Total posts: 56
-->
@Harikrish
What is up with GuitarSinger, He gave me a Catholic response and then faded away?
As the great Mark Twain once said, the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated....
I"m back, sorry. Had other pressing matters.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
Peter lied about Jesus and judas betrayed Jesus. Jesus was betrayed by God and his own disciples. Proves Jesus was a poor judge of people. We see the same poor judgement in Christians. They would rather kiss a dead piece of wood than a Muslim.,
Eh, no. He wasn't betrayed by God. He knew what awaited him. And he knew the disciples would betray him, because they have free will. But he loved them anyway. And it just shows God's greatness, able to use weak and imperfect humans to work out his plan of salvation. It should give us all comfort, even those of us who know we are imperfect.
As far as kissing a dead piece of wood instead of Muslim, that's not true. I've kissed Muslims, Hindus, etc. It all depends on the person. If they haven't showered or bathed, I might be more inclined to shake hands or fist bump.
Jesus spoke to his generation. Repeating his words does not carry the same promise. His promise ended on the cross.
Eh, wrong again. He said he would build his Church, and He did. He said he would be with His Church always, he has. He said his CHurch will endure, it has.
The entire New Testament is about Jesus in the flesh. Moses promised a prophet like him would come. The Jews were promised a Messiah, a deliverer. Nowhere did it say the Messiah would be God himself.The Pope could only address the human aspects of the promised Messiah. The mission was a failure, the Romans destroyed the temple, Jerusalem and slaughtered the Jews after they crucified their messiah. If the Pope wanted to give God's perspective he would have done so. but even here he declared the cross the great failure of God.jesus was crucified and not sacrificed. Human sacrifice was banned by God.Turning Jesus's crucifixion into a sacrifice is itself blasphemy. Jesus died for his own sinns. Blasphemy was a sin punishable by death. If he was just a lunatic he might have been spared.
Eh, no. His Church has lasted some 2000 (plus/minus) years, hardly a failure lol. So what if the Jewish promise never said the Messiah would be God himself, what does prove? Nothing. Just because it never it would be God doesn't mean it couldn't be God.
When was human sacrifice banned by God? COuld not God change the rules when it comes to Jesus? Why not?
So far you've done nothing but give opinion, no proof.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
How about Christians eating their sins because they are mistaken about Jesus.If Jesus was on the side of truth he would have stood by his claims. Instead we see he fled to escape for his life when he was questioned and accused of blasphemous lies.No Jew would have stoned his God. No God would be afraid of a Jew trying to stone him. My conclusion is backed by scriptures. Jesus was a blasphemous liar and knew he was lying
Eating their sins? What are you talking about? The Jews that wanted to stone him did not think he was God. How do you know he fled because of fear? It could very well had been because it wsa not the time/place for him to die. You have not proved he was liar.
But they were not just someone. They were his family and people who heard Jesus speak. That's a lot more closer than Christians are who know only from hearsay about Jesus who died 2000 years ago.
Um, yea. BUt just because someone calls someone a lunatic doesn't make it so. You know that and I know that. We see family members and friends betray each other all the time. It was probably no different in the time of Jesus.
Jesus was crucified. Catholics still carry the crucifix as a reminder the Romans crucified Jesus by nailing him to a wooden cross.
Agreed
Psalms 22 is a lamentation. A lamentation is a complaint to God. Jesus was in deep pain and suffering. He could have picked a better Psalm to quote if he was intending to praise God.Let's not forget the facts Jesus believed he was picked and sent by God to save the Jews gHod's chosen people. Here he was suffering under Roman crucifixion. Helpless and lost.
WOw. Pretty presumptuous (arrogant, maybe) for you, someone not in that position of being crucified, to think you could ahve picked a better psalm? The psalm is a prayer to God.
COntinue....
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
Just now getting to this....
But we are certain what is written portrays Jesus as a blasphemous liar and a lunatic for which he was crucified
Sorry, you have to prove he was liar....and a lunatic...
John tells us what was written was supposed to convince us to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. so what was left out were the embarrassing parts of Jesus that would have changed our minds forever and cause us to reject Jesus.But Jesus was rejected by the Jews who lived during his time and heard Jesus in his entirety. They were not fooled by his fake miracles, blasphemous lies and claims. Jesus did not meet the requirements of the promised messiah.Even John the Baptist question Jesus about his authenticity
You offer no proof that what He did did not really happen....
This is why there are some 30,000 Christian denominations. Each try to deal with the Bble contradictions differently. But no one can argue with the conclusion. Jesus was crucified for his blasphemous lies and lunacy. The cross is the symbol of the crucifixion.My first statement begins with Jesus never claimed he was God. (How, Why))Jesus said he was sent by God to save the Jews. That's not a contradiction.See Matthew 15: 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."So Jesus was sent by God. He was not God. He was taking orders from God.
Again, you haven't proved he was liar or lunatic, you just say it....Just because He was sent does not mean He was not God...Also, how do you know He never said he was God? Because it's not written down? I'm willing to bet a lot of money that there are lot of thigns you say that are not written down-- doesn't mean you didn't say them....
Even Jesus did not know his own slip of the tongue. He was surprised they were attacking him for his good works when they were actually accusing him of Blasphemy.But the conclusion proves Jesus was not God. Jesus had to escape to save his life. Hardly a godly act. Jesus was a coward too.
Um, how do you know he was surprised (you don't)? Perhaps he was prompting them (leading them, goading them) into truly admitting why they were wanting to kill him.
COntinue....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
- If you can't prove Proposition #1 is true, then it leaves open the possibility that Proposition #2 is true. It doesn't mean Proposition#2 IS true, but rather COULD BE true - Likewise, if you can't prove Proposition #2 is true, then it leave open the possibility that Proposition #1 is true. It doesn't mean Proposition #1 IS true, but rather could be true
All alligators are crocodiles, but not all crocodiles are alligators.**
You are mis-understanding my illustrations of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your alligators vs crocodiles statement are not necessarily contradicting propositions. The law of non-contradiction states two contradicting propositions can not both be true at the same time in the same sense.
