If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...
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. My point exactly. The issue is the initial assumption. I maintain that you have blinders on with an initial assumption that "resurrections don't happen unless proven otherwise. " 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 IOW, "I'll know it when I see it?" Oh, c'mon now. That has to be the ultimate cop-out! It proves my point exactly! Your initial assumption is that supernatural events DO NOT happen. Not that they PROBABLY DON'T happen, but that they DO NOT. And with that FAULTY initial assumption, your deduction winds up wrong. "I can't even say what evidence would convince me." Pshaw. Even Doubting Thomas was able to specify the conditions under which he would believe. This is a one-time historical event we are talking about, not a repeatable experiment. Do you believe that the Saxon King Harold caught an arrow in the eye at Hastings in 1066? That Pickett led a charge at Gettysburg? That Hannibal crossed the Alps? You're trying to apply the rules of science to history - using a screwdriver to swage a Nicopress fitting. (Gotta keep SOME homebuilding content in here.) BTW, it is NOT my job to convince you. Are you familiar with the parable of the seeds? "Some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good soil" - that one. Remember it from Sunday School? My job is not to make the seeds take root - that's what "convincing you" is. It's humanly impossible to convince someone who will not be convinced. All I can do is shoo away birds and maybe pull out a few rocks and weeds. The rest is up to God. 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. The Sanhedrin hauled *Peter* into court. Remember Peter? The leader of the apostles? Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there *wasn't* a conspiracy. Best to keep your foil hat on tight, then. You never know when THEY are listening.... :-p 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. I'm not using "The Bible." I'm using the archelogical and documentary evidence available, which includes several dozen very ancient copies of a particular document called "Luke/Acts." That document was written in the late 50's or early 60's, and chronicles important events in the earliest days of the "Jesus Movement." I take no position on whether the document is "inspired and infallible" just because it happens to have been included in the canon of the New Testament. As an historical record, it stands on its own, with better scholarly attestation than Caesar's account of the conquest of Gaul. 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. Consider the suggestion made, then: There IS an afterlife. Look into it. Sure I'm crazy - but what if I'm right? BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along" doesn't work. People are notoriously short sighted, especially where short-term pleasures vs. long-term benefits are concerned. You certainly got THAT right! Corrie |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
On 02 Sep 2003 02:11 PM, Corrie posted the following:
BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along" doesn't work. Speak for yourself. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you have to be aware of when using them. My point exactly. The issue is the initial assumption. I maintain that you have blinders on with an initial assumption that "resurrections don't happen unless proven otherwise. " There's nothing wrong with the assumption that the dead don't rise from the grave. We both believe it, just as we both believe that coming back to life would be an extraordinary event. The difference is, you believe it happened once, on what I consider flimsy evidence. You say, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.". I say, "it's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out." 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 IOW, "I'll know it when I see it?" Oh, c'mon now. That has to be the ultimate cop-out! It proves my point exactly! Your initial assumption is that supernatural events DO NOT happen. Not that they PROBABLY DON'T happen, but that they DO NOT. And with that FAULTY initial assumption, your deduction winds up wrong. Not a cop out, and certainly doesn't prove your point. If a teacher is trying convey geometry to teach a student who doesn't get it, and asks the question "what will make you understand this?", a response of "I don't know" doesn't mean the student is unteachable or uncooperative (or that you're right ;p). At some point the student will get it and only then will they be able to identify what made them understand. And while I didn't state it, I don't believe that supernatural events happen, but that won't prevent me from accepting one given sufficient proof. However, in the entire history of the world, there hasn't been a single certifiable, repeatable, supernatural event. "That's mighty suggestive," he says with tones of massive understatement "I can't even say what evidence would convince me." Pshaw. Even Doubting Thomas was able to specify the conditions under which he would believe. This is a one-time historical event we are talking about, not a repeatable experiment. Do you believe that the Saxon King Harold caught an arrow in the eye at Hastings in 1066? That Pickett led a charge at Gettysburg? That Hannibal crossed the Alps? You're trying to apply the rules of science to history - using a screwdriver to swage a Nicopress fitting. (Gotta keep SOME homebuilding content in here.) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mundane claims do not. Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him. I'd believe that. Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes sense. Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise Romans (taking tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not. All mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not duplicated. (And clearly a hammer is the correct tool for swaging. I'm not even sure what a "screwdriver" is; my toolbox only contains two tools: a hammer and a bigger hammer :-) BTW, it is NOT my job to convince you. Are you familiar with the parable of the seeds? "Some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good soil" - that one. Remember it from Sunday School? My job is not to make the seeds take root - that's what "convincing you" is. It's humanly impossible to convince someone who will not be convinced. All I can do is shoo away birds and maybe pull out a few rocks and weeds. The rest is up to God. Of course I was speaking figuratively. Would you prefer the wording "it's not my job to prove your case for you" ? However, my mind is the most fertile of ground and you've cast your seeds. By your claim God isn't doing his job, ipso facto, there is no God Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there *wasn't* a conspiracy. Best to keep your foil hat on tight, then. You never know when THEY are listening.... :-p Again, I'm not, and never have, suggested a conspiracy; I don't require anything so convoluted. First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't need hard fast rules to live and die by. Consider the suggestion made, then: There IS an afterlife. Look into it. Sure I'm crazy - but what if I'm right? I didn't mean suggested by a person, I meant suggested by even the hint of a shred of the tiniest piece of evidence. Yes, it's crazy, and the world at large doesn't waste time disproving every crazy idea. If it did, nothing else would ever get done. For this reason, crazy ideas have to prove themselves before they're accepted and the explanation for why they're not crazy to begin with is found. This is the cornerstone of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along" doesn't work. People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally good. We band together and help each other in times of need. We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well. This is a far cry from "Here is a set of rules which your sorry asses can't be expected to follow in the first place". Human history and human progress has done just fine "making it up as we go along". It has proceeded from before, until after, the supposed resurrection uninterrupted and unaffected. It was, both figuratively and literally, a non-event. Eric |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Sep 2003 18:05:26 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote: He and Captain Doug are prime-time entertainment. :-D I dare say I would pay money for that kind of writing. I think you agree, because you keep on talking about him. Cheers, pacplyer Does anyone, anywhere, not know that pacplyer is Bill Phillips? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Does anyone, anywhere, care? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
On 02 Sep 2003 09:47 PM, Corrie posted the following:
Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him. I'd believe that. Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes sense. Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise Romans (taking tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not. All mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not duplicated. But why do you believe them as SPECIFIC EVENTS? Not hypothetical possibilities, but actual things that really happened? The only records we have are historical documents. So I assume that you must believe the documents. In the end, does it matter? The Normans, Romans, and Yankees all won. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Del Rawlins wrote in message ...
