Logical fallacies and magical cacti

Author: Math_Enthusiast

Posts

Total: 58
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Faith and belief are strong,
We often hold them for family, friends, comrades,
Institutions, ideas,
That even when events contrary occur, faith and belief still hold.

If a Native American told his chief, that newcomers had arrived in canoes a hundred times their own,
Who wielded metal rods that when pointed at a person, killed that person,
Would they be believed?

Perhaps not,
And perhaps that would be reasonable,
More likely they ate some strange food, or went crazy,
It would also be more possible to 'prove the existence of the newcomers, though not 'certain.
For people can come and leave, or be defeated in a battle, then their items lost to history, but through the oral tradition.

Liars Game,
Prisoner's Dilemma,
Gaslighting,
Latex masks,
Pangloss.

I'm not sure where it is foolish or admirable to hold faith despite moments contrary,
But I 'do at times,
Usually in fiction, where a villain is attempting to deceive a person,
Or even when a friend has faith in a person 'not their friend,
Perhaps it get's old eventually, and evidence to the contrary piles up,
But generally speaking, I do not hate faith, belief.

We all have many beliefs, faiths.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,973
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Remember that your life is one billionth the life of the Universe. I pray to our Simulation Creators that you all find Humanism.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast

Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.  

You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but  EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything. 
But of course! Circular reasoning is critical to everything! That's why it is entirely valid and necessary in proving the existence and power of Terry and His Magic Cactus! I hope you can now see that surely Terry and His Magic Cactus are the most powerful beings in the universe!
LOL @ your response.   Circular reasoning if axiomatic doesn't validate arguments. It merely provides a premise that is impossible to prove. It doesn't make it right or wrong, valid or otherwise.  

Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.  
You're right. I should have considered that. This will improve my argument greatly! I take as an axiom that Terry is infallible. He is my source of information, so I must be right.
You can make any premise you like.  Yet just saying Terry is infallible is not Terry saying he is infallible. Therefore just because he is your source of information doesn't make it circular.  After all, unless you yourself are infallible, which you haven't claimed, then you might have made a mistake about Terry being infallible. Are you able to produce Terry, so that we can ask him? Or will have to rely upon hearsay? 

Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent. 
Wait, you don't agree with circular reasoning?
I agree with the concept of axiomatics. I don't agree with circular reasoning outside of that. And only if the axiomatics can be substantially demonstrated to be axiomatic. 
Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.  
Yep! Everything around us is defined by the Magic Cactus, so you are experiencing it right now! Surely you realize that it exists at this point?
So you keep saying.  But where is Terry and what is the Magic Cactus? Yet everything so far is simply coming from you. 

Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular.  Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always.  The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy.  Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference. 
Oh yes, I know there's a difference. That which is consistent with the Magic Cactus is necessary, and anything else is a fallacy. Could you put forth an argument otherwise? I'm doubtful!
So you say.  Yet from our conversation so far, it seems you lack a little background on how axioms work. Still good try. 


In conclusion: You made correct conclusions on distinctions between truth and falsehood, but you were unable to use them to disprove Terry and His Magic Cactus. Better luck next time!

In my first post, I was simply drawing to your attention that not all circular reasoning is bad reasoning.  On the other hand, you suggested or implied it was evidence of nonsense.  I don't need to disprove Terry or Magic Cactus, they are from all accounts - simply products from your imagination.  On the other hand, produce Terry and let's see if he has something to say for himself.  He might be able to provide some more information and explanations of the Magical Cactus. 


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The issue is that even though you point out that some assumptions are reasonable and some are not, we will never all agree on which assumption can be made, or which versions of circular reasoning are valid.
Just because you and I won't agree, doesn't mean that many people won't agree with me or many won't agree with you.   I for the record have no issues with any of the three axioms.  All are part of our source for knowledge and each can be substantially argued for in a plausible and reasonable manner.  I take it you have never studied what makes literature authentic or not. Or how they are validated or not? And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience.  That's not unusual though.  There are different standards for ascertaining truth, on the balance of probabilities, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any lingering doubt, and others.  

Even though I am pretty confident that we can all agree that Terry's infallibility is a fallacious assumption, when it comes to religion people don't always agree, and the "logic" that is commonly used to prove God is considered fallacious by many.
It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time.  It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position.  Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't.  The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.  In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.  

It is often said to be circular, and while you try get past that common counterargument, the issue is that what we as humans think is and isn't valid will always be subjective.

SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking. 

Because of this, there isn't really any way for you to argue that the assumptions that I make in my argument for "Terry and His Magic Cactus" are fallacious, yet others aren't.
Well I already did.  I said that your position is hearsay - not circular.  We need Terry to verify his infallibility from his mouth. 

We can't rely on our intuition either, because it isn't hard for people to twist our often flawed intuition into making us believe ridiculous things.
Everyone relies on intuition for some things. Most people make most decisions everyday by intuition. And mostly that means by their feelings. I feel like eating this. Or that. I feel like putting this on or that. The point is twisting things is what people will do when they don't want to accept someone else's point of view.  You are correct it is almost dishonest at times.  Yet this doesn't imply it is ALWAYS for ALL People. 

If I and the resources, I could probably convince many people that Terry and His Magic Cactus are real and should be worshipped. How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?
There are lots of naive people in the world. There are lots of people who wants things and need things and are desperate.  People tend to follow things that make them feel part of it.  Many religions operate that way as do schools and uni's and secular places. Like footy clubs.  

I also happen to think that there are many copy cats in the world.  But a copy cat implies an original.   The question is how do we determine the original from the copycats? Some skeptically add - how do we know there is an original? That too is a good question.  I say - let's go back and examine axioms.  
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast


Math_Enthusiast,

MISS TRADESECRET QUOTE PUTTING MY SERIAL KILLER JESUS ON TRAIL "On the other hand, produce Terry and let's see if he has something to say for himself.  He might be able to provide some more information and explanations of the Magical Cactus." 


OMG!  Hopefully Miss Tradesecret doesn't want Jesus to produce Himself at this time to actually PROVE Himself like she wants Terry and his magical cacti to do! This is because all Jesus has pertaining to His existence is "hearsay accountings" of Himself within the Bible, especially with the writers of the four Gospels that all contradict each other and that were not eyewitnesses because they were written 70-110 years after Jesus' crucifixion!   Huh? WTF?