Proposition 1 - X is an alligator
Proposition 2 - X is not an alligator
Both 1 and 2 can't be true at the same time in the same sense
Proposition 1 - X is a crocodile
Proposition 2 - X is not a crocodile
Both 1 and 2 can't be true at the same time in the same sense
Proposition 1 - All alligators are crocodiles
Proposition 2 - all alligators are not crocodiles
Both 1 and 2 can't be true at the same time in the same sense
Proposition 1 - X is True
Proposition 2 - X is Not True
Both 1 and 2 can't be true at the same time and in the same sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A banana is either yellow, or not yellow-- it can't be both.
A banana can be more than one color.
A lightswitch is either on or it's off, it can't be both.
I agree.
A person is either male, or not male-- it can't be both.
Hermaphrodites are considered by some to be half-male - Klinefelter and Swyer syndrome are also somewhat gray areas. **
You get my point though, right? An object/thing can't be X and not X at at the same time. A banana can't be multicolor and not multicolor at the same time. An object can't be a hermaphrodite, and NOT a hermaphrodite at the same time.
Just trying to illustrate the law of non-contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** Present your argument already.**
In time...but first, are you saying that "DENSITY" is the only explanation for a human to walk on water?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** The property of Existence is like a light-switch. It's either on or off. **
Agreed. The Law of Non-Contradiction (aka Law of Contradiction), courtesy of Aristotle...basically states that two contradicting propositions can not both be true in the same sense at the same time.
This can be formalized in different ways, the two following statements can not both be true at the same time:
Proposition #1 - X is A
Proposition #2 - X is not A
Doesn't matter what "A" is....."A can be "existence", "yellow", "blue", "male", "female", "dog", whatever-- the Law still applies.
So, I agree-- Something either exists or doesn't exist, it can't be both. A banana is either yellow, or not yellow-- it can't be both. A lightswitch is either on or it's off, it can't be both. A person is either male, or not male-- it can't be both. Of course, lots of interesting things start to happen when you start redefining words....
I would argue this, though:
- If you can't prove Proposition #1 is true, then it leaves open the possibility that Proposition #2 is true. It doesn't mean Proposition#2 IS true, but rather COULD BE true
- Likewise, if you can't prove Proposition #2 is true, then it leave open the possibility that Proposition #1 is true. It doesn't mean Proposition #1 IS true, but rather could be true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"When you say "you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water" you're ignoring logic.
(IFF) human = some general density greater than water (among any number of other attibutes) (AND) water = h2o (THEN) human cannot walk on water.
End Of Story. "
Ahhhh, but aren't basing this statement/claim (in bold above) on an assumption "That the only way a human can walk on water is if their density is less than that of water?" What if there is some other reason that would enable a human to walk on water?
Or are you saying this is the ONLY reason a human would be able to walk on water?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But just so we are clear, sound logical proof is evidence, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** We CAN say it "doesn't exist" if it doesn't currently qualify, if it doesn't meet the definition of "exist", otherwise what's the point of having a definition in the first place. **
not so sure you can prove something doesn't exist, unless you're solely relying upon "logic". TO say definitively something doesn't exist requires a, um, pretty extensive amount of knowledge, dontcha think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** When you say "you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water" you're ignoring logic.
(IFF) human = some general density greater than water (among any number of other attibutes) (AND) water = h2o (THEN) human cannot walk on water. **
ahh, so you're saying "logic" is proof, huh ...nice...making a mental note here. I'm not saying I disagree with that, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
I am not ignoring logic-- that's exactly what I mean in my "H" statement: you use experience, judgement and reasoning (i.e. Logic) to draw a conclusion.
What you are now furthering clarifying is that logic constitutes as proof in your book, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
wait what? What's your question?
What's a gutsling?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
**(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.
(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.
Humorous Hume can't save you.**
Like I said, I"m right there with you-- I draw the same conclusions as you about humans walking on water-- no need to explain the science behind it to me :-)
But I stand by my statements, you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water, all you are doing is taking your observations and data and making a conclusion (which I happen to agree with) about humans walking on water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of existence.
Existence itself is defined by its obvious indisputability (verifiability beyond reasonable doubt).
You can't seriously claim something "exists" unless it meets some explicit standard-of-evidence.**
Yep, I 100% agree-- if you have no evidence , one can't make the claim/assertion that it exists. If you have no evidence of X, you can't make the claim that X has existence. I totally agree-- I don't think anyone is making that claim, I know I certainly am not,
Likewise, though, you can't make the claim that it doesn't exist or can't exist. Sure, you can say it's silly, preposterous, or pure fantasy for X to exist, but you can't base that assertion on "no evidence", you use something else (remember my "H"?) to make that judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@3RU7AL
**it will just be atheists claiming "no evidence.. no evidence" over and over meanwhile the evidence (that which indicates something true) has been there all along lol. **
I've been with folks in the mountains, and I'll tell them "Looks like there was a bear here...".....And the city slickers will scoff and say "That's B.S.! I don't see a bear ANYWHERE! I don't see any evidence!". Then I'll show them the faint tracks, the bear scat, the claw marks on the trees.....These city slickers just weren't able to see the evidence. Of course, every now and then you get one guy that's still insistent and says "Well, THAT doesn't PROVE there was a bear here! For all we know, ANYTHING could have left that evidence." Some folks, for whatever reason, will simply refuse to see the evidence. To that guy, I'll usually just smile and think to myself "Ok, if the bear returns, all I have to do is outrun that guy..."
Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of absence
Created:
Posted in:
** This is incorrect.
The statement, "a human (and or a being or entity that is indistinguishable from a human) cannot walk on water" is NOT an opinion.
If the claim was, "Orion was able to float on his back", this would be a plausible claim. **
This is getting fun...Nope, actually it's not incorrect.
If an event happens in the past, and you have no evidence, you can't make a claim either way (it's true/false, it happened/didn't happen)......
Technically, scientifically, and philosophically speaking, you can't "prove" that "all" humans cannot walk on water....Sure, you can say humans A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y do not have the ability to walk on water, but this does not necessarily "prove" that human "Z" can not walk on water. So, you are technically in realm "H" (see below)...so what do you do? you use your experience, logic and judgement (your observation that humans A-Y can not walk on water) to draw a conclusion about human "Z"-- that they can't walk on water, and likewise you use this to make the further generalization that all humans can not walk on. By the way, I'm right there with you-- I, too, draw the same conclusions...
