Apologetics

[aerius]

Let me go about this a different way since you don't seem to understand. Arguing semantics and playing word games is fucking worthless. It's just a fancy way of bullshitting when you have nothing to say. Simple as that. Understand now?

[Andrew J.]

Apologist: I thnk what you're trying to get at is that "A therefore A" only if you have already proven A, correct? Unfortunately, you haven't provena damn thing yet, so you still lose.

[Darth Wong]

All I am doing is expressing my views, and questioning yours. Are you hostile toward "semantics" because it is a study too intellectual for you?

He is hostile toward semantics because they are generally used for red-herring nitpicks. Your inability to recognize the problem with red-herring nitpicks is not our problem.

Keep in mind which of us is outnumbered twenty to one.

Then pick one person and agree to a public thrashing, er, debate with him. Don't use a numerical disadvantage as an excuse to get away with bullshit.

Christianity is an inherently irrational belief system. Without actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name, many accept its truth based on a book and its followers intolerant conversion attempts.

Ignorance springs eternal, I guess...

Yes. He was talking about fallacious appeals to authority, and I'd say that sadly, ignorance of the problem with appeals to authority really does spring eternal.

If Christianity has no "actual, physical evidence or falsifiable theories to its name," how does it then follow that it is irrational?

It claims to have something science doesn't (knowledge of absolute truth), based on appeals to the authority of the Bible. Appeals to authority are irrational. Don't pretend you've never heard this before.

And how do you know that many accept it because of a book and conversion attempts?

Have you got a better theory?

Well, I guess I should be able to, since you obviously have the power to read Christians' minds.

Don't need to. The doctrines of Christianity are written down, therefore they can be attacked without having to read Christians' minds. Once we've done that, the only real question is a Christian's strength of allegiance to Biblical doctrine, which is why I always try to determine what a Christian thinks about the Bible (and it's probably also why you have been so carefully circumspect about what you think of the Bible).

But in fact, "A, therefore A" proves that if A, then A. I thought I already explained this to you. This is the most basic form of logical proof.

It is circular logic, you idiot. It does not prove anything, since it presumes the very thing it's trying to prove. Circular logic is fallacious; you are obviously too stupid to do a good job of pretending to study logic if you insist on defending circular "proofs".

[The Apologist]

Keep in mind which of us is outnumbered twenty to one.

Then pick one person and agree to a public thrashing, er, debate with him. Don't use a numerical disadvantage as an excuse to get away with bullshit.

Keep in mind which of us is already participating in a debate with a member of SDnet. By the way, is he posting it on this board? I have not seen it here.

That reminds me, I need to get to work on my next response...

Yes. He was talking about fallacious appeals to authority, and I'd say that sadly, ignorance of the problem with appeals to authority really does spring eternal.

Oh, stop whining about appeals to authority. There is nothing wrong with them if the authority is justified. In fact, you are making an appeal to authority when you cite logic to prove your point, as in this case.

It claims to have something science doesn't (knowledge of absolute truth), based on appeals to the authority of the Bible. Appeals to authority are irrational. Don't pretend you've never heard this before.

You mean like when you appeal to the authority of logical fallacies and advert to them to conclude that an inference is invalid, as in this case?

Have you got a better theory?

Yes.

Don't need to. The doctrines of Christianity are written down, therefore they can be attacked without having to read Christians' minds. Once we've done that, the only real question is a Christian's strength of allegiance to Biblical doctrine, which is why I always try to determine what a Christian thinks about the Bible (and it's probably also why you have been so carefully circumspect about what you think of the Bible).

I am not talking about what Christians believe, but about why Christians believe. The former is explicit in the Bible, the latter, implicit. You really cannot understand why I am a Christian, but I will have you know that it is not because of "a book and conversion attempts."

It is circular logic, you idiot. It does not prove anything, since it presumes the very thing it's trying to prove. Circular logic is fallacious; you are obviously too stupid to do a good job of pretending to study logic if you insist on defending circular "proofs".

I am not defending them, just seeing if you know why, exactly, you reject them.

So circular reasoning is fallacious, hmmn?

That would mean that the conclusion "A" does not follow from the premise "A."

In other words, if "A" is true, then "A" is not necessarily true.

It is not fallacious; it is a valid inference.