Notwithstanding, the alleged proof of my serial killer Jesus outside of the Bible doesn't start until we hear from Flavius Josephus who was not an eyewitness  to Jesus’ existence, but only wrote a couple of terse statements about Jesus from "hearsay accountings" in his book of Antiquities.  What makes Josephus’ remarks about Jesus even more concerning is the fact that He didn't mention Jesus as being God of the universe!  Furthermore, Jesus died approximately in 36AD, and Josephus' birth was 33AD, and his Antiquities were written in 97AD, mentioning through "hearsay accountings" and "non eyewitness accounts," of a Jesus 64 years later!  This is supposedly the proof of a Jesus? WHAT? *COUGH*

Relating to the above historical FACTS, is like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon and walking on it for the first time in the history of man, and having not a single person write about it during the time it occurred and subsequently, but only 64 years later as equal to Josephus’ writings within his Antiquities about a bible Jesus! Oh my God,  will irrefutable facts ever show themselves about Jesus as the Christian God? So far, the answer is NO!

In a court of law today with the aforementioned entities in trying to prove the assumed evidence of a Jesus as God, it would be thrown out of court as inadmissible evidence because of hearsay, blatant contradictions, no eyewitnesses, and Jesus only being mentioned outside of the Bible 64 years after His crucifixion!  BUT, where I am a TRUE Christian, I have learned to just accept the above disturbing facts and just move on the best way that I can.  :(

Additionally, you can't present these historical facts to Miss Tradesecret because she will run away and hide from them as usual and will be nowhere to be seen because of her outright Bible stupidity and ignorance of same.
.

Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Out of character:

I take it you have never studied what makes literature authentic or not. Or how they are validated or not? 
Not in detail, no.

And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience. 
What do you mean "inconsistently apply?"

It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time.  It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position.  Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't.  The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.  In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.  
So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true. This is why I am doing this in the first place. Look, I can do it to:

Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!

So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?

Similarities:

  • Both proclaim their own infallibility.
  • Both were written by one or more human beings, who could very well have been lying or mistaken.

Differences:

  • One has sold millions of physical copies, and one just came into existence right here, right now.
  • One is widely accepted as true and good, the other is not.

Okay, so one is more widely accepted, and by a large margin. How does that affect things? Let me make this comparison as clear as possible:

Imagine that twenty people start telling everyone that there is a pig in my living room, and people listen, and believe them. Soon enough, one thousand people are going around saying that there is a pig in my living room. Now, one person starts saying that there is a donkey in my living room, and no one listens. Now, your claim is that I am basing my claims off of hearsay. Is the claim that a donkey is in my living room any more of hearsay than the claim that a pig is in my living room? The pig may have gained more traction, and his been around for longer, but how is it any less of hearsay? It isn't. Similarly, one cannot reasonably say that "Terry" is based on hearsay while also saying that the Bible is not.

SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking. 
The point is, everything that you are using against Terry and His Magic Cactus can be and often is applied to the Bible.

Everyone relies on intuition for some things. Most people make most decisions everyday by intuition. And mostly that means by their feelings. I feel like eating this. Or that. I feel like putting this on or that. The point is twisting things is what people will do when they don't want to accept someone else's point of view.  You are correct it is almost dishonest at times.  Yet this doesn't imply it is ALWAYS for ALL People. 
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I was just trying to point out that intuition isn't entirely reliable. You seem to agree with this.

There are lots of naive people in the world. There are lots of people who wants things and need things and are desperate.  People tend to follow things that make them feel part of it.  Many religions operate that way as do schools and uni's and secular places. Like footy clubs.  

I also happen to think that there are many copy cats in the world.  But a copy cat implies an original.   The question is how do we determine the original from the copycats? Some skeptically add - how do we know there is an original? That too is a good question.  I say - let's go back and examine axioms.  
You're just dodging my question: How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience. 
What do you mean "inconsistently apply?"

I explained what I meant. I suggested that you demand a higher standard of proof for religion than you do for other truths. I provided various standards that are used for different finding truth. 

It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time.  It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position.  Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't.  The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.  In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.  
So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true. This is why I am doing this in the first place. Look, I can do it to:
Please, Have another read. I didn't say what you are suggesting. I said that if a holy book doesn't claim infallibility we can deduct that from the list of potential infallible books. On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further.  There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility.  None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other.  Yet it provides us with a starting point.  

Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!
It seems you are a little light in understanding the meaning of infallibility.  That's ok. I see what you are trying to demonstrate.  It doesn't fly like that though.  But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument -  that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum.  After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.  And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible.  We know it is a joke.  

So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?
Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus.  Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history.  It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story.  The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay.  The Bible tells its own story.  It claims its own infallibility.  Whatever I say about it is hearsay.  Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay.  that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.  


Similarities:

  • Both proclaim their own infallibility.
  • Both were written by one or more human beings, who could very well have been lying or mistaken.

The bible's authors all admitted that they were sinful creatures and prone to mistakes.  Many told lies in their lives. If you understood infallibility this would not be a concern for you. 

Differences:

  • One has sold millions of physical copies, and one just came into existence right here, right now.
  • One is widely accepted as true and good, the other is not.
There are more differences than you have articulated.  And what you fail to realise is that people believed its infallibility well before it was ever for sale.  And as for the book of Terry to be accepted as not good, that is baloney.  No one knows about the book of Terry - except you.  

Okay, so one is more widely accepted, and by a large margin. How does that affect things? Let me make this comparison as clear as possible:
In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt.  The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority.  

Imagine that twenty people start telling everyone that there is a pig in my living room, and people listen, and believe them. Soon enough, one thousand people are going around saying that there is a pig in my living room. Now, one person starts saying that there is a donkey in my living room, and no one listens. Now, your claim is that I am basing my claims off of hearsay. Is the claim that a donkey is in my living room any more of hearsay than the claim that a pig is in my living room? The pig may have gained more traction, and his been around for longer, but how is it any less of hearsay? It isn't. Similarly, one cannot reasonably say that "Terry" is based on hearsay while also saying that the Bible is not.
DO you know what hearsay is?  It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.   Your story, lovely and sweet as it is is unhelpful since it doesn't even address hearsay. Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? That is the question. If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.  The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them.  We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies.  We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto.  We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story.  An urban myth. Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there?  Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.  Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell.  But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions. We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses.  What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it? 

