|
On August 19 2009 12:18 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend. Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem.
Were that true you'd think we would see more budding Wordsworths and Byrons on this forum.
|
I would join in, but I'm going to sleep too. 11:30
|
United States44234 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
|
On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
As far as we know, nothing. And a "historical text" that was written by some people that we don't know is hardly any evidence in the first place. Not to mention that most of the Torah was written a long time after the supposed events took place.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:24 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:18 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend. Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem. Were that true you'd think we would see more budding Wordsworths and Byrons on this forum.
I do see a bit of Candide taking place in this thread.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:
[quote]Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about?
|
On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
|
United States44234 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:
[quote]Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
|
On August 19 2009 12:33 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion. The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about?
I'm an agnostic atheist.
Wow... The Bible was written starting (I think) 1,536 B.C.E. and the last book written in 96 A.D. How do we know this? Matching up time lines of what we know with what the Bible says, we're able to determine when parts of the Bible were written. How is it determined that they were not written afterward? We don't, but the accounts are very detail-oriented and were clearly written by someone who was there to witness the account giving a relatively small range in date variation. So small a variation it really doesn't matter if there is one.
|
On August 19 2009 12:42 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid. No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:44 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:42 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:
[quote]No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid. No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point. I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing. Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Like you've said, the Bible written over a long period of time and by many different people. Why does the work of those who wrote about Babylon help confirm the work of the authors of other sections? The strategy section has had some very good guides and even more very bad ones. It's not fair to say most of the threads in that forum are good because of the work of a few authors.
|
United States44234 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:44 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:42 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:
[quote]No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid. No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point. I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing. Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Spiderman depicts yellow cabs in NYC. This matches historical accounts of the place.
|
On August 19 2009 12:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:42 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid. No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point. I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing. Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event. Like you've said, the Bible written over a long period of time and by many different people. Why does the work of those who wrote about Babylon help confirm the work of the authors of other sections? The strategy section has had some very good guides and even more very bad ones. It's not fair to say most of the threads in that forum are good because of the work of a few authors.
Because the historicity of each of the writers' separate works have been proven, at least in part, with extra-biblical texts.
|
On August 19 2009 12:49 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:42 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid. No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point. I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing. Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event. Spiderman depicts yellow cabs in NYC. This matches historical accounts of the place.
OK, I have people who debate with reason that I'd much rather spend my time replying to.
|
On August 19 2009 12:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:24 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend. Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem. Were that true you'd think we would see more budding Wordsworths and Byrons on this forum. I do see a bit of Candide taking place in this thread.
Sure, if you mean by our new-found freedom we have taken the garden of life, and from it, cultivated dirt.
|
On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:
[quote]Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old.
|
On August 19 2009 11:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:Declarative statement about external truth = Faith = Mental illness? Show nested quote +What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus. The evidence exists. Verification however is a collaborative effort of ability and will.
There's no evidence.
Declarative statement about external "truth", where truth is not supported by any facts , eg, believing in fairies that live around your head and direct your actions in live, = faith, = mental illness
|
On August 19 2009 12:42 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:33 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:
[quote]
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion. The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about? I'm an agnostic atheist. Wow... The Bible was written starting (I think) 1,536 B.C.E. and the last book written in 96 A.D. How do we know this? Matching up time lines of what we know with what the Bible says, we're able to determine when parts of the Bible were written. How is it determined that they were not written afterward? We don't, but the accounts are very detail-oriented and were clearly written by someone who was there to witness the account giving a relatively small range in date variation. So small a variation it really doesn't matter if there is one.
I like how the books about Jesus were written 60+ years after he died by people who never knew him in real life and only one mentions virgin birth. WIN!
|
United States44234 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:56 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:49 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:42 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:35 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:23 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:
[quote]What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction? You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures. No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out. Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid. No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point. I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing. Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event. Spiderman depicts yellow cabs in NYC. This matches historical accounts of the place. OK, I have people who debate with reason that I'd much rather spend my time replying to.
Only because you've trapped yourself in the natural end result of all agnosticism. Either you admit the grounds for agnosticism regariding religion also match the grounds for agnosticism regarding any number of stupid beliefs or you declare atheism. You can't have it both ways. If you're agnostic regarding one story with a few facts and a few undisprovable claims then you're agnostic about them all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
