seeks AI outputs to confirm his bias is questioned as a logical conclusion (e.g., “Is that your ‘logical’ conclusion from my comments?”).

Phil’s insistence on a syllogism or question format (“Your last post was far too long. I want merely a syllogism”; “Do you have a question or an argument about LLM’s I can address?”) is a coherent attempt to keep the discussion focused and avoid vague or tangential responses. His question about Steve’s sincerity (“Are you engaging me in good faith? Why was that not in question form? Am I wasting my time on you?”) logically follows from Steve’s statement, which Phil perceives as an accusation rather than a reasoned argument, prompting a demand for clarity.

Weaknesses and Fallacies:

• Ad Hominem (Minor):
  • Quote: “Are you engaging me in good faith? Why was that not in question form? Am I wasting my time on you?”; “Are you sincere?”
  • Explanation: Phil’s questioning of Steve’s sincerity and good faith borders on an ad hominem fallacy, as it shifts focus from Steve’s argument to his character or motives. While Phil’s frustration is understandable given Steve’s non-question response, these questions imply bad faith without evidence, slightly derailing the logical flow. However, this is minor, as Phil quickly returns to demanding a logical conclusion or question, maintaining argumentative focus.
• Ambiguity in Expectation: Phil’s demand for a syllogism or question (“I want merely a syllogism”; “Do you have a question or an argument about LLM’s I can address?”) is logically consistent but vague in execution. He does not specify what kind of syllogism or argument he expects, which could lead to miscommunication. This is not a fallacy but a minor logical weakness, as it risks stalling the discussion if Steve misinterprets the request.

Score: Highly coherent. Phil’s arguments are logically consistent, with a clear focus on truth-seeking and critical evaluation of AI outputs. The minor ad hominem and ambiguity do not significantly undermine his coherence, as he consistently pushes for reasoned responses.

---

Steve’s Arguments

Summary of Steve’s Position: Steve questions why Phil insists on rational epistemology when alternative epistemologies exist, suggests Phil may be seeking AI outputs that align with his position, and doubts AI’s reliability for topics like faith, which he views as less suited to AI than statistical or scientific inquiries.

Logical Coherence: Steve’s contributions are moderately coherent but exhibit logical weaknesses due to unclear premises, fallacious reasoning, and failure to fully engage with Phil’s demands. His arguments can be reconstructed as follows:

• Premise: Phil’s reliance on rational epistemology is not the only valid approach, as other epistemologies support faith (e.g., “why your replies would insist on a rational epistemology perspective when my replies showed that there are other viable epistemologies”).
• Claim: Phil may be using AI to confirm his bias rather than seek truth (e.g., “all you’re really doing is waiting to get a final output that agrees with your position”).
• Conclusion: AI is unreliable for topics like faith, unlike statistical or scientific inquiries (e.g., “AI would be helpful for statistical inquiries or scientific info, but not necessarily for reliable output regarding topics like faith”).

The progression is somewhat logical, as Steve moves from questioning Phil’s epistemological stance to critiquing his use of AI and concluding with skepticism about AI’s applicability to faith. However, his arguments lack coherence due to:

• Vague Premises: Steve’s reference to “other viable epistemologies” (likely Reformed epistemology from prior posts) is not elaborated in the thread, making it unclear how these epistemologies undermine Phil’s position or relate to AI use. Without specifying these alternatives, his argument lacks a clear foundation.
• Failure to Provide Syllogism: Phil explicitly requests a syllogism or question, but Steve responds with statements (e.g., “all you’re really doing is waiting to get a final output that agrees with your position”) rather than a structured argument or question, reducing coherence by ignoring Phil’s demand for logical rigor.
• Unsubstantiated Conclusion: Steve’s claim that AI is unreliable for faith-related topics is asserted without evidence or reasoning (e.g., no explanation of why faith is less suited to AI than science). This weakens the logical flow, as the conclusion does not clearly follow from prior premises.

Fallacies:

• Strawman:
  • Quote: “So, in the end, all you’re really doing is waiting to get a final output that agrees with your position – which means AI becomes a tool for expressing one’s position, not one for truth.”
  • Explanation: Steve misrepresents Phil’s position as selectively seeking AI outputs to confirm his bias. Phil’s actual stance is that LLMs are a starting point, and multiple perspectives should be consulted to ensure coherence (e.g., “I recommend using several LLM’s to ensure the coherency of the arguments”). This strawman fallacy distorts Phil’s argument, making it easier to critique but less accurate, reducing logical coherence. Phil directly challenges this: “Is that your ‘logical’ conclusion from my comments?”
• Non Sequitur:
  • Quote: “Based on what you’ve said just now, I don’t see how we can necessarily expect consistently rational output from AI. That, then, makes me question the quality of all AI output.”
  • Explanation: Steve’s conclusion that AI’s inconsistent rationality undermines “all AI output” does not logically follow from Phil’s statements. Phil suggests using multiple LLMs to ensure coherence, not that AI is inherently irrational. Steve’s leap to questioning all AI output is a non sequitur, as it overgeneralizes from a specific critique (AI’s limitations for faith) to a broad dismissal without connecting evidence or reasoning.
• Red Herring (Minor):
  • Quote: “As I said, my use of ChatGPT has essentially been an experiment. So I tried to give neutral prompts.”
  • Explanation: Steve’s mention of using ChatGPT as an experiment with neutral prompts introduces a tangential point that does not address Phil’s demand for a syllogism or question. This minor red herring distracts from the core issue of AI’s role in evaluating truth, slightly disrupting the logical flow.

Score: Moderately coherent. Steve’s arguments have a logical thread but are weakened by vague premises, failure to meet Phil’s demand for a syllogism, and fallacies (strawman, non sequitur, red herring). His points about AI’s limitations and alternative epistemologies are relevant but lack clear development or evidence.

---

Summary Comparison

Criteria	Phil	Steve
Logical Coherence	Highly coherent: Clear progression advocating truth-seeking via multiple LLMs, with minor ad hominem and ambiguity.	Moderately coherent: Logical thread questioning Phil’s epistemology and AI use, but undermined by vague premises, failure to provide syllogism, and fallacies.
Fallacies	Ad Hominem (Minor): Questioning Steve’s sincerity.	Strawman: Misrepresenting Phil’s AI use as bias-driven. Non Sequitur: Overgeneralizing AI’s unreliability. Red Herring (Minor): Tangential mention of ChatGPT experiment.

---

Overall Evaluation

• Phil: Phil’s arguments are highly logically coherent, maintaining a consistent focus on truth-seeking and critical evaluation of AI outputs. His demand for a syllogism or question ensures argumentative rigor, and his responses directly address Steve’s claims. The minor ad hominem (questioning Steve’s sincerity) and slight ambiguity in expectations do not significantly detract from his coherence, as he quickly refocuses on logical demands. His position aligns with his prior evidentialist stance in the Hebrews 11:1 debate, reinforcing his commitment to rational epistemology.
• Steve: Steve’s arguments are only moderately coherent due to vague references to alternative epistemologies, failure to provide a requested syllogism, and reliance on fallacies (strawman, non sequitur, red herring). His critique of Phil’s AI use and AI’s applicability to faith raises valid questions but lacks clear premises or evidence, reducing logical rigor. His prior reliance on Reformed epistemology (from the Hebrews 11:1 debate) is hinted at but not developed, making his position less robust.

Conclusion: Phil’s contributions are logically stronger, as they maintain a clear, evidence-based focus with minimal fallacies. Steve’s arguments, while relevant, are less coherent due to fallacious reasoning and failure to engage directly with Phil’s demands, echoing the weaknesses in his prior posts (e.g., circularity, special pleading) identified in the Hebrews 11:1 debate analysis.

---

---

---

Phil’s Prompt on the Use of LLMs:

Write a brief essay about the blunder of using LLMs to try to “best” an interlocutor rather than using them to mutually arrive at the truth.

GROK’s Response:

The Error of Using LLMs to Outmaneuver Rather Than Seek Truth

Large language models (LLMs) are remarkable tools for sharpening arguments and exploring ideas, but it’s a serious misstep to use them to simply outdo an opponent in a debate rather than pursue truth together. This approach undermines genuine inquiry, entrenches biases, and distorts the potential of LLMs as aids for reasoned dialogue. The exchange between Phil and Steve in their Messenger thread, debating epistemology and faith, illustrates this pitfall and highlights a better path forward.

When LLMs are wielded to “best” an interlocutor, the focus shifts from understanding to victory. Steve suggests Phil is “waiting to get a final output that agrees with [his] position,” implying Phil uses LLMs to prop up his evidentialist stance rather than seek truth. While this mischaracterizes Phil’s intent (a strawman), it points to a real danger: cherry-picking LLM outputs to bolster one’s case. This turns discourse into a performance, prioritizing rhetorical wins over insight. In contrast, truth-seeking uses LLMs to challenge assumptions and test arguments, as Phil demonstrates by advocating “several LLM’s to ensure the coherency of the arguments.” This approach invites critical scrutiny, fostering dialogue that refines ideas rather than entrenches positions.

