3RU7AL

Since you've introduced a new concept (Real-True-Facts), how about you go ahead and define what that is.  I want to make sure I know exactly what you mean when you say "Real-True-Fact".   I'll start you off:

My definition of True is "in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality"

You said I would assert that "some things are true and unverifiable" and this would violate my definition of True.

I said, nope, not my definition, yours.  In other words, it wouldn't violate my definition of true, but rather your. 

In other words, it all depends on how you define "True".  You will notice, I did not put "verifiable" in the definition of true.  YOu were the one that started adding it in (hence, why I said "Nope, not my definition.   Yours."

** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality? **

That all depends on whether or not you ate a sandwich yesterday, doesn't it?

If you did indeed eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "Yes, that statement is in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality, and is thus TRUE".

If you did not eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "No, that statement is not in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality and it thus NOT TRUE."

I will go one further and say if one doesn't know if you ate a sandwich yesterday, then one can't make a claim either way.  It may very well be true, but without knowing one can't say. 

**(IFF) the supernatural events described in ancient scriptures are unverifiable (THEN) they cannot be said to be true (a.k.a. Not True) and (IFF) Not verifiable (Quantifiable) = Qualia (THEN) they can be described as OPINION.**

No.  you are making the mistake of thinking just because something can not be verified as "true", then it's automatically "not true". 

Again, what do you mean by quantifiable/verifiable? 

Let's get back to your sandwich.  If i didn't see you eat it, but if I have no way of verifying you ate it, does that mean you didn't eat it? 

What if one or more people saw you eat it and offer that as testimony. would you accept that as "verifiable"?  Or no?  Would that give one reason to perhaps believe yes, you did eat the sandwich?  

This brings up a great point though.  Can't you really say that about anything in human history?  You or I can't go back and verify anything that happened in human history-- Jesus walking on water.....the Crimean War.....the reign of Ghengis Khan.....Honus Wagner playing baseball.  Tim Duncan winning the MVP.  Eric Johnson playing guitar.

So the, what do we do?  We look for "clues"......witness accounts, artifacts, etc.  But are these clues "definitive"-- can you prove any of these clues are "true' for whichever event pertain to?  There may be eyewitness accounts of Duncan winning the MVP, but in 1000 years, all you'll have is just written records, perhaps video-- but who knows, the video could be doctored.  

** Now I'm going to hazard a guess that youare going to assert that, "some things are true and unverifiable".
 
However, this would violate your definition of TRUE.**

 Nope-- not my definition, yours.  lol.

"True" - in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality

Of course, 50 years ago I would have said it would be implausible (impossible?) to take the same computing power that fills a couple of rooms and put that same computing power in a couple of hand-held devices.  And yet, here we are-- saying what was implausible back then is indeed plausible now.

** I see, so you believe they're plausible? (Spider-man's webs)

Based on an appeal to ignorance? (i don't know, maybe, i can't really say)**

I guess you forgot what I put my letter "H" a few posts ago.  I'm kinda being a smart-ass here, but in the absence of I use my judgement, experience, and/lor logic to lead me to the conclusion is't no plausible.

** Well among a great many other things, the sheer volume of web that he typically uses to swing from building to building and entangle his enemies greatly exceeds the storage capacity of those magic wrist-bands.  Which makes all reports of activities contingent on this anomalous ability suspect.**

Perhaps, but I haven't, and I"m not aware of any specifc research studies on his web-generating contraptions.  Not quite even sure about the "science" behind the web making thingys. 

"Exist" - to have being

"True" - in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality

"False" - not in conformity (not in alignment) with facts ore reality

Which assertion specifically do you want me to present in the form a Syllogistic Statement?

** you cannot determine if a statement is either true or false (THEN) such a statement is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FANTASY. **

Perhaps.  But again, what you also can NOT do is this:

           1.  You can not say definitively it's true.

           2.  You can not say definitively it's false.

If it wasn't needed, it would stand for reason it wouldn't have been implemented.

But, I think you can understand that 2 eyewitnesses are not going to give identical statements.

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

**Anything that is not (EITHER) provably true (OR) provably false is OPINION and INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.**

Be that as it may, there are two things you can not technically do from a logic or philosphic standpoint:

           1.  You can not say definitively it's true.

           2.  You can not say definitively it's false.

Now if you don't mind, when you say "Provably true", what exactly does that mean in your opinion? 