[SeebianWurm]

One more time:

Secondly: there is a large amount of fossils, genetics, and the results of experiements that are evidence for evolution. It does not require, nor want, irrational belief - just understanding of the process.

Then it is right in league with Christianity.

Which part? Is there a large amount of fossils, genetic and results of experiments that are evidence for Christianity's truthfulness? How can you understand the process, when there is not one? And believing in something despite, even in spite of, evidence is not rational.

Corroborate. Or make the claim again, elsewhere, and never explain. I have a theory as to which you will do.

[Greylock]

Ok I have never posted on the board in-fact you could probably call me a lerker or someone who has read threads and did not see where he could add anything further to the debates going on. but the comments made by The Apologist Made such little sense , and was so mind numbingly stupid that i had to say something , so poke me all you will i am about to say something.. And i hope i don't get bashed for simply posting in the middle of a debate

But there was the comment that A = A

well that is all good and strong and yes mathematically is correct if you have proof of A

Now when A is the value in question then we can not use it as the solution , and in-fact it seems in this debate the value itself of A is the part that is in question. So this form of justifying your point is impossible because you can not have the value in question proving that it is correct now can you.

That would be like me saying the earth is flat , and it is proof simply because i say it is flat, which we all know it is a sphere (imperfect sphere at that) but its not flat what so ever.

Now lets break down this further and i do hope i am making sense because I am no scientist , i am no computer programmer , hell I am not even a expert on logic , I am a pipe fitter (construction worker) by trade , and in my past time I am a novice artist.

Ok now to delve into this a tiny bit, and bear with me here and I hope someone either agrees with me or shows me the exact fault in my own logic.

1. Can we prove Jesus was the son of god simply because he said he was : answer simply No , because it would be like bringing a dead man to a jury stand , which we do not even have the body or any DNA or blood samples of . in fact it's a dead being without substance which we can not directly question , and can not directly give us any answers. so we can not take his own word for proof of a argument.

2. Can we prove Jesus was the son of god by the words accounted for in the bible : answer No , the credablity of that book is in question. simply put it its hearsay evidence at best even if you take it into literal account. i be leave it is taught somewhere that God inspired the people that were writing the bible with the stories that were within it , well that is all good and stuff but hearsay and not a direct account .

Now the second path to think about can we get accurate evidence form the bible , we have to delve into the time it was written vs the time the supposed man Jesus was living. The stories within the bible as good as they are were handed down likely verbally for quite some time before put to paper , now word of mouth itself is the worst way to record any story because it changes form person to person and form story teller to story teller. I am remembering days at school for this one where the teacher would start a story with one student and then that student turns around and whispers the story to a fellow peer behind him and it continues to go on until the story is said by the last person in the class , most of the time if not all of the time it has a extreme radical change to the story in itself. thus we can not take this account to be credible or valid in a debate of evidence because the evidence itself has been corrupted.

Also the third part of the problem with using the bible as credible evidence is in effect how many tongs has it been translated form sense its origins and how many intupritations are there , in fact wars have been caused and some still wage on because of intruprtations of translation , so sense no Christan can agree which version is credible we must account for them all to be not credible until someone comes to a consciences of which one is the true book . and we are not even getting into the other books of Job , "book of who ever decided he was holy enough to write some stuff for a flock of people who did not wish to think for themselfs", etc etc.

Now lets go into further inconstancy with the teachings of Christian all around and sense i am in a festive spirit it being Christmas and all shall i use christmas as a tiny example.

In the roman era before Christianity spread like a virus among the people they celebrated a festive holiday around this time , it was a festival to the god Saturn , now i can get more into depth about the aspects of this holiday if nessicary, but there is various evidence throughout roman culture that this was a observed holiday for them.

Next mistle toe and holly itself can be brought back to guess what Druids . as i said before about the comment on the holiday of Saturn i can place more evidence on the table that its not a christan idea , actually its old pagan symbols finding themselfs adapted or taken form the christan church.

Now i also be leave that somewhere that i have read (i will do the research if nessicary but proving these points is not the point i am trying to make , i am stateing there is alternative and supported alternates for the propaganda that the church spreads) well that the 25th of December is a ludicrous time to have the birth of Christ , that such activity within the roman era which would have both Marry with the cherry and Joe who did not get a blow coming into the area they allegedly did to bear him.