The second part of your story - with one pig is no different.  That is the point.  Some people do their homework and some don't.  You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that.  It's simply not true.  And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people. 

SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking. 
The point is, everything that you are using against Terry and His Magic Cactus can be and often is applied to the Bible.
Not at all. I have asked you to produce Terry.  At least I have a book. 


You're just dodging my question: How can you be so confident that modern religious beliefs don't work in a similar way?


I'm not dodging.  I don't think that all religions work the same.  Many work simply on fear or expectations.  

In our modern secular world, many people are taught the sciences from their textbooks and they believe it to be true. They never test it or check the credibility of their authors. They assume it's true.   For many people - today science has become the new religion. Scientists are like priests.  They are believed to be true at first glance. Sometimes they get caught when they are dodgy. Sometimes they never get caught.   But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige.  Public scientists like the tenure and the grants that come from places like the UN. Private scientists like the kickbacks they get.  But most people in the community would never question them.  Unless - it is a scientist backing a tobacco company and some might then assume a bias. 

Religion and science works in similar ways. It is a plea to authority.  Yet this doesn't mean that their working tools are necessarily dodgy or have not been validated in the most appropriate ways.  






Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Hey Math ? 
If anyone argues  with you once over this.
Would they be  (  Math debating* )  ?


Math?  Please mate , just one little, lol,  will do
Please. 

I can't affoerd another,  ( OUT OF CHARACTER  )
Please don't Math. 
Math?






* it gives you an instant lisp
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,254
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
OMG!  Hopefully Miss Tradesecret doesn't want Jesus to produce Himself at this time to actually PROVE Himself like she wants Terry and his magical cacti to do! This is because all Jesus has pertaining to His existence is "hearsay accountings" of Himself within the Bible, especially with the writers of the four Gospels that all contradict each other and that were not eyewitnesses because they were written 70-110 years after Jesus' crucifixion!   Huh? WTF?

Notwithstanding, the alleged proof of my serial killer Jesus outside of the Bible doesn't start until we hear from Flavius Josephus who was not an eyewitness  to Jesus’ existence, but only wrote a couple of terse statements about Jesus from "hearsay accountings" in his book of Antiquities.  What makes Josephus’ remarks about Jesus even more concerning is the fact that He didn't mention Jesus as being God of the universe!  Furthermore, Jesus died approximately in 36AD, and Josephus' birth was 33AD, and his Antiquities were written in 97AD, mentioning through "hearsay accountings" and "non eyewitness accounts," of a Jesus 64 years later!  This is supposedly the proof of a Jesus? WHAT? *COUGH*

Relating to the above historical FACTS, is like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon and walking on it for the first time in the history of man, and having not a single person write about it during the time it occurred and subsequently, but only 64 years later as equal to Josephus’ writings within his Antiquities about a bible Jesus! Oh my God,  will irrefutable facts ever show themselves about Jesus as the Christian God? So far, the answer is NO!

In a court of law today with the aforementioned entities in trying to prove the assumed evidence of a Jesus as God, it would be thrown out of court as inadmissible evidence because of hearsay, blatant contradictions, no eyewitnesses, and Jesus only being mentioned outside of the Bible 64 years after His crucifixion!  BUT, where I am a TRUE Christian, I have learned to just accept the above disturbing facts and just move on the best way that I can.  :(
Indeed Brother D.  And one would have expected a Pharisee Priest such as the Jewish General and Historian Flavius Josephus would certainly have afforded "the son of god" a little more than just a few words that he has in his Jewish Antiquities.





Additionally, you can't present these historical facts to Miss Tradesecret because she will run away and hide from them as usual and will be nowhere to be seen because of her outright Bible stupidity and ignorance of same.
.
Indeed. The Reverend Tradesecret  (that doesn't have any fkn secretes to trade ) will desert any thread that put him/her and his /her bible knowledge under the slightest scrutiny. 

 As I keep saying. I feel sorely sorry for those students that s/he claims to tutor and lecture to. As I do his congregation of over 300 worshipers that s/he also claims to minister over every "boring" Sunday.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Miss Tradesecret is 12 years old to date because of her birthdate in her biography and goes against the COC rules of this forum because you have to be 13 to post here: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEJZ1IV

Miss Tradesecret’s gender is a female, therefore she is not to usurp the authority over the man, but to remain QUIET within this forum and in church. (1 Timothy 2:12)  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4


Stephen,

Well, we're off to the races again in showing just how Bible Stupid Miss Tradesecret actually is!  Jesus and I will address her latest foray into making a biblical fool of herself again as shown in the following link:


MISS TRADESECRET STEPS IN THE PROVERBIAL POO ON THE HEARSAY TOPIC RELATIVE TO TERRY AND HIS MAGIC CATI "Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus. Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay."

Hmmmm, in the same vein, the four Gospel writers that all contradict each other, and that were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' existence because they were written 70-110 years after Jesus' crucifixion, is the true definition of HEARSAY, but the #1 Bible fool Miss Tradesecret doesn't understand this biblical axiom!  LOL!



MISS TRADESECRET STEPPING IN THE PROVERBIAL POO AGAIN RELATIVE TO THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE:  "It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story."

Poor Miss Tradesecret is LYING AGAIN in front of the membership, whereas the writers of the Bible being so far apart in years, DID NOT have consistent stories within the scriptures, therefore, how Bible Dumb does Miss Tradesecret want to get as shown below in a FEW OF HUNDREDS  of blatant Bible inconsistencies that she says do not exist?! LOL!

Jesus says He is the only god:  "There is no God else beside me ... There is none beside me." (Isaiah 45:21).
Jesus says there are other gods: "Our Lord is above all gods." (Psalm 135:5)

Jesus said not to marry: "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage." (Luke 20:34-35)
Jesus says to marry: "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord." (Proverbs 18-22)

Wisdom makes people happy: "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. (Proverbs 3:13)
Wisdom makes people miserable:  "For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow. Ecclesiastes 1:18

No one has ever seen God: “No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.”
Moses sees god face to face: “The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.”



MISS TRADESECRETS QUOTE WHERE SHE HAS TO PROVIDE JESUS IN THE FLESH TO PROVE HIM AS WELL “Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay. that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.”

To be true to form with her jabberwocky argument, then she should produce Jesus the Christ in the flesh to prevent herself from being guilty of what she is against, which is "hearsay!"  Oh my, now embarrassing for her again! 