On 02 Sep 2003 02:11 PM, Corrie posted the following: BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along" doesn't work. Speak for yourself. Gee, thank god we have the expert opinion of another troll Del Rawlins to enlighten us all with his prophetic one liners. This bush pilot wanna-be is just what the world needs. An accountant in real life (was I close?) Rawlins hangs out at Lake Hood making up stories and insinuating that he flys in Alaska. When in reality, he has less than 1000 hours total time, none of it substancial, but he can roar like a lion in Rah. I ran into imposters like this many a night in the Bush Company and F street station pretending that they are bonifide commercial bush pilots. Typically, in fifteen minutes I could tell whether or not they full of ****. I'm tired of hearing about how much experience you have in Alaska Del, I betcha I was in that game before you even got signed off. I bet you haven't even broke away from Merril Field yet. If you want to contribute to this thread, then post something using your Gonads. Corrie has gonads. He will post his convictions for all to read and lay himself open to attack by guys like me who don't share his sacred beliefs. You on the other hand, take cheap shots and have this upper 48 fixation, not knowing that many of us in the lower 48 have more time flying in Alaska than you do on the barstool spewing tall tales to people who have actually done these things. pacplyer - out |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On 03 Sep 2003 12:45 AM, pac plyer posted the following:
Gee, thank god we have the expert opinion of another troll Del Rawlins to enlighten us all with his prophetic one liners. This bush pilot wanna-be is just what the world needs. An accountant in real life (was I close?) Rawlins hangs out at Lake Hood making up stories and insinuating that he flys in Alaska. When in reality, he has less than 1000 hours total time, none of it substancial, but he can roar like a lion in Rah. I've been called a lot of things but never an accountant. I'm a low time private pilot and never claimed to be anything else. If you are really bored you can look me up in the database and see that I have had my certificate for less than 5 years. You can't say the same thing since you do not have the courage to post anything resembling your real name, and nobody on the newsgroup (at least nobody who has been willing to admit to it) has so far vouched for your legitimacy. I ran into imposters like this many a night in the Bush Company and F street station pretending that they are bonifide commercial bush pilots. Typically, in fifteen minutes I could tell whether or not they full of ****. I'm tired of hearing about how much experience you have in Alaska Del, I betcha I was in that game before you even got signed off. I bet you haven't even broke away from Merril Field yet. I wouldn't know, never having been inside either of those establishments. I'm a bit surprised that you are tired of hearing about my flying experience seeing as how I have posted very little of it here. I do not consider myself a bush pilot, I don't have fancy ratings and have no interest in such. To me, flying is a tool to get to places I could not otherwise reach. Period. Several of my closest friends happen to be bush pilots but that is neither here nor there. If you want to contribute to this thread, then post something using your Gonads. Corrie has gonads. He will post his convictions for all to read and lay himself open to attack by guys like me who don't share his sacred beliefs. You on the other hand, take cheap shots and have this upper 48 fixation, not knowing that many of us in the lower 48 have more time flying in Alaska than you do on the barstool spewing tall tales to people who have actually done these things. No thank you, I have no desire to contribute anything of substance to this useless thread. You and your fellow anonymous coward can continue to jerk each other off (and probably will) for another month or two for all I care. If I am feeling bored, I may or may not continue to snipe at you from time to time. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him. I'd believe that. Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes sense. Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise Romans (taking tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not. All mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not duplicated. But why do you believe them as SPECIFIC EVENTS? Not hypothetical possibilities, but actual things that really happened? The only records we have are historical documents. So I assume that you must believe the documents. In the end, does it matter? The Normans, Romans, and Yankees all won. Del Rawlins- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wow.... Heavy stuff. And here it was thought all you knew was welding. g Barnyard BOb -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots | Larry Smith | Home Built | 22 | August 14th 03 10:03 PM |