So the point i am trying to make , Jesus is not a credible source for information and if he is talking to you in your head i suggest you seek out consoling of some sort you clearly have psychological problems.. The Bible itself is not a credible source of fact or information as well because it is not proven without a dought for reasons i have stated above. as with many more reasons which i have not stated, or thought of , i am quite shure other members of Sdnet are quite capable of forming other reasons it is not a credible source.

So to use either as facts or the backing of your arguments is faulted. and is bad logic.

[SeebianWurm]

Kick his ass

[Darth Wong]

Oh, stop whining about appeals to authority. There is nothing wrong with them if the authority is justified.

Then justify the implicit claim that the Bible is literally inerrant and perfectly unambiguous, which is the only condition that justifies appeals to its authority.

In fact, you are making an appeal to authority when you cite logic to prove your point, as in this case.

Yet again you demonstrate your idiocy (and I laugh once again at your repeated claims to be a serious student of logic, with statements like the one you just made). Justify your claim that the use of logic is an appeal to authority.

I am not talking about what Christians believe, but about why Christians believe. The former is explicit in the Bible, the latter, implicit. You really cannot understand why I am a Christian, but I will have you know that it is not because of "a book and conversion attempts."

Ah, so you figured out the Christian faith without ever being exposed to the Bible or exposed to the notion of Christianity? That's amazing ... of course, it's also bullshit.

It is circular logic, you idiot. It does not prove anything, since it presumes the very thing it's trying to prove. Circular logic is fallacious; you are obviously too stupid to do a good job of pretending to study logic if you insist on defending circular "proofs".

I am not defending them, just seeing if you know why, exactly, you reject them.

Bullshit. You are repeatedly defending the use of circular logic. Anyone can see that this is what you are doing; you attempted to claim that it is impossible for an argument to be illogical by definition (and quietly dropped that line of "thought" without admitting you were wrong), and you attempted to claim that you can prove A by simply assuming it is true and then saying that "A therefore A".

So circular reasoning is fallacious, hmmn?

That would mean that the conclusion "A" does not follow from the premise "A."

Wrong, idiot. It means that "A therefore A" is a trivial solution, like 0=0. It does not prove A, since you cannot prove anything by simply assuming it is true.

I can't believe I'm arguing with an idiot who actually thinks circular logic legitimately proves things. If I say "apples are made of titanium, therefore apples are made of titanium", have I just proven that apples are actually made of titanium? Honestly, you are dumber than a bag of wet dog hair.

[The Apologist]

Which part? Is there a large amount of fossils, genetic and results of experiments that are evidence for Christianity's truthfulness? How can you understand the process, when there is not one? And believing in something despite, even in spite of, evidence is not rational.

Corroborate. Or make the claim again, elsewhere, and never explain. I have a theory as to which you will do.

Evolution and Christianity are in the same league in that they both are supported by evidence (though of different kinds), and neither require, nor want, irrational belief, as you say.

But there was the comment that A = A

well that is all good and strong and yes mathematically is correct if you have proof of A

Now when A is the value in question then we can not use it as the solution , and in-fact it seems in this debate the value itself of A is the part that is in question. So this form of justifying your point is impossible because you can not have the value in question proving that it is correct now can you.

That would be like me saying the earth is flat , and it is proof simply because i say it is flat, which we all know it is a sphere (imperfect sphere at that) but its not flat what so ever.

Actually, it would be like your saying that, if the earth is flat, then the earth is flat; and you have then proven that the earth is flat if the earth is flat. This is simple and easy; I really do not understand why you have a problem with this.

As for values, do you deny that b = acd - xmac/xmd in the equation a/x = m(a/c + b/d), or that ab/b = a? We have no proof of the values of any variables, but the relationship remains true - hence is the very significance of variables. In the inference "A, therefore A," the variable "A" may express any proposition, and the validity of the inference yet remains constant.

Remember that the point of "A, therefore A" is not to determine the value of A, but to establish that the conclusion A follows from the antecedent A, and so it does. Thus the value of A is not "in question," as you say. But if you think that assigning A a value will help, then so be it - "God exists, therefore God exists." How does it matter though?

[SeebianWurm]

Yes, yes. Now give me the "kind" of evidence for Christianity's core truths - Jesus Christ was the son of god, died then ressurected, all that. And maybe some of it, if you would like to stoop to a lower level of reason than you have.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, it would be like your saying that, if the earth is flat, then the earth is flat; and you have then proven that the earth is flat if the earth is flat. This is simple and easy; I really do not understand why you have a problem with this.