MISS TRADESECRET FORGETS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS ALSO BASED ON FEAR “I’m not dodging. I don't think that all religions work the same. Many work simply on fear or expectations.”

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7)
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!” (Psalm 111:10)
"The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
"And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation." (Luke 1:50)



IN TURN, MISS TRADESECRET ADMITS THAT SHE IS THE REVEREND OF A HELL-BOUND “PRESBY” CHURCH ACCEPTING PILES OF MONEY FROM THE CHURCHES COLLECTION PLATE “But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige.”

What is so pitiful, is not only that Miss Tradesecret is leading her congregation astray because of her complete Bible Stupidity, is the FACT that they are paying for it in the “offering plate” that is passed around the congregation to help her make payments on non-church stuff!  


Stephen, seriously, i think Miss Tradesecret goes out of her way to be Bible Stupid because she likes to be corrected by us and the other members, because this act of her Bible ineptness is the only thing that she is known for within this Religion Forum!

GAWD DAMN, as explicitly shown in this link alone, Miss Tradesecret has NO BOUNDS of being blatantly Bible Stupid!
.
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
First of all, I'm just going to be permanently out of character from this point onward unless otherwise specified, because this didn't go the direction I though it would. (I expected to defend the existence, infallibility, etc. of "Terry and His Magic Cactus.")

I explained what I meant. I suggested that you demand a higher standard of proof for religion than you do for other truths. I provided various standards that are used for different finding truth. 
Thank you for the clarification. Do you have an example of me doing this? I don't deny that there might be one, but I don't recall such a thing.

Please, Have another read. I didn't say what you are suggesting.
Okay... It seems to say what I though it did.

I said that if a holy book doesn't claim infallibility we can deduct that from the list of potential infallible books.
That is what I was responding to.

Here, look. I can even quote myself:
So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true.
Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.

On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further.  There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility.  None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other.  Yet it provides us with a starting point.  
Yeah, I know. What's your point?

But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument -  that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum.  After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.
Wait a minute. The book claims its own infallibility, not Terry's. It just so happens to be called the "Holy Book of Terry." Why does it have to be written by Terry? Even so, yeah, sure, assume that if you consider it to be necessary.

And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible.  We know it is a joke.  
Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.

Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus.  Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history.  It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story.  The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay.  The Bible tells its own story.  It claims its own infallibility.  Whatever I say about it is hearsay.  Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay.  that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.  
Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.

The bible's authors all admitted that they were sinful creatures and prone to mistakes.  Many told lies in their lives. If you understood infallibility this would not be a concern for you.
Okay. I could say the same thing about the "Holy Book of Terry." What's your point? You seem to be attacking something I never said, followed by my intelligence. When did I say "The Bible was written by fallible people, therefore it is fallible." I didn't say that now did I?

There are more differences than you have articulated.  And what you fail to realise is that people believed its infallibility well before it was ever for sale.  And as for the book of Terry to be accepted as not good, that is baloney.  No one knows about the book of Terry - except you.  
This hurts my argument how? Also, should I have listed every single difference? Could you provide such a list?

In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt.  The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority. 
Thank you so much for assisting me in striking down that anticipated counterargument! Seriously though, between this and the last thing you said, I'm beginning to wonder if you're mixing up your arguments and my arguments.

DO you know what hearsay is?  It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.
I just took about ten seconds to give myself one: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay

Looks good to me!

Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? 
Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!

 If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.
It's still hearsay! Eye witness accounts that are still unsubstantiated are still hearsay!

The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them.  We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies.  We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto.  We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story.  An urban myth.
It is still hearsay! It continues to be hearsay!

Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there?  Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.
Well. That wasn't part of the story, but in that case it would not be hearsay.

Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell.  But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.
Yeah! Exactly! That's what would make it not hearsay in that case!

We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses.  What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it? 
It doesn't matter whether they were trustworthy or not, or whether they had motivation to lie or not, because without concrete evidence, it continues to be hearsay. (Remember: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay)

The second part of your story - with one pig is no different.  That is the point.  Some people do their homework and some don't.  You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that.  It's simply not true.
No, I am not. I am suggesting that both are cases of hearsay. That's it. This whole section of my post, from the Holy Book of Terry, to the story of the pig and the donkey was all just to demonstrate that the Bible is no less of hearsay than those few sentences of the "Holy Book of Terry" that I wrote on the spot. Also, it wasn't "with one pig," it was with one person claiming to have seen a donkey instead of a pig. The point was that the claim of there being a donkey was no more of hearsay than the claim of there being a pig.

And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people. 
Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!

Not at all. I have asked you to produce Terry.  At least I have a book. 
Produce God then. Also, hold on. What's wrong with the Holy Book of Terry?

I'm not dodging.  I don't think that all religions work the same.  Many work simply on fear or expectations.  

In our modern secular world, many people are taught the sciences from their textbooks and they believe it to be true. They never test it or check the credibility of their authors. They assume it's true.   For many people - today science has become the new religion. Scientists are like priests.  They are believed to be true at first glance. Sometimes they get caught when they are dodgy. Sometimes they never get caught.   But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige.  Public scientists like the tenure and the grants that come from places like the UN. Private scientists like the kickbacks they get.  But most people in the community would never question them.  Unless - it is a scientist backing a tobacco company and some might then assume a bias. 

Religion and science works in similar ways. It is a plea to authority.  Yet this doesn't mean that their working tools are necessarily dodgy or have not been validated in the most appropriate ways.  
Have you ever taken a science class? If you have you'll know that you do your own experiments in there.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,973
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Why isn't God on TikTok talking to people from a burning bush?

11 days later

Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Oh look! Tradesecret ran away! It's like you said!
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast


Math_Enthusiast,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE OF MISS TRADESECRET HAVING TO RUN AWAY AGAIN IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP:  "Oh look! Tradesecret ran away! It's like you said!"