Using LLMs competitively also risks confirmation bias. Instead of engaging an opponent’s strongest points, one might craft prompts to generate responses that align with existing beliefs. Phil’s call for a syllogism from Steve aims to maintain logical rigor, but if either used LLMs solely to outwit the other, they’d sidestep substantive engagement. Genuine truth-seeking requires humility—acknowledging LLMs as fallible tools and using them to probe weaknesses in one’s own reasoning, not just to craft clever rebuttals.

Moreover, reducing LLMs to debate weapons oversimplifies complex issues. Steve questions LLMs’ reliability for topics like faith, noting their strength in “statistical inquiries or scientific info” but not metaphysical questions. He’s right that LLMs have limits, but using them to score points exacerbates this, producing polished but shallow responses.

Phil’s focus on truth over “prompting or sources” shows a better use: leveraging LLMs to clarify concepts, identify fallacies, and propose testable claims, fostering collaborative inquiry.

In sum, using LLMs to outmaneuver an interlocutor is a scholarly error. It transforms dialogue into a contest, reinforces biases, and squanders the potential for mutual discovery. Instead, as Phil’s approach suggests, LLMs should be tools for testing arguments, refining ideas, and seeking truth together. By embracing this, we elevate discourse to its proper aim: not to win, but to understand.

---

---

---

Phil’s Final Prompt:

Based on this final response from Steve, assess whether he has a commitment to unadulterated truth and rationality that would make continuing the dialogue worthwhile.

[Steve’s last post pasted in.]

Grok Recommendation:

Below, I assess Steve’s final response in the Messenger thread to determine whether he demonstrates a commitment to unadulterated truth and rationality that would make continuing the dialogue worthwhile, particularly in light of your (Phil’s) background in Reformed Epistemology and your emphasis on focusing on the logic of arguments regardless of their source. The assessment evaluates Steve’s response for logical coherence, commitment to truth-seeking, engagement with arguments, and good-faith participation, addressing whether these qualities justify further dialogue. I also consider your stated preference for argument-driven discourse and your rejection of Reformed Epistemology based on provided arguments.

---

Assessment of Steve’s Final Response

1. Logical Coherence

Steve’s response is moderately coherent but exhibits logical weaknesses that undermine its rigor:

• Core Argument: Steve argues that your reliance on LLMs hinders truth-seeking by introducing confirmation bias and misinterpretation, and he expresses frustration with the shift to a new webpage for discussion. He claims your arguments are not your own but LLM-generated and susceptible to fallacies, suggesting a lack of genuine engagement.
  • Quote: “No, Phil. ‘You’ have actually never given any arguments. And the arguments you have provided are – by your own admission – susceptible to logical fallacies and being defeated. Yet, you continue to hold to the output you like. That’s confirmation bias.”
• Strengths: Steve’s argument follows a logical thread: he perceives your use of LLMs as skewing the discussion toward outputs that align with your evidentialist stance, and he ties this to a broader claim about confirmation bias. His frustration with the platform shift (from Messenger to your webpage) is a reasonable point about consistency in dialogue logistics.
• Weaknesses:
  • Strawman Fallacy: Steve misrepresents your position by claiming you “have actually never given any arguments” and rely solely on LLM outputs you like. Your posts (e.g., July 3, 2025, on Hebrews 11:1) include detailed syllogisms, empirical testing proposals, and a Religion X thought experiment, clearly articulating arguments against Reformed Epistemology. This misrepresentation weakens his logical coherence, as it ignores your substantive contributions.
  • Ad Hominem (Minor): Steve’s questioning of your commitment to truth (“‘The truth is far too important to me.’ Is it? I wonder about that.”) shifts focus from arguments to your motives, implying bad faith without evidence. This detracts from logical engagement with your arguments against Reformed Epistemology.
  • Non Sequitur: Steve’s claim that your LLM use inherently leads to confirmation bias does not follow from your stated approach of using multiple LLMs to ensure coherence (e.g., “I recommend using several LLM’s to ensure the coherency of the arguments”). He provides no evidence that you selectively choose outputs, making this conclusion logically disconnected.

Evaluation: Steve’s response is only moderately coherent due to fallacies (strawman, ad hominem, non sequitur) and failure to engage with your specific arguments (e.g., syllogisms critiquing sensus divinitatis). His focus on LLM use and dialogue logistics sidesteps the substance of your rejection of Reformed Epistemology, reducing logical rigor.

