Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

And is obviously incompetent to perform instantaneous miracles as related in the Bible.

The problem with a Biblical day being, say, half a million years, is that on the last day He rested and that's why we have Sunday where nobody works. But if Sunday has to last half a million years we'll never get to have breakfast.

+1 for Sand.

Oh, and @ angelrho

Don't make me laugh.

By your definition of empirical evidence, the book Alice in wonderland is empirical evidence supporting the Cheshire cat.



Yawn. Occam b***h.



Ok, stop abusing caps. And again, Occam. BS book is BS or BS book seems BS for elaborate reason namely that prankster god is too lazy to make prophets in other parts of the world.

Sigh.



Speaks for itself.

pandabear wrote:


2 Kings 2: 23-24 if that was a carefully preserved account of real events, your god is a c**t.

Ugh, the rest is just bullocks.

You can breathe now.

One line, two sentences. That is how I roll.

Alice in Wonderland is a KNOWN fictional work. So, yes, it is evidence in support of the Cheshire cat. It's just evidence supporting the Cheshire cat as a fictional character.


What's Occam have to do with it? There's not just one form of literature in the Bible. I merely explained what eschatological writing features were. There's nothing recondite about that.



What's you're point invoking Occam here? Who said God DIDN'T have prophets elsewhere? Abraham was one prophet. Melchizedek was not part of Abraham's family, but was recorded in the Bible as being a legit priest. Organized Yahweh worship seems to have just been seeing the light of day post-flood at probably some point just prior to this, maybe two or three generations before. The best explanation for any correlation between Biblical fact and other beliefs in the area is a common tradition. Looks to me like ASSUMING that the Yahwehist religion derived from Mesopotamian myth stems from an anti-Biblical bias.


Oh? What is so implausible about some young, unsupervised teenagers getting mauled by wild animals?


Care to support that statement? I'm ASSUMING not. You're making it difficult to take you seriously at all.

How about it? Can you provide empirical (I will accept an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly work) evidence of logic without actually using logic? So far Fnord and Sand are the only responders with anything I consider real substance, but so far no evidence of logic as requested. I'm seeing evidence of logical thinking but no workable rationale for why someone SHOULD think logically.

Yea, got any evidence of god? No. All the ranting in the world doesn't make an archaic book evidence. You're not worth my time.

God is so well hidden that He might as well not be there.

ruveyn

Nonsense. In the first two paragraphs you admit that we don't know exactly what ACTUALLY happened or if the stories in the Bible ever happened at all. Then how can you assert that what actually happened cannot be natural?

Why don't you just say something supernatural must have happened 6000 years ago because a 6000 years old Earth is physically impossible.

What an awful statement. Your insulting of AngelRho is well outside of the realm of intelligent discourse. You don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence in relation history and philosophically you are still showing us that while logical positivism is dead in the literature it is still alive and well in the uniformed on the internet.

Based on what? The writings of a few Greeks died 1000 years before Jesus? Do you know how many people that time received any education other than recalling the holy book? This is just like comparing Feynman with the average high school graduate (many cannot even understand interest rate!) in the US.

At this point you may claim that some members of the early churches are relatively well educated. But then don't forget that the Aum Shinrikyo managed to get followers with enough knowledge to product nerve gas. Again 'highly educated' people are not totally immune to nonsense.

Logic is the fictional tool used to manipulate fictional objects known as sentences.



By your criterion the existence of logical thinking is sufficient as 'evidence of logic'.

That is not Angel's point. Logical truths are necessarily true, their ontological foundation (which you are giving an opinion on) does not have a bearing on the reality of this fact. The point being made is that it is not possible to provide evidence of logical truths without reference to logic. They are not empirically testable, without circular reasoning, since they are presupposed.

Since you mention it - could you succinct me a sense of Logical Positivism? I have repeatedly heard accounts of its former deathgrip on Phil. departments and its undesirability but never gotten a clear statement.

Mind you, if Benbob [shorn of jejune cant] is a sample of Logical Positivism, I might be able to sort it.

@ Philologos

Logical Positivism and Verificationism are defunct schools of hard-empiricism. It was a really popular idea in the early twentieth century. It essentially held (as a very basic outline) that unless you had empirical evidence for something, it was not rational to believe in it. The idea went even further than this, they held that unless something had a verifiable component, it was not welcome in philosophy (even falsifiable ideas were not good enough). The idea was exposed as a whole lot of self-refuting bunk since it was based on untestable presuppositions. The death of this school triggered a revolution in philosophical thought.

A few pages ago Angel was asking for evidence of numbers. According to those posts he reasoned that since once accept the existence of numbers without evidence, one should likewise accept the existence of god. I think he is still asking the evidence for existence of logic rather than the evidence of the truth of a logical truth.

Karl Popper's falsificationistic approach became the successor to logical positivsm. In order for something to be scientific it has to be -testable- empirically and potentially falsifiable. Physics must make use of unseen entities, but the logical consequences of these hypotheticals must be testable. A logical positivist would never accept Dark Matter or Dark Energy as a hypothesis but it may be possible to test the consequences of these hypotheticals in an empirical fashion.

ruveyn