Yes, her runaway status has been shown for years upon this Religion Forum, especially when her Bible Stupidity mounts up to what is shown at this time in the various threads she was in, where I, you, and others have to correct her in making her the explicit Bible fool that she is!   This is when Miss Tradesecret sheepishly exits stage right, and goes into hiding for a long time, and when, or if, she returns, she is in the hopes again that we forgot about her Bible dumbness from the time she had to leave in the first place to save further embarrassment. Priceless

You did a great job with your “Terry and His Magic Cactus” scenario, of which put Miss Tradesecret into a downward tail spin, to never recover, but only in the end to run away from your last post.  Jesus is not smiling in her behalf because she at all costs are to defend the faith of Christianity, so saith this Jesus inspired passage:  "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) 

Shhhhhhh, Miss Tradesecret was online within this forum 3 hours ago from the time of this post as shown in the following link over her moniker image, where when she runs away, she sometimes checks in to see how drastic the environment is for her, shhhhhh, don't tell anyone!  LOL!  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEKR9E2

.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,254
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen, seriously, i think Miss Tradesecret goes out of her way to be Bible Stupid because she likes to be corrected by us and the other members, because this act of her Bible ineptness is the only thing that she is known for within this Religion Forum!


That's crossed my mind a few times, Brother D.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast

Thank you for the clarification. Do you have an example of me doing this? I don't deny that there might be one, but I don't recall such a thing.
Fair question. I can't provide a specific example. If I see one I will provide it to you. Perhaps I presumed that is what you were doing. Still, let me apologise for not having one at hand and making an accusation I can't immediately provide. Mind you, I didn't even look. 

Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.
It doesn't because I didn't make such a claim. Your argument doesn't refute what I said. 

On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further.  There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility.  None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other.  Yet it provides us with a starting point.  
Yeah, I know. What's your point?
Seriously? I thought you were the detective. 

But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument -  that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum.  After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.
Wait a minute. The book claims its own infallibility, not Terry's. It just so happens to be called the "Holy Book of Terry." Why does it have to be written by Terry? Even so, yeah, sure, assume that if you consider it to be necessary.
Well,  how about you tell us who Terry is then? What's he got to do with anything? Why is he important? To be perfectly honest, you are attempting to make a mockery of other people's beliefs and you don't actually understand their beliefs. The result is - you make a fool of yourself.  while preaching to the converted. It seems to be a mindless pursuit. 

And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible.  We know it is a joke.  
Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.
You just confirm my last point. 

Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus.  Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history.  It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story.  The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay.  The Bible tells its own story.  It claims its own infallibility.  Whatever I say about it is hearsay.  Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay.  that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.  
Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.
If Terry didn't write the book, who did? You? and what are your credentials? 


In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt.  The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority. 
Thank you so much for assisting me in striking down that anticipated counterargument! Seriously though, between this and the last thing you said, I'm beginning to wonder if you're mixing up your arguments and my arguments.
I suppose anything is possible.  

DO you know what hearsay is?  It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.
I just took about ten seconds to give myself one: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay

Looks good to me!
I guess it does. 

Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? 
Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!
Not if the 20 people give first-hand testimony of what they saw. They're not speaking hearsay. They're giving evidence. Of course, if I hear that evidence and tell someone else, then it's hearsay. 

 If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.
It's still hearsay! Eye witness accounts that are still unsubstantiated are still hearsay!
There were 20 witnesses who corroborated each other's story. Substantiated. Not hearsay. And here's the rub, even if it wasn't substantiated, doesn't make it hearsay either, just that it is unsubstantiated.  And therefore not as strong as other evidence.  One example to make this point. A girl gets raped. Man denies it. No corroboration from any DNA evidence or other circumstantial evidence. Her evidence is not considered hearsay. It just hasn't been substantiated. And more than that - it hasn't been deemed untrue. Just not verified. But it is still not hearsay. His denial is also evidence. It might be corroborated by the lack of the evidence to the contrary, and he might get off. But that doesn't change the truth. And it doesn't make her evidence hearsay. 

The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them.  We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies.  We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto.  We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story.  An urban myth.
It is still hearsay! It continues to be hearsay!
Respectfully, you don't seem to know what hearsay is.  

Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there?  Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.
Well. That wasn't part of the story, but in that case it would not be hearsay.
Very good. It's circumstantial evidence. 
Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell.  But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.
Yeah! Exactly! That's what would make it not hearsay in that case!
Good - you seem to be learning. 
We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses.  What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it? 
It doesn't matter whether they were trustworthy or not, or whether they had motivation to lie or not, because without concrete evidence, it continues to be hearsay. (Remember: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay)
Wrong.  that site says that hearsay is "evidence not based on a witness's personal experience". These first 20 people saw the pig. It is their personal experience.   It's not hearsay if they are giving evidence of what they saw with their own eyes.   That is called DIRECT EVIDENCE.  Please learn what the word means. 

The second part of your story - with one pig is no different.  That is the point.  Some people do their homework and some don't.  You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that.  It's simply not true.
No, I am not. I am suggesting that both are cases of hearsay. That's it. This whole section of my post, from the Holy Book of Terry, to the story of the pig and the donkey was all just to demonstrate that the Bible is no less of hearsay than those few sentences of the "Holy Book of Terry" that I wrote on the spot. Also, it wasn't "with one pig," it was with one person claiming to have seen a donkey instead of a pig. The point was that the claim of there being a donkey was no more of hearsay than the claim of there being a pig.
And so that is where you fail to meet the standards. You need to know what the standards are in the first place.  


And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people. 
Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!
LOL @ you. First you need to learn what evidence is and what hearsay is. 
 










Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,254
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Oh look! Tradesecret ran away! It's like you said!

Yes.  You will find this with the Reverend Tradesecret.  He goes away for a while once he has been caught on the backfoot after painting himself into a corner and stuck for genuine logical responses but then returns all refreshed and ready to spout to you, more contradictions, denials, lies and simply utter bullshite.

You have to remember that you are engaging with a a contradictory bible dunce that tells us that he doesn't even:

"believe in religion and wished it abolished"  and that " the bible is just a book full of words that can't do anything". <<<<<<THIS from a minister, a Chaplain and a Pastor of the church! 

Math_Enthusiast, you are dealing with a compulsive lying sociopath with a terrible personality disorder when engaging with the Reverend Tradesecret.

 Good luck. Nice to see you here.




Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.
It doesn't because I didn't make such a claim. Your argument doesn't refute what I said.
Firstly, I was getting that from here:
When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.
"Very few" implies more than one. Secondly, it doesn't actually matter if you claimed that or not, because my whole point was that my argument is independent of whether the Bible is the only such book, or if there are others. Now let me explain this argument in further detail, because while you have not actually provided a refutation, I think it would be useful for me to elaborate upon and defend it:

Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!