If there is a claim of something in the past, and you have no evidence ("proof"), you can't make a definitive claim either way....all you can do is simply draw upon your experience, judgement and reasoning to draw forth a conclusion. It doesn't matter what the even or claim is, one is basically doing the same thing.
The only difference is, you prefer to call some opinions and others "proof" or "facts" based on YOUR experience and judgement.
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".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
**Do you think it would be fair to say, "However, one can indeed use personal experience, private logic judgement, etc to lead one to an OPINION about that claim....**
Sure, if by "opinion" you mean "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Let me give you an example, the statement "X did not walk on water" might not be "provable/verifiable", so the assertion "X did not walk on water" is essentially an opinion in that sense.
**What Standards-of-Evidence can you apply to BOTH of these ancient claims? **
Well. For starters, I would look at some "who's":
- Who's the claim about? Are they credible? What else do we know about them and their life?
- Who's making the claim? Are they credible? What else do we know about them and their life?
- Who are the witnesses (if any)? Are they credible? What else do we know about them and their life?
Then, dig a little deeper:
- THe person making the claim, would they have a reason to lie? What would happen to them if this were false? What would happen to the happen if this were true?
- Same question about who the claim is about, and about the witnesses, etc
What are the circumstances surrounding the claim, the environment, etc
In my opinion, one has to really dig deep-- you can't just take what you hear and then make a decision without first analyzing it. We actually do this everyday, but for some instances/events, it's an almost instantaneous assessment (for example, if my mother tells me something, I don't need to dig deep into her life and assess her life to determine "It's unlikely she would lie to me.").
But to make snap judgment without doing this assessment (not matter how "quick" the assessment is) wouldn't be prudent.
** Here's one better, what if I told you that I walked on water yesterday, and a newspaper published a full report on the event, and there were over a hundred eye witnesses.
Would you consider my claim a Real-True-Fact?
Or would you conclude that it's significantly more likely to be some sort of staged magic trick?**
Initially, I would say "No". Why not? Again, revisit my "H". I don't know or haven't seen any evidence indicating "yes" or indicating "no"-- I simply do not know for certain if it happened or not. So, technically I can not say "your claim is a real-true-fact"....nor can I say "your claim is NOT a real-true-fact." The are many explanations to explain this claim-- perhaps the event didn't even happen at all and it was just a story put out by you, the paper and the witnesses......perhaps it was just a fanciful story by the newspaper writer, and none of the people in the story even exist (you, the witnesses)....perhaps the people are real, but perhaps the author and the witnesses saw a mirage, and saw you from a distance it just "looked like" you walked on water......perhaps it wasn't a mirage, and you were indeed walking on something that they thought was water....perhaps it was indeed a staged magic trick....perhaps you did walk on water unassisted......There are a myriad of things and details that could be surrounding that claim. Hell, the first starting point is figuring out "Is this 3RU7AL guy a person that even existed"...that's the first starting point.....are there records indicating this person existed, etc.
But remember, since there are a lot of unknowns surrounding the claim about you, I am in "H". So now I can use my experience, judgement and logic to help form a judgement about this (perhaps you'd rather I use the word "opinion" in lieu of judgement):
a) My experience tells me that the chances are high that you are just a regular, normal human being. Honestly, I've not seen anything to indicate otherwise. In fact, usually when I meet people or here accounts of people, my first inclination is "THis person is a regular human being like you and me". Along with that comes certain limitations, such as not be able to breathe underwater unassisted, fly in the air unassisted, walk on water
unassisted. Based on this one claim alone I'm inclined to think you probably did not walk on water unassisted
Do I know enough of the circumstances to say it was a staged magic trick? Nah. Do I know enough of the circumstances to say it was just a falsified stories with made-up people? Nah. Do I know enough to say the people were real, but the witnesses were just mistaken? Nah.
Perhaps if there were other accounts like this, it might lead to think "Hmmmm, maybe there is something to this 3BRU7AL guy walking on water".....Maybe if there some data that would lead to believe "Hmmmm, it makes no sense that the author would fabricate this story".....
THere are some other things I wouldn't do or surmise though, such as automatically assume it's a myth, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** Let's move to claim that Orion walked on water.
Do you believe this claim is provably-false (or merely opinion-false) **
I know what you are trying to get to with this, so I'll first answer it from a "technical" or "logical" perspective:
So first, let's just remove the name "Orion", and just substitute X. Let's rephrase the question then as "Do you believe the claim that 'X walked on water' is provably-false (or merely opinion-false)?"
1. When you say "provably-false", I"m assuming you mean that it can be proven to be false.
2. Technically, logically, philosophically speaking, I think it's rather difficult to prove a claim from the past as being "false"..
- Perhaps one could say "there is no evidence of X walking on water."....My response to that, playing Devil's Advocate, is "That is not proof that X didn't walk on water. You simply just don't have evidence."
- Perhaps one could say "there are no witnesses of X walking on water". My response to that, playing Devil's Advocate, is "That is not proof that X didn't walk on water. You simply are saying you don't know of anyone who saw X walk on water. "
3. So with that being said, here is what I would say about that claim "X walked on water." I can't say that claim is false-- I do not have "evidence" or "proof" to definitively say that claim has been "proven to be false."
4. Therefore, it follows that that claim "X walked on water" is merely a statement.
- if you don't know or can't prove (what that "proof" is for you) that it's false, then you can't really say it's a false claim
- likewise, if you don't know or can't prove (whatever that proof is for you) that it's true, then you can really say it's a true claim.
- You simply do not know. Therefore, we in "H" of my thought process.
Now as I said, if one doesn't have enough "evidence" or "proof", one can't make a definitive statement either way. However, one can indeed use experience, logic judgement, etc to lead one to a conclusion about that claim.....
But I think what you are really wanting to get to is this:
(a) I believe Orion did not walk on water
(b) but I do believe Jesus walked on water.
I can almost anticipate your next questions ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hey, things have been pretty hectic the past two days (son starting college, "fighting fires" at work, etc), so please pardon my delay in responding. I might be responding out of order too, so please accept my apologies.
