Biblically defined kinds

[sinan90]

Tell my boss that.

I'd rather just have an on topic debate if I'm honest.

 

[IrishRockhound]

In fairness to AV, at least he doesn't try to jump through cognitive hoops to get his belief to fit. He just declares "GAWD DID IT I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA!"

Essentially what he's saying is that no matter what you say, no matter what evidence you produce, no matter how compelling your arguments... the beardy man in the sky did it, because this old book says so - end of discussion. You might as well argue with a sock puppet for all the good it will do. I know it gets on people's nerves, which is why I guess they still respond to him, but at some point you just have to stop and leave him to his madness.

I won't be responding to any reply to this by AV, for example. I got a tub of popcorn here and a cold drink, and nothing else to do but giggle maniacally at the antics in this thread.

(It's ok, AV. *pats* We're all just jealous because the voices only talk to you.)

 

[flatworm]

So, if a human being and a chimp were identical twins, they wouldn't be related, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old having existed for only 6000.

Please understand that once you accept one instance of a thing and its opposite being simultaneously true in the same sense, then you have lost all ability to recognize truth. Truth and falsity have become meaningless concepts for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, if a human being and a chimp were identical twins, they wouldn't be related, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old having existed for only 6000.

Please understand that once you accept one instance of a thing and its opposite being simultaneously true in the same sense, then you have lost all ability to recognize truth. Truth and falsity have become meaningless concepts for you.

Well, let's see your definition of truth. I'm under the impression that in the scientific world, truth cannot be ascertained.

 

[flatworm]

Well, let's see your definition of truth. I'm under the impression that in the scientific world, truth cannot be ascertained.

My statement doesn't depend on any definition of truth. It's a property of formal systems. If a statement can be evaluated as either "True" or "False", then accepting any direct contradiction enables you to evaluate any other statement as both true and false, regardless of the definitions you use.

(1) 1. A & ~A Premise
(1) 2. A 1: & Elimination
(1) 3. A v B 2: v Introduction
(1) 4. ~A 1: & Elimination
(1) 5 B 3,4: v Elimination

And equivalently:

(1) 1. A & ~A Premise
(1) 2. A 1: & Elimination
(1) 3. A v ~B 2: v Introduction
(1) 4. ~A 1: & Elimination
(1) 5 ~B 3,4: v Elimination

Therefore accepting the premise A & ~A makes every statement (and its inverse) provably true.

 

[AV1611VET]

My statement doesn't depend on any definition of truth. It's a property of formal systems. If a statement can be evaluated as either "True" or "False", then accepting any direct contradiction enables you to evaluate any other statement as both true and false, regardless of the definitions you use.

(1) 1. A & ~A Premise
(1) 2. A 1: & Elimination
(1) 3. A v B 2: v Introduction
(1) 4. ~A 1: & Elimination
(1) 5 B 3,4: v Elimination

And equivalently:

(1) 1. A & ~A Premise
(1) 2. A 1: & Elimination
(1) 3. A v ~B 2: v Introduction
(1) 4. ~A 1: & Elimination
(1) 5 ~B 3,4: v Elimination

Therefore accepting the premise A & ~A makes every statement (and its inverse) provably true.

I'm familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction --- I use it a lot to explain away Bible "contradictions." What point are you making?

 

[Patashu]

Well, let's see your definition of truth. I'm under the impression that in the scientific world, truth cannot be ascertained.

Scientifically, truth can be approached. Science becomes more, not less right with every passing day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientifically, truth can be approached. Science becomes more, not less right with every passing day.

Let me remind you what was said:

Please understand that once you accept one instance of a thing and its opposite being simultaneously true in the same sense, then you have lost all ability to recognize truth.

Why would a "scientist" even use the word "truth" in a statement? And if you don't know what "truth" is, how can you say you're getting closer to it?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Let me remind you what was said:



Why would a "scientist" even use the word "truth" in a statement? And if you don't know what "truth" is, how can you say you're getting closer to it?

why do christians use the word truth? they are not even using an externally verified source.

 

[AV1611VET]

why do christians use the word truth? they are not even using an externally verified source.

Au contraire ---

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

 

[Patashu]

Let me remind you what was said:



Why would a "scientist" even use the word "truth" in a statement? And if you don't know what "truth" is, how can you say you're getting closer to it?

Truth is what is real, correct, factual, certain, exact. It is what is there and not what is not.

 

[sinan90]

Truth is defined as agreement with fact or reality in most dictionaries.

Plus the point you just made above just proves the point. You're proving the truth of the bible by quoting the bible. You can't verify a text with itself. That is as clear an example of circular logic you'll ever see.

 

[Washington]

I'm familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction --- I use it a lot to explain away Bible "contradictions."

"A lot"!!! Try, "ONLY." "If it disagrees with my interpertation of the Bible it's not true. P E R I O D ! "

 

[flatworm]

Let me remind you what was said:



Why would a "scientist" even use the word "truth" in a statement? And if you don't know what "truth" is, how can you say you're getting closer to it?

I'm not going to play your semantic word games by arguing over its definition, as I have already shown its definition is irrelevant as any violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction entails a complete breakdown of any distinction between truth and falsity, regardless of the precise definition of each.

 

[flatworm]

I'm familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction --- I use it a lot to explain away Bible "contradictions." What point are you making?

I highly doubt that you do. In fact, I've never seen you do it.

The point I am making is that embracing contradictory ideas destroys your ability to tell truth from falsehood, as you amply demonstrate on a regular basis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Truth is defined as agreement with fact or reality in most dictionaries.

Plus the point you just made above just proves the point. You're proving the truth of the bible by quoting the bible. You can't verify a text with itself. That is as clear an example of circular logic you'll ever see.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I have no problem whatsoever with what is called "circular logic." Some use it, and the rest deny they use it.

 

[Patashu]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I have no problem whatsoever with what is called "circular logic." Some use it, and the rest deny they use it.

Okay, when have I used circular logic?

 

[ReverendDG]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I have no problem whatsoever with what is called "circular logic." Some use it, and the rest deny they use it.

what is circular logic to you?
it means your conclusion is the same as one of your premises
for example: the bible is true because it says so in the bible.
that would be circular logic
the bible is true is possibly logical if it is true, but its unsupported.
it says its true in the bible, namely in timothy, or at least people say this says scripture is true.
both statements can be logical, but if the argument is "is the bible true" and you say the bible says its true, then your just going around in circles

 

[Psudopod]

By usin Avet's logic you can proove any book it true, whether it's Harry Potter or the koran.

 

[Quasarsphere]

Au contraire ---

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

Not really what one could call EXternally verified...