Subject:
|
Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:13:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1996 times
|
| |
|
|
Chomp.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:31 GMT, "James Brown"
> <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote: • <many other people wrote, but the attributions have been snipped>
> > > > > The thing is, I believe the Bible to be literal truth about the universe!
> > > > > So in that case, I never will stop believing the Bible.
> > > > Ryan, I don't presume to question your Faith, but for a number of reasons
> > > > your position on the nature of text isn't entirely supportable. If, for
> > > > instance, even a single snippet of The Bible is found to be not literally
> > > > true, then the literal interpretion of the whole work falls.
> > > What if God isn't perfect? What if he purposefully put in mistakes as
> > > a sort of "test of faith"?
> > How is that relevant to Dave's question?
> Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss
> another meeting?
Oops, silly me. c/question/argument
> > Ryan stated his belief that the
> > bible (not portions, or "except the bits to test our faith") is literal
> > truth.
>
> A yup.
>
> > If one holds the entirety as literal truth, then any example of
> > non-literal truth invalidates the entirety as literal truth. (It does not
> > necessarily mean that none of it is literal truth, but it does indicate that
> > not *all* of it is literal truth.)
>
> Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could
> still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start
> talking about all sorts of things that probably go over your head as
> well as mine. It's basically like Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc. In
> our everyday thinking we don't really see how the effect can precede
> the cause, however there are numerous scientific theories and
> calculations which prove that under given circumstances such a thing
> can occur. Again though that delves into all sorts of really high
> level thinking and math that I've only barely scratched the surface
> on. My point was that in all "reality" anything is possible, and that
> to say you are right and someone else is wrong is quite laughable at
> best. Just because you're not capable of understanding something (I
> mean that on a physical note, there are some things that we as humans
> just cannot fathom) doesn't mean that such things are impossible.
Go ahead, amaze me.
Statement: the Bible is all literal truth.
Statement: part of the bible is not literal truth.
I'm fascinated to see how these statements can be reconciled.
> > Let's just call this "Point 1". I can't speak for Dave, but I personally
> > operate under the basic assumption that my perceptions are reliable.
>
> Making assumptions are you now? Hmmm, well that isn't much of a
> surprise, you're going to have to start making some if you want to try
> and throw everything into a single pot.
?? You lost me here. What do you mean 'throw everything into a single pot'?
> > If you aren't willing to accept that basic premise, then there is no common
> > ground and it's pointless trying to debate, because any participant can "what
> > if" ad infinitum (and ad naseum).
>
> Again, that was my point.
Then why didn't you just say that? And where'd the "again" come from?
> > If there are two (or more) interpretations of the Bible, and they are not all
> > correct (which is the premise being talked about), then what determines which
> > one is correct?
> An infinite number of possibilities. Open up a Crayon box and
> contemplate for a bit.
Sarcasm aside, how about a real answer?
> > > > One common answer, obviously, is that we're all human and therefore
> > > > fallible, so naturally we may make mistakes in interpretation. How,
> > > > therefore, can we assert with any confidence that the literal word (as we
> > > > interpret it) is true?
> > > How can you assert with any confidence that the literal word is false?
> > He isn't.
> So is he like your puppet or can you just read his mind?
Neither, but I can read what he wrote. "How, therefore, can we assert..." not
"I therefore assert with confidence that the literal word is false."
>
> > Also look into the concept of Occam's Razor.
>
> I fail to see what the law of parsimony has to do with the situation,
> but hey, whatever blows yer hair back and all that.
Given the option between choosing to believe my perceptions, and choosing to
believe that I'm really a mustard seed, and am simply delusional, I'll pick
door #1, thanks.
> On a side note I liked Contact too, but I usually try to avoid getting
> scientific facts from mainstream media. : )
Holy non-sequiter, Batman!
James
yum.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss another meeting? (...) A yup. (...) Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