** You seem to be suggesting that if a statement is not "provably true" (Real-True-Fact) or "provably false" (contrary to Real-True-Fact) then it can be declared either "believable/true" or "unbelievable/false" by an individual (you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance). **
Actually, that is not what I"m suggesting or saying at all. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along:
1. If you can not prove/verify/show/demonstrate that something is TRUE (substitute whatever word you want for "TRUE", such as "real", "facts", etc), then you can not make the assertion "It is true.". On the flip-side though you also can NOT assert that it's "not TRUE" either. You simply do not know.
I guess one can just simply utter the words, but doing so doesn't make it "true."
** Do you believe it is important to distinguish between True (as in provably true Real-True-Fact) and True (as in declared believable-true by an individual based on their personal gut instinct, personal judgement, personal experience, and or personal private logic, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance)? For example, [LINK] **
Well yes. Your basically saying is there a difference between a statement that is "TRUE" (as in provably true, Real, etc) and a statement that is TRUE (as in declared true based on instinct, personal judgement, etc). Yes. Of course. They are two separate things. I think it's best to view them as they are, without assigning any clarifier such as "opinion, etc".
Here's what I mean. Suppose there is an blue ball on the other side of the world. You and I have no way of seeing this ball, etc. We honestly truely have never seen the ball, heard about the ball, etc. All we were told is that this ball exists over there.
The objective fact (truth, reality) is that the ball is blue.
You make the statement, let's call it statement A: "the ball is blue."
You also make the statement, let's call it statement B: "My statement A is truth."
I make the statement, let's call it statement C: "the ball is orange."
I also make the statement, let's call it statement D: "My statement D is truth."
You then make the statement, let's call it statement E: "Your statement C is false, and is your statement D."
I then make the statement, let's call it statement F: "Your statement A is false, as is your statement B."
First and foremost, the objective fact of the ball being blue is independent of what you or I say, think, observe about it. Hell, you and I can cease to exist and that objective fact (the ball is blue) will remain.
Your statement A is simply that. A statement. One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement. You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.
Likewise my Statement C is simply that-- a statement. I can not call my statement C a "truth" or a "fact" (i.e. I can't really make statement D) because I simply don't know.
Likewise neither one of us can say the other person's statements are false (statements E or F) because we simply do not know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
First rule in discussion, don't answer for the other person. Don't ask a question and then answer it for me. Let me answer it.
Which statement is tautological-- yours or mine? Personally, I think yours (Real-True-Facts) is tautological. Mine (True is pretty straightforward with no redundancy). I thought I offered a very simple, concise and solid definition of "TRUE".
But it seems it's not to your liking (too squishy, I think is what you said?).
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:
The definition of "Real-True-Fact" is _______________________________. Just fill in the blank.
I'm reluctant to answer the questions until you first define "Real-True-Fact". But I will do so anyway, however I do reserve the right to come back and change my answers based on how you define it above.
** Do you believe the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" is a Real-True-Fact? I'm going to say no. **
You may so no, but I wouldn't it. I believe you can't say yes or no. I thought I answered this already? It all depends on whether or not you ate the sandwich or not, doesn't it?
1. If you indeed did eat the sandwich yesterday, then I would say "yes", that statement is a Real-True-Fact.
2. If you did not eat the sandwich yesterday, then I would say "no", that statement is not a Real-True-Fact.
3. If it is unknown if yo uate the sandwich or not, then i would say "Can't answer.....one doesn't know therefore one can't say either way if it's a Real-True-Fact or not".
** Do you accept something as FACT if you can't verify it? I'm going to guess you believe FACTS are indisputable."
Whether I accept something as FACT, and whether or not that something is a FACT are two entirely different questions. But again, go back to my thought process. If there is no evidence, or it can't be verified then I can't claim either way it's a FACT or it's not a FACT. I use "H".
A. A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)
The question becomes Is "A" a REAL-TRUE-FACT Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)
B. If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind.
C. I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D. If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E. I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real.
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".
** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" indisputable? **
"Indisputable" means "unable to be challenged or denied." No it's not indisputable. It can be challenged or denied. I can challenge/dispute any claim on earth. The question is, does the challenge or denial hold up-- can it (the challenge) be upheld? I can dispute your claim "I ate a sandwich yesterday" by countering "No, no you did not." The question now becomes-- who's right and who's wrong? Two contradicting statements can not both be true, one is false. How do you prove which is which?
** Do you accept something as REAL if you can't verify it? I'm going to guess you believe REALITY is undeniable.
Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" undeniable? **
ok. Now who's being "tautological"? You're just reframing the same question with different words. "Undeniable" means "unable to be denied or disputed". No it's not undeniable. It can be challenged/denied/disputed. I can challenge/dispute/deny any claim on earth. The question is, does the challenge or denial hold up-- can it (the challenge) be upheld? I can deny your claim "I ate a sandwich yesterday" by countering "No, no you did not." The question now becomes-- who's right and who's wrong? Two contradicting statements can not both be true, one is false. How do you prove which is which?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** It's either True (verified) or Not-True (unverified). **
Nope. You are making several leaps and bounds in your reasoning. Maybe you're confusing the making of statements with the objective reality? In other words, you are confusing the SAYING "something is true" with whether or not it is indeed true. Here's an example. Suppose there is blue ball in an opaque box that can't be seen through.
1. The statement "The ball is blue" can not be verified. One can't see the ball to verify if it is blue or not. So, technically speaking, one can't say if that statement itself is True or False.
2. But the objective reality is that the ball is blue.
The statement can not be verified-- does that make the ball less blue....or put another way, does it make the statement "The Ball is blue" false? Absolutely not. So you can't say just because it can't be verified it is thus not true.
** I might even be a sophisticated AI.**
Al who? Al Capone? Al Michaels (do you believe in Miracles?!?) Al Kaholik? (Moe picks up the phone "Moe's Tavern......lemme check....*asks bar patrons*....I'm looking for a Kaholic, there is a call for an Al Kaholic. Is there an Al Kaholic here".) Regardless, what does AI have to do with anything. The question on the table is not whether or not your AI (Al Capone, Al Michaels or Artificial Intelligence), the question is whether or not you ate the sandwich. Who or what you are is irrelevant.
