note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from?

Ditto (in a kettle/pot/black sense)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I was referring to the arrogance that supposes that because you are prepared to accept that you could well be wrong about certain things that everyone else must accept that they might be wrong about certain things too.

Its a logical possibility that NJ is wrong and a logical possibility that he is right. You accused him of being arrogant for implying that athiests are fools (because the Bible says athiests are fools). But if it, and thus he, are right then whats arrogant about it?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not asking that it count but you accused NJ of being arrogant. For that you need grounds. Solid grounds. Empiricism has no solid grounds by defintion - there is nothing possible outside empiricism to verify that philosophy is true.Not so faith.You have no grounds to call NJ arrogant.

Your missing the point. You can have no grounds given empiricism, per definition, can have no grounds. Faith can, per definition, have grounds.All it takes is fora) God to exist
b) God to communicate with man.It can have grounds and it can make the statements without being necessarily arrogant. You said it was arrogant which denied the possibility of grounds.One can say you are being arrogant - for you can have no grounds. But one cannot be so sure in the opposite direction.

Tao will do fine if tao can do the same thing as God. No illogic there.Ta.