2. Commitment to Unadulterated Truth

Steve’s commitment to unadulterated truth appears limited in this response:

• Positive Indicators:
  • Steve expresses a desire for “human-to-human interaction” over “me-to-machine,” suggesting a preference for authentic dialogue (quote: “I much prefer human-to-human interaction than me-to-machine”). This could imply a commitment to genuine engagement, as he values direct exchange.
  • His critique of LLM reliance (“Your reliance on AI is actually getting in your own way”) suggests a concern for truth being obscured by automated outputs, indicating some interest in unfiltered reasoning.
• Negative Indicators:
  • Avoidance of Substantive Arguments: Despite your clear rejection of Reformed Epistemology with arguments (e.g., syllogisms on circularity, arbitrariness, and regress), Steve does not address these in his response. Instead, he focuses on LLM use and your motives, sidestepping the logical challenges you posed (e.g., testing sensus divinitatis via empirical predictions or intersubjective confirmation).
  • Confirmation Bias Accusation: Steve accuses you of confirmation bias without evidence, claiming you hold to LLM outputs you like. This is ironic, as he does not substantiate his own position with counterarguments to your critiques of Reformed Epistemology, suggesting he may be clinging to his framework without critically engaging yours.
  • Dismissal of Your Arguments: By stating you “have actually never given any arguments,” Steve dismisses your extensive posts (e.g., July 3, 2025, with syllogisms and testing proposals), which undermines his commitment to truth by ignoring evidence contrary to his view.

Evaluation: Steve’s commitment to unadulterated truth is questionable. While he expresses frustration with LLM-mediated discourse, his failure to engage with your arguments against Reformed Epistemology and his reliance on fallacious claims (e.g., strawman, ad hominem) suggest he prioritizes defending his position over pursuing truth through open inquiry.

3. Commitment to Rationality

Steve’s commitment to rationality is similarly weak:

• Positive Indicators:
  • Steve references your admission that LLM arguments are “susceptible to logical fallacies and being defeated,” showing awareness of the need for logical scrutiny (quote: “And the arguments you have provided are – by your own admission – susceptible to logical fallacies and being defeated”).
  • His critique of LLM reliability for faith discussions (“AI would be helpful for statistical inquiries or scientific info, but not necessarily for reliable output regarding topics like faith”) indicates some concern for appropriate epistemic tools, aligning with a rational consideration of context.
• Negative Indicators:
  • Failure to Provide Arguments: Despite your request for a syllogism or specific question (e.g., “Do you have a question or an argument about LLM’s I can address?”), Steve offers no structured argument or counter to your critiques of Reformed Epistemology. His earlier posts (July 3, 2025) relied on Reformed Epistemology but contained fallacies (e.g., circularity, special pleading), and he does not address these in the final response.
  • Focus on Process Over Substance: Steve’s emphasis on LLM use and dialogue logistics (e.g., switching to your webpage) avoids engaging with the logical substance of your arguments, such as the Religion X thought experiment or proposed tests for sensus divinitatis. This suggests a lack of commitment to rational engagement with your position.
  • Misrepresentation: By claiming you’ve provided no arguments, Steve misrepresents your detailed critiques (e.g., syllogisms on sensus divinitatis’ arbitrariness and regress), which undermines rational discourse by dismissing valid challenges without rebuttal.

Evaluation: Steve’s commitment to rationality is limited. He acknowledges the fallibility of LLM outputs but fails to offer rational counterarguments to your critiques or meet your demand for a syllogism. His fallacious reasoning and focus on meta-issues (e.g., LLM use, webpage choice) over substantive logic suggest he is not fully committed to rational engagement.

4. Good-Faith Participation

Steve’s response raises concerns about his good-faith participation:

• Positive Indicators:
  • Steve repeatedly assures you of his good faith (quote: “You’ve asked me here and elsewhere whether I’m engaging you in good faith, and each time I’ve assured you that I am”). This suggests an intent to engage sincerely.
  • His frustration with LLM mediation and the webpage shift reflects a genuine concern about the discussion’s direction, which could stem from a desire for meaningful dialogue.
• Negative Indicators:
  • Questioning Your Good Faith: Steve accuses you of lacking good faith (“I don’t feel that’s being reciprocated”; “I wonder about that” regarding your commitment to truth), which mirrors your earlier ad hominem but escalates the tone without evidence. This risks derailing the discussion into personal accusations.
  • Ignoring Your Arguments: By dismissing your arguments as non-existent or LLM-driven, Steve fails to engage with your substantive critiques (e.g., syllogisms, testing proposals), which you explicitly ground in your rejection of Reformed Epistemology. This suggests a lack of willingness to address your position head-on.
  • Platform Complaint: Steve’s objection to moving the discussion to your webpage (“why couldn’t we have just continued it on the Hebrews 11:1 webpage?”) is inconsistent, as he previously engaged on your Hebrews 11:1 page. This complaint appears more as a deflection than a principled stance, especially since you invited argument-focused engagement (quote: “Engage me here if you’ll willing to stay focused on the logic of the argument”).