You're still an idiot. Since the whole point of a proof is to show that a proposition is true, you prove nothing by saying "it's true if it's true".

[Durandal]

As for values, do you deny that b = acd - xmac/xmd in the equation a/x = m(a/c + b/d), or that ab/b = a? We have no proof of the values of any variables, but the relationship remains true - hence is the very significance of variables. In the inference "A, therefore A," the variable "A" may express any proposition, and the validity of the inference yet remains constant.

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read. Those relationships are mathematically derived and therefore true for all numbers. Are you going to add basic high school algebra to the list of things that you pretend to know about?

With your moronic tautology, I could simply say, "No god, therefore no god," and you would have to accept it as valid. That's utter nonsense.

[Greylock]

The problem I have within this topic as you said "God exists, therefore God exists." the point is that is it proven without a drought based on the resources for the evidence on his existence that he exists , I am talking concrete aspects.

Such as the accounts of the Alleged Christ existence, proof stating without questionable dought that he at one time existed. Poof that God created the world and or universe all together . Proof that the Bible is true or faults.

With math I simply be leave people don't pluck figures out of thin air without rime or reason in the air and plug them into math.

For the God exists variable to be used or A should there not be evidence placed upon the table first and foremost that it is valid. Or supporting evidence. like proving that the accounts of his existence are non factional, or not a myth

all I am asking if just take a step back form that argument of A=A , and tell me or the boards what leads up before this. that is not form a source of information that could be corrupted through time . or created to prove A exists.

[Darth Wong]

"The Apologist" is making quite an ass out of himself, isn't he? It's amazing that he doesn't seem to realize it.

PS. I believe you're our first member from Petrolia. I remember driving through there on the way to Sarnia, back when I lived in that area.

[SeebianWurm]

Indeed, he is probably coming away with feelings of victory for trying to confuse("obfuscate") everything he says.

[Greylock]

Ya it's a nice little Victorian town about 30 minutes form Sarnia , thought unfortunately we have more churches then anything elts in this town which gets quite annoying because I have to put up with people like this guy every day. Even my own family.

I just cant be leave the redundancy of arguments like this one, they baffle my brain way to much. and I don't know how you honestly put up with it.

Though I am amazed I have not been poked to death yet.

[Darth Wong]

Ya it's a nice little Victorian town about 30 minutes form Sarnia , thought unfortunately we have more churches then anything elts in this town which gets quite annoying because I have to put up with people like this guy every day. Even my own family.

Yeah, there's a lot of that bullshit in your neck of the woods. I ran into a guy who tried to fix his air conditioner by "laying on hands" and praying when I lived in Sombra. Goes with the rural territory, though. Like country music.

I just cant be leave the redundancy of arguments like this one, they baffle my brain way to much. and I don't know how you honestly put up with it.

I think that on some level, I am fascinated by the power religion holds over people. I am always amazed by the lengths to which they will eagerly go in defense of their doctrines.

Though I am amazed I have not been poked to death yet.

That's because you didn't make one of those attention-whoring "Hey, I'm new here" threads in the Off-Topic forum

[Durandal]

For the record, I think poking is retarded.

[Warspite]

Apologist:

Would you be so kind, to post why do YOU need to apologize the Bibble, in less than 10 lines, if you please, and also, could you go direct to the point, without going around the bush, bullshiting your way with word and semantics games. Just one simple straight answer.

Why do YOU need to apologize the Bibble?

[Lord of the Farce]

I think Apologist's problem is that he is thinking along the lines of:
>A (there is a God), therefore A (there is a God) is true

But logically, the correct equation is actually this:
>A = "there is a God", therefore A = "there is a God" is true

Ridiculously simple, if you really bother to think about it.

EDIT: Added italics, just for effect.

[Greylock]

Ya it's a nice little Victorian town about 30 minutes form Sarnia , thought unfortunately we have more churches then anything elts in this town which gets quite annoying because I have to put up with people like this guy every day. Even my own family.

Yeah, there's a lot of that bullshit in your neck of the woods. I ran into a guy who tried to fix his air conditioner by "laying on hands" and praying when I lived in Sombra. Goes with the rural territory, though. Like country music.