** Do you know these hypothetical witnesses? Are they capable of being misled? How close are they to the situation? How emotionally invested?**
Exactly. So now you start to investigate. Ask question to these witnesses or of these witness. That's how one arrives at Truth.
** He’s a total crank.**
But how and why do you come to the conclusion that he's a total crank? Surely there's some reasoning, or it simply because the stories seem outlandish to you? Did you investigate his stories, his background, his arguments? Or are you simply pawning him off as a "crank" you simply can't or don't want to believe his stories?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to mince words or make this be an English lesson, but words and definitions are very important. THAT is not a verbatim quote lol.
Verbatim means "in exactly the same words as were used originally."
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ahh, so someone has done some research on Spidey's gear. I like it. (keep in mind I tend to be sarcastic and a smart-ass at times and often play Devil's Advocate)
So I would say, now that there is research, and dare I say, evidence, I would say I'm no longer in "H", but now back in "E". Base on this I would say not "plausible" (actually the same conclusion I had when I was in the "H" realm....i used my experience, judgement and logic to deem it not plausible).
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.
By the way, if you are trying to convince that Spiderman is not real, you don't have to work that hard-- I don't believe him to be real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
**(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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** I see, so you believe they're plausible?
Based on an appeal to ignorance? (i don't know, maybe, i can't really say)**
I guess you forgot what I put in my letter "H" a few posts ago. I'm kinda being a smart-ass here, but if I lack evidence I use my judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead me to the conclusion is't no plausible.
Just to recap:
A. A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)
The question becomes Is "A" real? Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)
B. If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind.
C. I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D. If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E. I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real.
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".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I’ll put my responses in BOLD
** To call something True, it must be verifiable. **
I disagree. The fact that you or I can't verify something as "True" doesn't make that something any less or not true. Whether something is True or not does not depend on you or I being able to call it true or not. Also, What do you mean by “verifiable” or “quantifiable”. Please expand on that. “quantifiable” implies measurable….. Are youimplying that it must be verifiable by scientific evidence?
**To call something Not-True, it must(merely) not be True (unverifiable Qualia). [LINK] **
I agree—something cannot be "True" and "NotTrue" at the same time. It’s a logical contradiction. It is impossible for a triangle to be a triangle and “not a triangle” at the same time. But, if something is unable to be verified as "True" doesn't mean you can automatically call it "Not True".
** For example, (IFF) You can not saydefinitively it's true (THEN) it is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) Qualia (OPINION). **
That all depends on what you mean by “Verifiable”. But yes, regardless of how you define it, if you can’t “verify” (prove) something as True, then you can’t say it’s true. But likewise, you can’t say it’s “not true”—you simply just do not know. Now keep in mind, it may very well be true, but you or just simply lack the ability to verify it as such.
** 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.**
However, this would violate your definition of TRUE.**
Nope-- not my definition, yours. lol. This also depends on what you mean by, or how you define, “Verifiable” how you are using that term. Why is it unverifiable—it is because it simply can not be or is it because we simply lack the capacity or the ability to verify it? Just because I can’t verify something, does it make that something any less true? Something is “TRUE”independent of you or me verifying it’s true.
For example, I could say, "I ate a sandwich today" and you might imagine that my statement is (EITHER) true (OR) false.
HOweVEr, since you have no way ofverifying if the statement is true (THEN) it is Qualitative OPINION (Not-True).
Wrong. This last part about makes it sound like just because you can't verify it as TRUE you are now deeming it "Not True". I say you can't do that. Just because something is not Verifiable as “TRUE” doesn’t automatically make it “Not-True”. If I have no way of verifying you ate the sandwich, that doesn’t automatically you mean you didn’teat the sandwich. It just simply means I can’t confirm that you ate the sandwich.
Some statements have truth value (either verifiably true or verifiably impossible) and any statement that is NOT verifiable HAS NO TRUTH VALUE.
Statements with no verifiable truth value are statements of OPINION.**
The statement may be opinion but what is being assessed has a truth value that is independent of the person making the statement. A guy on a deserted island can say “Water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms”. But he has no way of verifying it—is it less of a truth because he can’t verify it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
** All we need is a time machine and we can settle it once and for all! **
Preferably a DeLorean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think I ever addressed this question
**Do you think the scribes who wrote gen 1-2 (in Babylon, 2700 years ago, probably) wanted/expected the ordinary Hebrews of the time to take it as a true story? Obviously we can't know if they did, but what do you think? I think they wanted their story to be believed."**
THere-in lies the real question. What was the author's intent (when they wrote it), and what were the Compiler's intent (those who compiled the books into the Bible) when they chose it as part of the Canon of the Bible.
So which part do you think they wanted them to believe, and why? I ask because stories of a certain style are meant to have certain elements believed as literary, others are meant to be metaphors or allegories, etc.
I fully expect some to pawn this off as a "False Equivalency" etc, but I'm simply using this to explain my point. When my folks read me the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper, did they expect me to believe it as truth? Well yea.....which part? The part about working hard NOW to prepare for later-- that's the "Truth" they wanted me to take away from the story. They had no intention of me believing an Ant and Grasshopper could talk, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** Here's the problem.
You need to make your definition of "exist" explicit.
You also need to make your definition of "true" explicit.
You also need to make your definition of "false" explicit.
Identify and reveal your AXIOMS.
Then present your assertion in the from of a Syllogistic Statement. [LINK]
(IFF) you cannot determine if a statement is either true or false (THEN) such a statement is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FANTASY. **
How's this:
"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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** What about violating the law of conservation of energy?**
What about them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
**You missed the part about a rigorous logical proof.
For example, Spinoza's god definitely exists."
I take that to mean that even if there is no quantifiable positive evidence (i.e. physical or scientific evidence) you'd be willing to accept "logical proof"? Is that correct?
So in other words, you don't require hard, physical scientific evidence in order to believe something. There could be no physical scientific evidence, but as long as there is logical proof, you would believe it?
And back to my earlier question, what exactly do you mean by "rigorous physical proof" (again, just want to make sur eI'm on the same page)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** Not necessarily.
You missed the part about a rigorous logical proof.