- Honestly, I can think of some things that are impossible for Humans, but yet are physically possible for other things (breathing under water unassisted, flying in the air unassisted, laying an egg, spinning a web, scaling a wall unassisted,  immediately come to mind).

1.  Spider-man  does some pretty AMAZING things.

2.  These amazing things Spider-man does violate the laws of physics, and can't be proven.  In fact, you say they are "provably false", meaning they can be proven to false.

- Just curious, what are some things that you say violate the laws of physics and are provably false?  Are you meaning to say "Are impossible for a person to do?

What is spinozas god,and why does it exist?

I figured a Jewish commentary would be most appropriate and insightful.

Perhaps "reality is objective", HowEVer, it is impossible for a human to DESCRIBE it OBJECTIVELY.

Every statement made by humans is necessarily contaminated with sample bias and motivated by emotion and colored by opinion.

I never argued that humans could be perfectly objective, only that objective reality exists. Such reality exists regardless of consensus. Consensus does not define reality. Hence the thread's topic.

I guess that all depends on what sort of evidence you are expecting.  By this (these) statements, I assume you mean that you expect a diety (God, or gods) to be measurable they way we measure and observe physical things around us, right?

Here's an entire list, [LINK]

I don't think alleged contradictions is the issue. It's definitely not what I was asking for.

Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?

Is it immoral to purchase a slave?  I guess not, IF YOU FREE THEM IMMEDIATELY.

That may actually have been abuse.

I think if, on the rare occasion (or if it actually even happened) that a slave was purchased from the foreign market, the Hebrew had a quite a responsibility, and obligation to provide sufficiently for the foreigner.

The idea, in every Hebrew law concerning foreigners, was to treat them respectfully in every situation.

The intent from God's perspective was to bless the foreigner. Any forced servitude contradicts that mandate.

Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?

Slaves tend to be abused, but removing the abuse doesn't solve the "problem of slavery"

Is it immoral to purchase a slave with the intention of providing shelter, work/service, potentially becoming a family member, possibly becoming a family member, and eventually gaining the ability to provide for themselves? Is it better to leave them in the hands of [possibly very kind and or] oppressive slave owners?

Are you still insisting that a foreign servant could not leave his Hebrew master?

More than likely, if this even happened, the purchaser would have been quite wealthy, would have provided appropriate accommodations. So more than likely a foreign purchased slave would not have sought release (where would he go?).

there are no straight lines I don't believe, just guesses is all which is why I worded my statement as I did, not drawing any lines or conclusions.

...but it would have been okay to force a foreigner to remain against his will, and be able to practice general abuse?

Does Science Argue for or against God?

obviously it doesn't prove anything one way or the other but it does help to understand why people think and or believe what they do.

But before we go down that path, I'd really like to wrap up, close the door, seal the case, end the discussion, close the book and any other euphemism [METAPHOR] you want to use on the initial Spiderman comment you made:

Conversely, you can't use the same stories then to debunk it, can you?

The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.

Do you agree that your original Spiderman claim, as written, is unreasonable, or do you still stand by that statement and the underlying thought process it has as its foundation?

H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  

Even in you're own (dubious) scenario, where most foreigners purchased as slaves are eventually set free, some become permanent slaves (and all are presumably property for a time). How does your understanding of "Do not oppress foreigners" square with that? After all, the verse doesn't say 'do not oppress *most* foreigners! 

** Do you believe the Amazing Adventures of Spider-man are TRUE?**

Nope.

eh, not letting you off the hook THAT easy, comrade.  You made a pretty clear statement:

** The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.**

Was that said out of impulse? or was it said for dramatic effect?  to garner a laugh or two?   

Or do you really truly believe that that if Book A and Book B both have the same event and that if Book A is false, then that automatically means Book B is false?

Action A is performed in book X

Action B is also performed in book Y

It's a simple yes or no question.  

I'd come across Mach's principle before which is why I  posted what I did.  I think that someone - possibly you - argued that you could take either of two bodies to be at rest.  Well, you can certainly do that for linear motion but I'm not convinced that it works for rotations and orbits.  

However it's very tangential to the topic...

It doesn't mention the sentiment of the servant (whether or not he's okay with it). but........

it also doesn't mention whether or not it's okay with the master. But there doesn't seem to be much arguing here.

How is this "very important"?  What difference does it make if chattel-slavery was OPTIONAL or MANDATORY?

