Quote:
Simon Moon wrote
I am absolutely NOT narrow minded.
I am willing to believe anything for which demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic is presented.
And that is the most important aspect.
Where it the evidence EXTERNAL to the Bible which confirms any of the god and miracle claims in the Bible?
This is sort of true.
An invalid and unsound syllogism can have a true conclusion, but the conclusion was not derived from the flawed syllogism. It might be a lucky guess, or it might be known from other source.
If all one has is a flawed syllogism for their conclusion, there is no way to know if it is actually true.
One can't use flawed reasoning and guarantee they will reach a true conclusion. The conclusion is correct, despite the flawed logic.
Here is an example of a unsound syllogism with a true conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, yet it is still true.
(1) All humans are dogs. False
(2) Lassie is a human. False
(3) Lassie is a dog. True
Not sure I quite understand this...
But, even if a miracle in the Bible can be proven to be true, it does not follow logically, that the god claims must also be true. You are making an unsupported assertion that the only way to have miracles, is if a god exists. How did you eliminate the possibility of a person that is not a god, having magical powers?
Logic is a tool used to tell if a conclusion is supported by the arguments. If one's logic is flawed, there is no way to tell if the conclusion is true.
Again, Muslims use circular logic, exactly the same way you are advocating here, and they reach a completely different conclusion (the truth of the Koan) than you do.
How am I, a person outside of BOTH religions, if all I am given is flawed logic, able to tell which one of you is correct?
Sure, there is no question that the Bible does contain SOME true historical accounts. So what? The Bible also contains a lot of historically inaccurate events, and events known not have happened. I can list them if you want...
How do some historical accurate accounts in the Bible give any credence to the supernatural god and miracle claims?
Homer's Iliad and Odyssey also mention real cities, people that actually existed, accounts of actual wars and battles, etc. Does that mean the god claims also contained in those texts are also true?
And by the way, do you know how the historically accurate accounts in the Bible were confirmed to be accurate?
By comparing them to other accounts external to the Bible. Historians do not believe any historical events are true just because they are in the Bible, they need to confirm them independently.
|
Simon
All respect to you for responding to IQ 6 and mary. I used to but, for the sake of my sanity, I ceased. Now, I use both as chew sticks and for entertainment for that is their only worth. They are intellectually challenged and their knowledge base is somewhat lacking. That's putting it mildly. I mainly put this down to their religtardological beliefs and upbringing but, I must admit, there may be additional reasons above and beyond this.
You are better concentrating solely on the present day rather than on history. Anything older than the last 5 minutes seems to be a challenge too far for them.
Because of their upbringing, they have been brainwashed into believing that everything that is christard in nature is true absolutely and requires no proof of itself. According to them, if it's in the babble, it is true. The babble is the gold standard by which they judge external christardological data. That's because, according to them, the babble is the indisputable word of god. We both understand that this leads to circular reasoning but, in their warped minds, it doesn't because the babble is the word of god and therefore needs no further proof.
In fact, this lack of recognition of circular reasoning must be a sign of brainwashing, no?
Quite how they handle their cognitive dissonance, which must be astronomically large, I am unsure of. Perhaps they are able to compartmentalise it or, maybe, through their brainwashing, they are able to ignore or deal with it, though how is a mystery to me. Surely, this is worthy of a PhD thesis?
As soon as I realised just how deep their brainwashing raelly is, I ignored them and now solely used them as chew sticks and for entertainment purposes. There seems little point in doing anything else.
Brainwashing seems particularly deep in cat lickers, of which mary is one. I'm beginning to suspect that, in IQ 6, there may be one of an identical persuasion. We therefore may well have stereo cat lickers - which would explain a lot. If IQ 6 isn't an actual cat licker, then he may be a neo cat licker.