For example, Spinoza's god definitely exists.**
Alright alright alright. What exactly do you mean by "rigorous logical proof". I wan to make sure I'm on the same page as you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** The claim appears to be, simply that some of the descriptions of Spider-man's Amazing Adventures violate the known laws of physics and are, as such, provably false. This alone does not invalidate the historical places and events described in the comic. It doesn't even invalidate the existence of a man named Peter Parker. It also doesn't invalidate the existence of a person wearing a Spider-man costume who wants to stop criminals.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson could take the Spider-man canon and edit out all of the "miracles" and at that point we'd be left with a vastly more plausible, but still not NECESSARILY TRUE historical account. [LINK]
Anything that is not (EITHER) provably true (OR) provably false is OPINION and INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy. **
OK, great! Thanks for clarifying. On the surface, your initial statement could be interpreted as you stating something to the effect of "because the events in Spider-man are unbelievable this also proves that Bible is untrue." It appears this wasn't what you were implying (again, this is why always ask people to clarify their positions).
So what you are saying is this:
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?
- Surely you're not suggesting that just because A is impossible for X, that proves that A is also impossible for Y and Z? In other words, if it's impossible for a human being, it's impossible for something else?
- 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).
3. You also state that these "provably false" things "alone does not invalidate other historical events/places in the comic."
- I couldn't agree more! Just because a book has some things that can't be proven, or better yet, can be proven false, that doesn't necessarily mean other things in the book (places, people, events) are false too.
Not sure what the point of Jefferson side-bar is, but I agree-- one can certainly pick and choose things from a book and create a totally different story. I can certainly do that with "The Lord of the Rings" (it'll be much shorter and less entertaining), "Catcher in the Rye" (my cherry picked version would be less controversial probably), etc.
**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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps you are reading into what I wrote or perhaps did not read it correctly or simply just do not understand it. So I will present it again (I'll add some emphasis, bold letters, in case you missed it) and will answer your questions:
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".
** Are you suggesting that you can't flatly state that Spider-man and Orion are FALSE? **
Nope. That is not what I'm saying. Re-read "H" above again. When it comes to Spiderman and/or Orion the Hunter (one of my favorites from Mythology by the way) I can "use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion. "
** LACK of evidence is not proof of an afterlife.** Agreed. Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that afterlife is or isn't possible). (See "H" above)
** LACK of evidence is not proof of bigfoot.** Agreed. Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that bigfoot does or doesn't exist). (See "H" above)
** LACK of evidence is not proof of space aliens.** Agreed. Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that space aliens do or don't exist). (See "H" above)
** LACK of evidence is not proof of a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars.** Agreed. Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that the earth is a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars). (See "H" above)
Honestly, I'll make it easy on you:
1. Lack of evidence of X is not proof that X exists (that's basically what you're saying in your examples above. And I agree with you.)
2. Lack of evidence of X is not proof that X DOESN'T exist either (for all we know, X could very well exist, we just haven't uncovered the evidence).
3. So what does lack of evidence mean? Just that....you lack evidence, so technically you can't make a claim either way.
4. Put succinctly: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
** In order to justifiably BELIEVE something, you must have Quantifiable positive evidence or a logically rigorous proof.
Otherwise your OPINIONS are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy. **
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
**I disagree. In the ancient world the reality of gods was not a matter of debate - gods were considered to be as real as gravity or rocks. The story of Adam and Eve would not have seemed far-fetched or fantastical but a natural consequence of how gods were. Lay Hebrews would accept that their priests knew these things by virtue of their relationship with the gods - the priests themselves may have had a more complicatedreationship with the stories, but no-one was encouraged to question its veracity too closely. Presuamaly they accepted that god had revealed what was necessary, not everything.
- 2Samuel (written around 540 BC) – employs metaphors etc. The text describes God as being a rock and afortress…..the author is not stating that God is a piece of sedimenatarymaterial or a military stronghold. Thatsame text also says that God’s nostrils flared. But read the entire text (or at least that chapter) and you will see howSamuel (David) is using poetic language to describe how God saved him. This isn’t a scientific (factual) account ofwhat physically happened when God saved Him. In fact, there is a lot of poetic language throughout the OT Psalms, etc….”on wings of eagles”….”savedme from the pit”).
So if by a 'scientific' explanation of how man came into eistence you mean a factual account, I think Gen 1-2 were intended as such and would have been universally accepted as such at the time. it continued to be taken as simply factual right upto the C19th when science proper began to cast doubt on its literal interpratation. In 1851 Rusin wrote:
"If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses"
But for more than 2000 years the truth of Genesis wasvirtually unquestioned**
That’s a great point . However We also know “the ancients” also used“literary techniques” and poetic language to convey certain ideas, thoughts and concepts, even when when describing God and His actions:
- 2Samuel (written around 540 BC) – employs metaphors etc. The text describes God as being a rock and afortress…..the author is not stating that God is a piece of sedimenatarymaterial or a military stronghold. Thatsame text also says that God’s nostrils flared. But read the entire text (or at least that chapter) and you will see howSamuel (David) is using poetic language to describe how God saved him. This isn’t a scientific (factual) account ofwhat physically happened when God saved Him. In fact, there is a lot of poetic language throughout the OT Psalms, etc….”on wings of eagles”….”savedme from the pit”).
- Genesis, itself employs what is hard to deny as “poetic language”
- God, when speaking to Abel, says “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!” I think mostscholars agree that this passage is not meant literally mean the earth is shedding tears-- it's using a literary device, poetic language, to talk convey a point.
- When the Great Flood happened, it says “thefloodgates of the sky were opened”. Thisis poetic language to describe how a large amount of rain started to fall fromthe sky. It’s not meant to imply thatone point there was an actual mechanical floodgate in the sky. You state Genesis went unquestion for 2000 years.....I would argue though that as long as the writings have been around, there have been folks disputing it-- I have no proof to back up this claim, but human nature hasn't seem to change much over the course of the millennia. In fact, I would argue that those who believed in Genesis were small in number compared to those around them (the Egyptians, etc) so they probably met with a lot of disagreement from others that were "polytheistic", etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll answer both your SPiderman and Orion questions simultaneously, because it's the same answer:
Nope. I don't believe them.