So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?
Firstly, notice how the "Holy Book of Terry" is simply titled the Holy Book of Terry. I at not point in time speak for Terry. Even so, as previously stated, if necessary, imagine that I were Terry. Now, one of your key points is that the Bible asserts its own infallibility, which is why it should even be taken under consideration in the first place. Now, to be clear, when I say "equal footing" in the above, I mean in this one particular respect. To summarize: The whole point of this argument was to invalidate your argument regarding holy books that do/do not assert their own infallibility.

Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.
You just confirm my last point. 
I'm not sure which point of yours you think I was confirming, but the point of this was to demonstrate that your "we know it's a joke" argument doesn't actually work. People believe lots of weird stuff. Just imagine I (or anyone else really) actually believed this stuff.

Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.
If Terry didn't write the book, who did? You? and what are your credentials?
Yes, me. And what are my credentials? What were Matthew's credentials? What were Luke's? That they were apostles of Jesus? How would you know that they were? They could have been lying! I'm an apostle of Terry. Anyone can claim credentials. What more do you have then a claim from the authors of the Bible?

Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!
Not if the 20 people give first-hand testimony of what they saw. They're not speaking hearsay. They're giving evidence. Of course, if I hear that evidence and tell someone else, then it's hearsay. 
So in other words, anecdotal evidence. There's a reason that is frowned upon. We've been focusing on hearsay up until this point, but really we should be focusing on what constitutes good evidence. You later use this example regarding what is and isn't hearsay:

A girl gets raped. Man denies it. No corroboration from any DNA evidence or other circumstantial evidence. Her evidence is not considered hearsay. It just hasn't been substantiated. And more than that - it hasn't been deemed untrue. Just not verified. But it is still not hearsay.
You have a point. I admit to being somewhat mistaken on what hearsay was: After looking at the Merriam-Webster, I had still been under the impression that so long as there was no actual evidence, it was hearsay. I was wrong, as looking more closely now, it defines it as a rumor, which is in turn defined as something "with no clear original source." Returning to this particular situation, in this case a rape is an imaginable occurrence, and there is no reason to disregard the girls testimony. Nonetheless, if someone tells me that there is a pig in my living room, I probably won't take them seriously.  Certainly if I provided a first-hand testimony of witnessing Terry use the power of the Magic Cactus, you wouldn't take me seriously. This is why I propose we move away from the concept of hearsay. If you would like to stay on the topic of hearsay, than perhaps I could come up with some "first-hand account" of seeing Terry in action, and the Bible and Terry would find themselves on equal footing. I wouldn't suggest that for the sake of your argument. Now the point I made here comes in:

You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.
So in other words, supposing I simply claim that my "Holy Book of Terry" is my own first-hand account, neither the Bible nor the Holy Book of Terry are hearsay, and both of them assert their own infallibility, but neither of them seem particularly reasonable either. Just like that, I have reached the same conclusion as before: Other than one simply being more popular than the other, they are on equal footing.

Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!
LOL @ you. First you need to learn what evidence is and what hearsay is. 
Okay, seriously though, give me one piece of evidence that what is written in the Bible is accurate. Perhaps you have already provided something, and I somehow missed it, so please spell it out clearly for silly me.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

As shown below, here is my 30 DAY UPDATE on having to biblically correct this forum's #1 Bible Stupid fool Miss Tradesecret, where she could NOT defend herself in being so Bible dumb, but only to run away from this FACT and hide!  As you can see, Jesus' bible inspired passages and I had a busy month at Miss Tradesecret's embarrassing expense in me easily schooling her Bible ineptness, where we can only assume that the following month will be as busy in correcting her Bible Stupidisms®️ once again in front of the membership.

Furthermore, this doesn't even include you having to correct  Miss Tradesecret's Bible Buffoonery®️ in the last 30 days, which is probably equal to my links shown below, but yet Miss Tradesecret stays upon this Religion Forum to continue to be the #1 Bible Stupid fool that she is.  I am sure that Jesus is not smiling in her behalf in making a mockery of His Bible with only her weak opinions, and with no bible citations to support said opinions!

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9237/posts/389699
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9237/posts/387338
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9237/posts/387129
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9237/posts/386537
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9299/posts/389695
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9299/posts/389556
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9299/posts/389555
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9299/posts/389554
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9299/posts/389552
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9299/posts/389551
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9300/posts/389736
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9300/posts/389735
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9300/posts/389733
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9300/posts/389731
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9300/posts/389730
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9301/posts/389562
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9301/posts/388975
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9312/posts/389329
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9312/posts/389150
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/389142
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/388994
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/388991
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/386161
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/385410
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/385256
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/385110
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/384035
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/384012
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/383681
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/383670
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/383616
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/383598
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/384905
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/383282
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/382069
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9125/posts/382019
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9223/posts/388289
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9223/posts/387319
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9223/posts/387150
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9217/posts/386313
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9217/posts/386154
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9217/posts/385946
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9171/posts/384018
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9171/posts/383810
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9175/posts/384576


IS THERE ANY PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT IS EQUALLY BIBLE STUPID AS SHE IS, AND THAT WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND TAKE HER STATUS WITHIN THIS RELIGION FORUM AS BEING THE #1 BIBLE STUPID FOOL AWAY FROM HER?

.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Let's go back to basics then.  What is your question? Thanks by the way for conceding you didn't understand "hearsay" as well as you thought you did.  I wish others were as genuine in their responses.  



Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I think I understand now. I had been under the impression that it simply meant "without evidence." I now understand that it effectively means a rumor: it is not a first-hand account, nor is there any evidence for. Please correct me if I am wrong.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Lemming
Phenomenon 'can occur, of which we have no answer in the moment,
Ex quantum entanglement, aka superposition, aka spooky-action-at-a-distance, aka both alive and dead, or as both on and of,f or as both are 1 and  0 at same time

1} simple version: think of a key to lock on your residence.  One end of key is vertical {  |  } and other end is horizontal { ---- }. Ok?
..1a} so no matter what position one end of the key stops at the other end is always at 90 degrees to the other end.  Ok?

Now we do this with two tori, however, both tori are sharing the same common center.