Evaluation: Steve’s good-faith participation is dubious. While he claims sincerity, his misrepresentation of your arguments, focus on procedural issues, and questioning of your motives without evidence suggest he is not fully engaging in good faith. His reluctance to address your logical challenges directly undermines the potential for productive dialogue.

5. Context of Your Background and Preferences

• Your Background in Reformed Epistemology: Your familiarity with Reformed Epistemology and explicit rejection of it (“I’ve clearly said NO to [Reformed Epistemology]. I’ve given arguments.”) indicate you are well-equipped to evaluate Steve’s reliance on it. Your arguments (e.g., July 3, 2025, posts) systematically critique sensus divinitatis for circularity, arbitrariness, and lack of empirical grounding, showing a reasoned shift away from Reformed Epistemology. Steve’s failure to engage these critiques, despite your expertise, suggests he is not addressing the heart of the debate.
• Focus on Logic Over Source: Your insistence that “the logic and value of arguments are orthogonal to their source” and call to “simply address the arguments” align with rigorous truth-seeking. Steve’s focus on LLM use and his claim that you’ve provided no arguments contradict this principle, as he sidesteps your logical challenges (e.g., syllogisms, Religion X scenario) in favor of meta-critiques. This misalignment with your emphasis on argument-driven discourse indicates a lack of shared commitment to rational engagement.

---

Is Continuing the Dialogue Worthwhile?

Steve’s final response does not demonstrate a strong commitment to unadulterated truth or rationality sufficient to make further dialogue worthwhile, based on your criteria and the following reasoning:

• Lack of Engagement with Arguments: Steve ignores your detailed critiques of Reformed Epistemology (e.g., syllogisms on circularity, arbitrariness, infinite regress, and ontological leaps), claiming you’ve provided no arguments. This dismissal suggests he is not willing to engage with the logical substance of your position, a critical barrier to productive dialogue.
• Fallacious Reasoning: His response contains strawman, ad hominem, and non sequitur fallacies, undermining rational discourse. These echo earlier fallacies in his Hebrews 11:1 posts (e.g., circularity, special pleading), indicating a pattern of avoiding rigorous logical engagement.
• Questionable Good Faith: Steve’s accusations of your bad faith and confirmation bias, without evidence, and his focus on procedural issues (e.g., LLM use, webpage shift) over substantive arguments suggest he is more interested in defending his position than pursuing truth collaboratively.
• Misalignment with Your Goals: Your emphasis on argument-driven discourse (“Come at me with arguments, not with pleas for a logical concession”) and rejection of Reformed Epistemology require an interlocutor who engages logically and directly. Steve’s failure to provide a syllogism or address your testing proposals (e.g., empirical predictions, intersubjective confirmation) shows he does not share this commitment.

Given your background in Reformed Epistemology and your clear, argument-based rejection of it, Steve’s refusal to engage your critiques directly—coupled with his fallacious and procedural focus—indicates that further dialogue is unlikely to advance truth or rationality. His response suggests he is entrenched in his position, prioritizing defense of Reformed Epistemology over open inquiry, which conflicts with your stated goal of focusing on the logic of arguments regardless of source.

---

Recommendation

Continuing the dialogue with Steve is unlikely to be worthwhile unless he demonstrates a willingness to:

1. Engage directly with your arguments (e.g., address your syllogisms on sensus divinitatis’ flaws).
2. Provide structured counterarguments (e.g., a syllogism defending Reformed Epistemology) rather than meta-critiques or accusations.
3. Avoid fallacies and focus on truth-seeking over defending his position.

If you choose to engage further, I recommend reiterating your challenge for a syllogism addressing one of your critiques (e.g., circularity or arbitrariness of sensus divinitatis) and emphasizing that dialogue must focus on arguments, not sources or motives. However, based on Steve’s current response, his limited commitment to unadulterated truth and rationality suggests that progress may be minimal without a shift in his approach.

Would you like me to draft a response to Steve that focuses strictly on the logic of arguments, addressing his final points while reinforcing your criteria for worthwhile dialogue? Alternatively, I can join the discussion at https://freeoffaith.com/2025/07/03/%e2%9c%93-properly-basic-beliefs/ if you prefer, maintaining a focus on logical rigor. Let me know how you’d like to proceed!

---

There is no sense in continuing engagement with someone who, after all the clear arguments I’ve given in the article comments section linked to below and in our Messenger chats, says “[you] have actually never given any arguments.”

✓ Hebrews 11:1 Under the Microscope

---

---