"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
This is simply the definition of induction.
Abduction = "the simple process of elimination", this is just another
definition.

Sounds like we're in vigorous agreement, then.

Now that we agree on definitions, refer back to my earlier point.
Induction and abduction can lead to false (logical) conclusions even when
logically correct and consistent.
Deduction can never lead to false logical conclusions, but may be limited as
to what conclusions can be reached.
All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you have
to be aware of when using them.

Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard
evidence is necessary for confirmation.

That's the nugget, then. What hard evidence would convince you?

Good question, and I don't have an answer... but then I don't need to have
one, convincing me is your job.
If I come across some convincing and acceptable evidence, I'll let you know,
but nothing I've seen comes even remotely close, so don't hold your breath


You're misstating me again.
I never said people would willingly die for what they knew to be a lie.
But a willingness to be tortured and killed for what you belief doesn't
prove that what you believe is true.

Agreed. The point is that the ringleaders of any hypothetical
conspiracy to fake a resurrection and mass sightings would have been
among those whom the authorities tried to threaten into silence. But
they weren't silenced.

While I'm not suggesting conspiracy..

It's not a given that the authorities, and there were at least 3 different
authorities, would necessarily have any/all the ringleaders identified,
contacted, threatened and silenced.
Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there
*wasn't* a conspiracy.

True, but the point is merely that the "borrowed from Mithraism"
hypothesis doesn't fly - it's documentabe that the belief dates to the
earliest days of the Jerusalem church.

I won't be drawn in to defend a theory I didn't suggest

For that matter, it could've been beneath notice and no attempt to
disprove
was made.

Wrong again, my friend. Have a look at Acts - Within weeks after the
resurrection, Peter was hauled up in court and ordered to stop
preaching. He refused.

You can't use the contents of the bible to defend the veracity of the bible.

you do the best you can and hope it's good enough.

So on the question of the resurrection you demand incontrovertible
ironclad proof, but on the question of your *own* eternal fate you're
perfectly satisfied with a fuzzy-wuzzy I'm-ok-you're-ok warm happy
feel-good explanation? Error, Will Robinson! That does not compute!
War-ning! War-ning! *waves vacuum-hose arms* :-D

First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't need
hard fast rules to live and die by.
Second, even if I did believe in a hereafter, nothing says I'm required to
have the same standards for all my beliefs.
I'm free to window-shop, pick and choose as I please. There's nothing
inconsistent here.

People are notoriously short sighted, especially where short-term pleasures
vs. long-term benefits are concerned.
It's clear that smoking, drinking and overeating will cut years off your
life, and yet the world is full of people that abuse one, more, or all.

BTW, that is *precisely* what kept Martin Luther up nights. He
couldn't be sure. He had a worldview that laid out a clear roadmap to
salvation - do these do's, don't those don'ts, and it'll all work out.
Problem was, he couldn't figure his grade. Never mind the fine line
between C and D. He couldn't tell if he was running a B+ or a D-.
That's when he figured out that salvation HAS to be by faith alone,
apart from works. "Do the best you can" doesn't count, because no
human best can come anywhere CLOSE to perfect - and perfect is all
that gets across the gate.

I just said "you do the best you can", I didn't suggest that only perfect
scores were acceptable, or were even achievable.

Oh BTW, you dodged the question. You place yourself in the group with
Ma T, but you don't say where the line gets drawn. Somewhere between
you and pillagers and looters, though, right? Them folks are SOL, right?

Since I don't belief in life after death, I'm free to dodge the question.
To me it's all just recreational hot air, *you're* the one that has to sweat
the details.
If I had to judge I'd do it like most us judge "art"... I'm not an expert,
but I know what I like!
(As always, the rulings of the judge are arbitrary, capricious and final!)

But pillaging and looting is really just theft, writ large. So is ANY
theft automatically disqualifying? Think about that carefully - ever
get back too much change and not notice till later?

Yes, and if it was too far to walk to return immediately, I call when I get
home.
Unless it's a huge amount, they invariably say keep it and don't worry about
it.
If it's larger, they just say return it next time you come by, and I do.

If you keep the money, that's technically theft.

I don't agree that an honest mistake on someone else's part becomes a
crime/sin on mine.
And what's more, if the judge of our lives is some self-important,
officious, little prick trying to ding us on technicalities, then I have a
few anatomically dubious suggestions on where he can stick it and twist it
sideways... twice.
In any case, since I don't keep valuables that aren't mine without trying
earnestly to return them, I'm Scot free on this account.

What if you steal from the rich and give to the poor? Is that OK?

Depends. Am I the rich or the poor in this scenario?

See, when you say, "I'm good enough" you're automatically drawing a
line and claiming to be above it. Which means that somewhere are two
people whose deeds and misdeeds are very much alike, except that one
of them is just a tiny bit worse than the other - just worse enough to
miss the glory train. Doesn't matter that you're comfortably above
that point. For your worldview to be consistent, it has to account
for that tipping point. So where is it?

My worldview is consistent because mine has no afterlife and thus no line.
If there was an afterlife, I'm comfortable with my position.
Given that, I'm free to leave all the other real and hypothetical cases
unexamined without threat of any inconsistency.

Eric