Why not?
Here's why, and allow me to modify my thought process (making it more general). I'll highlight my changes by italicizing them:
A. A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)
The question becomes Is "A" real? Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)
B. If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind.
C. I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D. If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E. I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real.
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".
In the case of Spiderman and Orion the Hunter, "H" is where it gets me. I'm anticipating the eventual "Well how come you believe Jesus is real??" question (this ain't my first rodeo).
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 you want to use on the initial Spiderman comment you made:
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** Do you believe the Amazing Adventures of Spider-man are TRUE?**
Nope.
** Book X = Action A
Book Y = Action B
Not the "same event". **
Well hold on there, Cowboy. I realize they are not the same event. My post 296 is actually just me "formalizing" your argument when you said "The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE."
So in other words, by this statement you made in your post (that prompted this), you are saying Action A is performed (recorded?) in Thing X (in this case a book), a totally different Action B is performed (recorded?) in Thing Y (in this case, a Spiderman Movie). But because Thing Y is made-up, that must mean Thing X (it's associated Actions, such as Action A) are UNTRUE? I stand by statement that this is unreasonable lol. SOrry, just trying to understand the argument you made.
** If two history books contain SOME of the same (or very similar) believable or unbelievable stories, that does not necessarily mean that any of the OTHER stories in the history books are either ALL true or ALL false.**
I agree. But that's not what you said when you made your initial Spiderman statement (See above). Are you backpedaling away now from your Spiderman statement? When you made that comment (the Spiderman comment above), you are basically saying that because the Spiderman movie is made up and has totally unrelated events that are unbelievable, this provides good evidence that Bible stories are untrue. That is what you are saying though in your history books comments.
What you said in your Spiderman analogy/comment is different from what you are now saying in the HIstory books analogy/comment. Let's close the book (pun intended) on the SPiderman analogy/comment before move on to your History books analogy/comment (which I do agree with).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
** Evolution, which is supported by evidence debunks the A&E story which has no evidence as support.
BTW it's you who is supposed to be supporting the lies in the bible that I have asked you about.
Next? **
Actually, it does nothing of the sort. Evolution doesn't preclude the Creation story. Evolution could very well. The fact that there exists animals that are very similar in biology etc doesn't necessarily mean the Creation story never happened. The Creator could have very well made animals very similar to humans. Or Evolution could have been part of the Creators plan. Evolution doesn't explain the "leap" from lower forms of life to Human life-- it just shows there could be a link.
Now, I ask you a very important question "From your perspective or understanding, what is the intent or purpose of that story?" The other important question is "How do you read (interpret) the story"?
These are very important in questions when one is questioning the "truth" behind a story.
If someone were telling me they don't believe Orwell's "Animal Farm" or the "Ant and The Grasshopper" by Aesop. If there response is "Explain and show that animals can talk and form governments (in the case of Animal Farm)", I'd say "Dude, you're missing the point of the story."
So, before I can start answering your questions about the "lies" of Adam and Eve, I need to know:
1. From your perspective or understanding, what is the intent or purpose of that story?
2. How do you read (interpret) the story?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
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?
It's a simple yes or no question.
Now...on to your questions:
** How do you determine if the events described in "The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man" are REAL? The question is about Standards Of Evidence. How do you determine if the events described in "The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man" are REAL?**
Pretty much the same way I determine if other events are real. I wasn't around to see John Hancock put pen to paper so do I truly know he actually signed the Declaration of Independence? Hmmmm....well....we have historical accounts/records (written accounts) of him doing so. We also have witnesses and their accounts. Of course, there's always the possibility that the written accounts of him could be false or the witnesses could be "making it up". Heck, there is always the possibility that even though the Declaration says "John Hancock" in pretty big script, it may not actually be his signature.
Likewise, with this guy Jesus. I wasn't around to see him walk on water or raise the dead or heck, even appear in His resurrected form after His death. So then, how do i know he was real? Same process....I examine the historical accounts/records. I learn about the witnesses and their accounts etc.
So now let's examine Spiderman. We have written accounts of him, right? We have comic books, film, etc. This is written historical evidence, is it? Or isn't it? . So how we know if he's real or not. Are there eye witness accounts of him outside of film?
Of course, in 1000 years one could come across the film "Spiderman". If they were to just only examine that one document (film) and not look at other stuff, they could come to the conclusion that Spiderman was some sort of God that really existed. But I would expect this conclusion to be supported by other evidence (i.e. witnesses, etc).
Or they could reach the conclusion that he was just some made up character. Simply because there is no other evidence. But they could come to the same conclusion about Oskar Schindler, if all they examine is Spielberg's film. They could say "All we have is this film about Schindler". If they ignore the other evidence (other records, witness accounts, etc) they could erroneously surmise that Schindler was just a made up character.
What I don't do though is deduce that book B is false simply because book A is false, which you seem to have done in your statement.
** Please diagram your own thought process.
Action A (a miracle) is performed in book X
Book X is really really old
Lots of people believe book X is truly truly true
Therefore, miracles are REAL?**
Nah, that's not the thought process. Just because a book is old is not reason enough to believe it. In a thousand years, Orwell's "Animal Farm" will be considered "really really old"-- age alone is not reason enough to believe there are talking animals (but, if your main takeaway from his book is that animals could talk, your missing the point of his story). Likewise, popular vote doesn't make something real or true (i.e. "lots of peole believe it's truly truly true" is not reason enough to believe something). Many many people could believe the moon is made of cheese-- that would not make it so.
Here is my thought process. It's actually pretty simple (I'm an engineer by education and trade, so forgive me if it's analytical)
A. Action A is performed in book X.
B. If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind.
C. I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D. If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E. I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will ten to believe it's not real.
If you have a better way of arriving at Truth, I'm all ears.
I think a lot of times where we differ is what we define as evidence and "preponderance of evidence".
I think many Atheists skip or refuse to do these steps:
B. Examine the claim that it is real with an open mind. Instead, they examine it from their bias or preconceived notion that it is false.