2} one torus is vertical , ex (   ) is at 90 degrees to the other torus, that,  is horizontal, ex ----, ergo the two share the same common center (----)

....2a} ( A1 )(--b0--)a1(--b0---)a1(--b0---)a1(--b0-- are precessed { at 90 degrees + } to each other i.e. one of them is horizontal { --b0-- } and the other is vertical { | }  or as A1 or a1 }

My graphic presentation does not do well to give clarity, because, Gravity (  ) will always be around each particle as the outer surface of the torus ergo my ) is ending at both  ends, whereas the point is that, torus as particles, at one end is at 90 degrees to the torus as particle at the other end ( A1  )-----(    )------(   )--B0---

This reprsentation better shows that, tho it lacks the ability to know that each particle as a torus always has outer positive shaped goedesic as Gravitational set of nodal event surface.

None of the above is the answer, --to best of  my knowledge---  it is the best way I know to explain the mystery of superposition.



Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I think I understand now. I had been under the impression that it simply meant "without evidence." I now understand that it effectively means a rumor: it is not a first-hand account, nor is there any evidence for. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If I rang you and told you I was in England and that it was raining outside.  What evidence from this can you give to a court room? 

1. You can give evidence that someone rang you.  2. You might recognise my voice and state that you were confident that it was me, due to past knowledge.  Of course, in our new world of AI technology, it is possible that someone has generated a copy of my voice.  So if the court were to ask you if you were sure that you were talking to a real person or an AI-generated voice, you might have to concede that you can't be sure.  Unless of course you are an expert and are able to determine such distinctions. You would need to establish your credentials and expertise and explain why it wasn't AI-generated.  

You couldn't say where I was located. I said I was in England, but that is just me telling you.  That is what we call "hearsay".  And the fact that I said it was raining. Again that is hearsay.   

3. You would be able to say with some confidence that when you spoke to me on the phone, I was alive.  

But that would be about all you could say.  Hearsay is not just a rumour. It is anything really that someone represents to you that is not first-hand evidence of yourself. 

If I was to ring you and tell you I was in England and it was raining. And the court spoke to me and asked me where I was when I spoke to you on the phone. If I said England, I would be giving direct evidence. And if I said it was raining in England, then that too is direct evidence. 

Your evidence about me that I am in England and raining- is hearsay. Your evidence about me that I am alive and rang you is direct evidence. My evidence about me is direct.  Your evidence is only based on what I said to you. My evidence is based on my experience.  Now of course, the interesting thing is - if I am phoning in - to the court - my evidence is still direct evidence to the court. But that doesn't mean it has been corroborated. If a jury was listening to the phone call between me and the court, if they had any questions about this evidence then they might ask for corroboration. If none is forthcoming then they have the right to accept its truth or not. If none is forthcoming, it doesn't make it wrong or incorrect, just not corroborated. 

The Bible has lots of people writing lots of different books.  There are people who were direct eyewitnesses to some events.  There are however lots of hearsay witness accounts.   Hearsay if it is corroborated is still hearsay.  It might confirm the truth but doesn't necessarily do so. For instance, if someone was next to me when I rang you and they confirmed that I was in England, that might corroborate it somewhat, but it is not definitive proof. It really is just further hearsay from a second witness. 

Think about it. How would you be able to corroborate someone was in England and ringing you? You might look at the phone number. That helps. You might know someone who says that they are in England and ask them to confirm it. Again - though, it's still hearsay. Their direct evidence to you is that they see me. And you could use that under an exemption of the Evidence Act.  

These are fascinating questions.  Finding out what is true is not the easiest thing to do in the world. All of us start with different approaches.  How do we know that 1 plus 1 = 2?   Mostly because we have been told so.   Yes, we have done the experiments and proved it. Haven't we? Or are we just following the logic behind it to a conclusion that is predetermined? Why is 1 plus 1, 2? We have definitions. We have logic. Why is logic right? Why is logic a plausible measuring stick? Because it works. Well, most of the time. Sometimes. Depending upon if we use proper logic.  But what happens if we don't use the right logic or if we are using fallacies? How would we know?  someone comes along with an alternative view of the world, for example, the earth revolves around the sun. How do we know he is right or wrong? 

We start with what we know.  I jump up and I land in the same spot.  Hmmm. the earth doesn't seem to have moved. How could the earth be moving then? I look at the sky. The sun comes up in the morning and it goes down at night. We still call it sunrise and sunset.  Does that observation prove one thing or the other?  I ask the world's best scientists at the time - 400 years ago.  99% of them say - there is a consensus - overwhelming consensus - that the sun goes around the earth and all the evidence points that way.  Should I trust the one who denies this - and whose theory seems to cut away at all of my own observations? At what point do I say "There is enough proof" to satisfy me? And does my satisfaction really matter when it comes to truth? 

This is one of the significant philosophical issues of seeking the truth.  Of course, in our day and age, there are even more troubles.  After all, it is politically incorrect to say truth exists or absolutes exist.   We are all to embrace a relativistic approach. Flexible. Fluid even.  50 years ago we KNEW that males and females were different because they had observable identifying organs. Now, the identifying organs apparently mean nothing. It is what "I feel" is true that is what matters.  Reason and modernism have been thrown out and replaced with post-modernism and feelings.  

I "feel" for people of this modern age.  The pursuit of truth has become a lot harder.   And this incidentally is reflected in the court rooms around the world.  And in our pursuit of seeking truth from "Revelation" and divine sources.   I accept this is much more difficult. 









Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
If I rang you and told you I was in England and that it was raining outside.  What evidence from this can you give to a court room? 

1. You can give evidence that someone rang you.  2. You might recognise my voice and state that you were confident that it was me, due to past knowledge.  Of course, in our new world of AI technology, it is possible that someone has generated a copy of my voice.  So if the court were to ask you if you were sure that you were talking to a real person or an AI-generated voice, you might have to concede that you can't be sure.  Unless of course you are an expert and are able to determine such distinctions. You would need to establish your credentials and expertise and explain why it wasn't AI-generated.  

You couldn't say where I was located. I said I was in England, but that is just me telling you.  That is what we call "hearsay".  And the fact that I said it was raining. Again that is hearsay.   

3. You would be able to say with some confidence that when you spoke to me on the phone, I was alive.  

But that would be about all you could say.  Hearsay is not just a rumour. It is anything really that someone represents to you that is not first-hand evidence of yourself. 
Okay, that's mostly what I thought. Thank you for clarifying though.