I wouldn't mind answering the question except that it's not chattel slavery (Or, I don't see it that way). Therefore, how can I possibly answer that question?

Probably shouldn't get in the habit of assigning hard labels in complex topics, but I guess I'm kind of a liberal's liberal.  

My political sympathies tend to be populist bleeding heart: looking out for the little guy, enabling the people, Pro-Small business, corporate skeptic, equality of opportunity, staunch respect for human rights, promotion of democracy.   

I can relate to one idea, that given a productive and morally upright society a state that is governed best may come to be governed least.  Personally, I would be inclined to disagree with a popular appeal that the government is always in the way, as political figures will justify all sorts of cuts as the means to such an end.  I don't take such a notion to be exclusive of any particular philosophy, except probably those explicitly predicated on submission to the state, state socialism, fascism, communism etc...  On another mark, you mentioned Republicans earlier, but conservatism isn't exclusive to a political party.  Republican is not synonymous with conservative.  I think people can go a bit far sometimes in rhetoric associating traditionalist tendencies of the South with conservatism and Republicans.  The Democratic National Committee is not inherently exclusive.  

** The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.**

Really?  That's your argument-- the fact a made up book (comic book) has a character (Spiderman) doing things automatically means... 

...that this other book (the Bible) is false?  So in other words, the formula of your argument is this:

Doesn't sound like very sound reasoning to me lol.  

If you are in space and a bucket of water flies by then it makes no difference if you take 'you' as stationary and the bucket moving or vice versa.

But now put a bucket of water on a turntable and spin it.  The water surface will take on a concave shape.

But if you keep bucket stationary and you go round and round it then the surface will stay flat (and you will get dizzy!).

The point is that if the bucket is moving linearly then you can't tell if it the bucket or you that is moving, but in the case of rotation you can tell if it is the bucket or you that is moving.  If it's the bucket moving then the surface is concave, if its you moving then you get dizzy.

The inquisitive person will wonder why the slaves for life option wasn't automatic?

What do you think were the circumstances that lead up to a foreign servant eventually leaving their master?

And again, it's a very important question in relation to the allegation.

Conversely, you can't use the same stories then to debunk it, can you?

I don't know what you believed that link was supposed to substantiate, but our discussion on the topic has already ended. I would like zedvictor4 to answer the questions I posed. 

Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Would you agree that the underlined statement suggests that making a foreign servant a slave for life was an option, therefore making the lifelong slaves was not the norm? Or at least an even or substantially fair amount of the master/foreign slave relationship did not result in lifetime servitude? In other words, the author made it clear than lifelong servitude was automatic. Would you agree?

Depends on what you mean. The argument against biblical slavery is owning another human being. So if that's the case, what about the (American) military and prisons? What about the 7 year voluntary servitude scenario laid out for an Israelite? They were given a choice between serving (and being owned) for 7 years to pay off damages or an act of theft, or go to prison (where they will also be owned).People seem to have different levels of what is acceptable ownership of another human, and even different levels of what is acceptable in terms of biblical servitude. Some seem to be okay with the 7 year scenario, but not with the purchasing of a foreign slave. Or, they just want to focus on foreign slaves because they just think focusing on that make for a stronger case.Where do you yourself draw the line on what is acceptable ownership of a human, from modern contemporary institutions I referred to, to biblical references to slavery/servitude?

What is the difference between "data processing" and "data creation"? If our knowledge can be, at best, self-contained, then why would you posit an "external reality" with "near certainty"? Does near certainty ("almost certainly") have any meaning? 

I'm not aware of any ideological differences on those matters, more so pertaining to institutional integrity in the United States.

The problem is maintaining a relationship with limitations upon the federal government, and also limitations upon the several states, which share sovereignty.  

It can be problematic that people may impose policy through the federal government onto other states opposed to that policy, and this is a widespread issue.  The idea that this is justified by the fact that representatives are democratically elected is wrong. 

Plus there's Gerrymandering and general integrity of the process.

Nobody wants to abolish the rule of law.

Eh, I don't care if they want to or not.  Its a constant problem.

Nobody wants to abolish property rights.

Some people have a way of thinking that is irrespective of property rights, more along the lines of property privileges.  For example, should something be banned, I the property rights of that thing which is already produced and legally held ought to be respected.  I generally don't believe in confiscating private property and transferring to another private entity, under a pretense of "social justice", economic reasons etc...  Disputes over land use are another issue of concern for me.