LOL yup that sounds a lot like what I have seen in my area , but most of it has been less of these "holy powers" to heal mechanics, electronics and people. In highschool I had a friend who had a crush upon this girl who was a member of the Pentecostal church , well he for some idiotic reason decided that he wanted to go for her , and the only way her church would let him date her is if he did , and even though we thwacked him with the idiot stick for a few hours he joined there church to try and score with this girl , anyways through guilt tactics over the cource of there three month dating period he disowned us as friends because the church said the groop he once hung out with was satanic and evil , and that befriending such vileness was wrong by the churches standards (I love how they teach tolerance and permitting diffence of opinions)

And I could also go into the Idiocy of my own fathers faith , he is a Catholic and for some strage reson he lives his life in perpetual guilt, forever he feels guilty for being happy about anything because of the church and what it says.

I just cant be leave the redundancy of arguments like this one, they baffle my brain way to much. and I don't know how you honestly put up with it.

I think that on some level, I am fascinated by the power religion holds over people. I am always amazed by the lengths to which they will eagerly go in defense of their doctrines.

I personally do find it morbidly curious how they can defend something that dose not make any sense, that has nothing supporting its own existence other then the books they write themselfs. For example like me writing a book that I think everyone should pray to pet rocks because they are holy , just because I thought it was a cool idea.

Though this is not exactly what I meant by this last night I just did not say it in the way I wanted to. I was referring to this tactic of where he says the same thing over and over again , under the delusion that if he says he is wright often enough it makes him right, without being able to bring any more evidence to the table , intact he brings in less evidence with each continuing post.

When debating I am not a master at it though , but when someone asks you to back up your argument with facts , bringing up valid and accepted sources to prove that what you say is correct is the typical in my mind course of action , but he dose not even attempt to do so ... though morbidly I think it would be funny if he did.

Though I am amazed I have not been poked to death yet.

That's because you didn't make one of those attention-whoring "Hey, I'm new here" threads in the Off-Topic forum

Well that is probably because I have never given a shit if I am popular or not.

[Colonel Olrik]

As for values, do you deny that b = acd - xmac/xmd in the equation a/x = m(a/c + b/d), or that ab/b = a? We have no proof of the values of any variables, but the relationship remains true - hence is the very significance of variables. In the inference "A, therefore A," the variable "A" may express any proposition, and the validity of the inference yet remains constant.

Just for fun..

That is WRONG.

if you have no idea of the values of any variables, those relations cannot be deduced. Only if you know b =! 0 you can simplify ab/b = a.

So, you see, even your simple, elementary math is wrong. The same with your first expression. you must know x,m,d =! 0, or the resolution is not valid.

Clearly, you can only nitpick at semantics (and very poorly, even at that), because your knowledge of math and actual science is laughable.

----------------------------

EDIT



Holy Fuck!

Yes, I deny it! The idiot can't even solve first degree equations.

Let's see.. The solution for b is

b = acd - xmac/xmd, according to you. => b=acd-ac/d, right? (assuming x,m=! 0)

replacing in the equation, you get

a/x = m(a/c + (acd-ac/d)/d) => a/x = m(a/c+ac-ac/d^2) =! 1=1

Even your strawmen are wrong.

Oh, and I'm not giving you the correct solution. Go and ask your teacher.

[The Apologist]

Nevermind...

None of you seems to understand what logical proof is at all. Has anyone here actually taken the time to learn about logic? If so, where, when, and how long?

And I thought that variables were generally assumed to express nonzero real numbers?

[The Apologist]

Oh and Darth Wong, if I am such an idiot, why do you continue debating with me?

[Colonel Olrik]

Nevermind...

I thought so.

None of you seems to understand what logical proof is at all. Has anyone here actually taken the time to learn about logic? If so, where, when, and how long?

Longer than the time you've spent learning Science and Math. Discussing logig by itself, when not applied to a specific problem, is futile. Logic is used as a means to solve problems, not as an end to itself. No amount of logic prevails over facts and science.

And I thought that variables were generally assumed to express nonzero real numbers?

Trivial solution. Check the therm. Zero is a number exactly as valid as any other. You can and sometimes must restrict the variables to non zero numbers, or only positive, according to the desired results, but that must be stated. If you were familiar with physical problems, you'd notice the For a,b > 0 at the right of the equation solve(a*x = b, x)