The Bible has lots of people writing lots of different books.  There are people who were direct eyewitnesses to some events.  There are however lots of hearsay witness accounts.   Hearsay if it is corroborated is still hearsay.  It might confirm the truth but doesn't necessarily do so. For instance, if someone was next to me when I rang you and they confirmed that I was in England, that might corroborate it somewhat, but it is not definitive proof. It really is just further hearsay from a second witness. 
So then the Bible is hearsay.

These are fascinating questions.  Finding out what is true is not the easiest thing to do in the world. All of us start with different approaches.  How do we know that 1 plus 1 = 2?   Mostly because we have been told so.   Yes, we have done the experiments and proved it. Haven't we? Or are we just following the logic behind it to a conclusion that is predetermined? Why is 1 plus 1, 2? We have definitions. We have logic. Why is logic right? Why is logic a plausible measuring stick? Because it works. Well, most of the time. Sometimes. Depending upon if we use proper logic.  But what happens if we don't use the right logic or if we are using fallacies? How would we know?  someone comes along with an alternative view of the world, for example, the earth revolves around the sun. How do we know he is right or wrong? 
Oh boy. The nature of math. Now that's my territory. I don't want to derail this discussion right now, but perhaps we can debate this another time.

We start with what we know.  I jump up and I land in the same spot.  Hmmm. the earth doesn't seem to have moved. How could the earth be moving then? I look at the sky. The sun comes up in the morning and it goes down at night. We still call it sunrise and sunset.  Does that observation prove one thing or the other?  I ask the world's best scientists at the time - 400 years ago.  99% of them say - there is a consensus - overwhelming consensus - that the sun goes around the earth and all the evidence points that way.  Should I trust the one who denies this - and whose theory seems to cut away at all of my own observations? At what point do I say "There is enough proof" to satisfy me? And does my satisfaction really matter when it comes to truth? 
Quite frankly, what "enough proof" is is a bit subjective. Math is really the only place where we can prove something with 100% confidence. (Once again, perhaps a debate for another time.) With science we can gather a lot of evidence, but we can never really be 100% sure. It is up to the individual how much evidence will convince them. It doesn't even have to be a constant standard of proof. You would probably demand a lot more evidence that unicorns exist than that a particular fertilizer makes grass grow faster.

This is one of the significant philosophical issues of seeking the truth.  Of course, in our day and age, there are even more troubles.  After all, it is politically incorrect to say truth exists or absolutes exist.   We are all to embrace a relativistic approach. Flexible. Fluid even.  50 years ago we KNEW that males and females were different because they had observable identifying organs. Now, the identifying organs apparently mean nothing. It is what "I feel" is true that is what matters.  Reason and modernism have been thrown out and replaced with post-modernism and feelings.  
Likely one of the key reasons these kind of "struggles with truth" exist is because of a lack of consistent definitions. A lot of people aren't sure what gender means anymore.

This is an interesting direction we're going with this. I'll be interested to hear what you have to say next.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Thanks for the comments. 

The Bible is mostly hearsay. Not all of it. As I said, there are direct witnesses and then there are witnesses whose testimony has been recorded.  Our problem in the 21st century is how reliable is the information written down.

But also let me clarify "hearsay".  While I am willing to concede there is hearsay within its pages, this doesn't mean I concede it is unreliable. For while it is true that someone calling me to tell me that they are in England and that it is raining, is technically hearsay.  Declaring it is hearsay, doesn't prove that it is not true. Only that its verification needs to be corroborated.  How can we do that? I indicated above some ways that might give confidence to that - but also noted nothing was 100% provable. 

When it comes to the Bible, or indeed to any historical book, there are matters that people look for to determine the validity of what someone is writing.  They look for clues both of an internal witness and also of external evidence.  They look for the quantity of material and the look for the authenticity of such material. They look for early material and they look for clarifying material. 

It is an interesting study to see how much information of an early variety is around for many of our well-known historical figures. Along with the closest said documents to the time that such people ACTUALLY lived.  One of the best testimonies for the NT scriptures is the sheer bulk of such material and also how early or close it was to the original writings.  Whereas, with Plato and other famous philosophers, we have far less and all of the earliest manuscripts are from times that are much later than even the NT writings.  I provided some of this material earlier in another post. I will dig around and see if I can find it again. You might find it interesting. 

For the record, I take the view that even math can't prove 100%.  Yes, I know the theory says it can. Yet the theory doesn't take into account presumptions. I accept it has "in theory" the view that it can.  Yet there are difficulties even with that view. And I am sure that you have seen them and perhaps even discounted them. Nevertheless, they exist and are relevant especially, when we are talking about truth, and understanding the source of such truth. And applying axioms which by definition are circular arguments that can't be proven. 

Definitions certainly need to be tidied up. And clarified. Nevertheless, I think that often we use definitions as an excuse not to think deeper.  And more clearly. 

The question of evidence for unicorns is an intriguing one.  Why do you think one requires a different standard to the other? 
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
It is an interesting study to see how much information of an early variety is around for many of our well-known historical figures. Along with the closest said documents to the time that such people ACTUALLY lived.  One of the best testimonies for the NT scriptures is the sheer bulk of such material and also how early or close it was to the original writings.  Whereas, with Plato and other famous philosophers, we have far less and all of the earliest manuscripts are from times that are much later than even the NT writings.  I provided some of this material earlier in another post. I will dig around and see if I can find it again. You might find it interesting.
I would find that interesting. I acknowledge that the people of the New Testament almost definitely existed, but I also feel that there is insufficient evidence for many of the miracles/supernatural phenomena.

For the record, I take the view that even math can't prove 100%.  Yes, I know the theory says it can. Yet the theory doesn't take into account presumptions. I accept it has "in theory" the view that it can.  Yet there are difficulties even with that view. And I am sure that you have seen them and perhaps even discounted them. Nevertheless, they exist and are relevant especially, when we are talking about truth, and understanding the source of such truth. And applying axioms which by definition are circular arguments that can't be proven. 
Would you like to debate this sometime? I would certainly be open to it.

The question of evidence for unicorns is an intriguing one.  Why do you think one requires a different standard to the other?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (This website by sheer coincidence also uses the example of a unicorn.)
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
A Zedku for Math Enthusiast.


Hear.

Say.

Hear it

Say it.

Which is how stuff is perpetuated without proof,

And is an effective system,

Of mind control.

Though,

Not 100% efficient.
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
You forgot spiral arguments.