E. Challenge the claim that it is not real. Instead, again they are dead-set in their beliefs that it is false and won't challenge this notion they have
Likewise I think may Theists skip or refuse to do these steps:
C. Challenge the claim that it is real. Instead, again they are dead-set in their beliefs that it is false and won't challenge this notion they have
D. Examine evidence suggesting it's not real with an open mind. Instead, they examine it from their bias or preconceived notion that it is true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
** To instruct readers what they should believe. The main elements are that yhwh is the creator and paradise was lost because of disobedience, as described in the text. **
So then, would you agree that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be a scientific dissertation on how man came to be? In other words, it's not intended to explain scientifically how "man" came into existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
** Of course I can, the stories are fiction. Or you can prove them truthful as I requested, instead of running away with your tail between your legs.**
Ok. I'll take the bait ;-)
How do you know they are fiction? In fact, let's just make this easy and focus on one story at a time-- the story of Adam and Eve.
From your perspective or understanding, what is the intent or purpose of that story?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
** 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:
Action A is performed in book X
Action B is also performed in book Y
Y is a made up book
Therefore, X must be made up too (false)
Doesn't sound like very sound reasoning to me lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Great. Thanks for answering for him ;-) lol. He made a specific request of me, so I was wanting him to provide clarification on his request so I can address and answer it carefully.
I agree-- it doesn't necessarily support. Conversely, you can't use the same stories then to debunk it, can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
My questions still stand for you. Before I answer, I want to clarify. I don't want to presume to know what you are asking. Your sentence fragments were unclear.
What claim specifically about "Adam and Eve" were you wanting me to answer?
What claim specifically about "400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt" do you want me to answer?
What claim specifically about "4million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs." do you want me to answer?
Incidentally, I'm not sure where you got the number "4million", but I can play your game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Um. Perhaps you can just state what you want in sentences and not sentence framents. What is the claim of Adam and Eve that you are wanting me to provide? What is the claim of the 400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt? What is the claim about 4 Million people and livestock wandering in the wilderness for 40 years?
Do you want me to provide evidence that those things occurred or existed?
Before I begin, let me ask you a few questions:
1. By referencing "Adam and Eve", I'm assuming you are referring to the 2nd Creation in Genesis, correct?
2. What type of literature is Genesis (i.e. is it letter, a poem, a history, a parable, etc)? How do you interpret Genesis? Are you taking it literally?
a. My faith doesn't believe that "Genesis" was meant to be a scientific treatise on how the world and creatures came to be. It is a text filled with stories, accounts, etc to convey certain truths, ideas, . Think of it like this. I'm sure you're familiar with the author Aesop and his stories (fables), right? Have you ever read his story of "The Ant and Grasshopper"? That story has a talking Ant and a talking grasshopper. What is the purpose of his story? To convey a simple idea, a truth if you will-- that it one should prepare while one has the chance-- if you to succeed tomorrow (future) start working now (today). It would be silly to discard the moral in the story simply because one doesn't believe in talking ants or grasshoppers. If you are expecting to find evidence of a talking ant and talking grasshopper, chances are high you won't find it. But if it's that part of the story that you are focused on, then you are missing the point of the story. The talking ants and grasshoppers
b. So now, what is the purpose or intent of the Adam and Eve account? Pretty simple actually. It's to convey a simple truth that (a) humans had not always existed, (b) humans were created (by God) , (c) they were given the ability to make choices (free will) and (d) we are often tempted to make the "wrong" choice, etc. If you get stuck on the story because it used a talking animal as part of the story, etc, then you are missing the point.
4. 400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt
a. What texts/passages are you referencing specifically (I think I know, but I want to make sure you and I are referencing the same thing)
5. 4 million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs.
a. What texts/passages are you referencing specifically?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
lol. clever. I actually know what it means to be "male" and "female". It comes down to biology, as you allude to when you speak of the differences between the animals.
Which gets to the point of, with that being said, how you can surmise that the Deity "God" is female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
In simplest, basic terms, it just "makes sense". I was never an "atheist" per se, but I was at most, "indifferent". Used to be very pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-have-sex-with-whomever-the-hell-you-want. I had a lot of questions about faith, God etc There were times i even angry God (How could a good loving God allow this this and that to happen...etc).
At the same time, certain things started happening in my life which made life very difficult-- and these were all of my doing. During this deepest darkest times I met some amazing people, all of very strong faith, that helped me, they lifted me up. As a I started to come out of this "death spiral".
I had been Catholic all my life, but I was basically a "card-carrying" Catholic. I was often challenged by others-- atheists, Christians who despised Catholics, and just people who were curious. They would ask "Why do you Catholics do this this or that? Why do you belive this this or that?". I was embarrassed. I didn't know the answers...so what did.
As I started to emerge, I really began questioning my own life, my own choices, faith, God etc. A lot of these were some of the same questions I had earlier, but what I started to do was seek out answers. real answers, not just listening to those that have agendas. Many people would often challenge my Catholic faith or ask about it, not because they wanted to know, but rather because they were intent on belittleing, mocking or ridiculing me or the Faith. TO those who would do this, I would be thinking on the inside "Dude, if you are trying to win me over to your side, you're going about it the wrong way."
So I started to learn. I started reading up on the faith, Church history, and really seeking to understand "why". Started reading Aquinas, Augustine, the early Church History, and really learning why we do things as Catholics. And I started to learn. The more I started to learn the more I understood and grew to love it. Like I said, at the same time, I started meeting some amazing people who were much more knowledgeable about the faith than I and I really felt that they cared about me, and truly wanted to help me. After all the questions I've asked, I arrived at the conclusoin "There is just no other way-- there has to be a God", but I continue to ask questions and see answers.
If you are truly interested in learning why people believe in God, I think that's awesome. It's great to ask questions. If you notice, I'll often ask people questions-- lots of questions. That's how you typically arrive at truth-- you ask questions and really be open to the answers. Many times people ask questions, but aren't open to the answers. and if the answers don't satisfy them, they don't believe it.
Anyway, if you are ever interested in learning more about the Catholic faith, or if there are things you don't understand what us Catholics do, i'll be happy to answer or explain. Many people simply do not understand the religion, and may refuse to listen to any attempts to explain.
Created:
Sorry, still begs the question-- what does it mean be "masculine" or "feminine"?
Created: