• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
X said:
Please, DOC, for the love of your God, take an introductory course in logic.
Click to expand...

I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A.
Click to expand...

I hope it isn't too late to get your money back.
DOC said:
No, but it increases the probability of it being true depending on how much one values the opinion of the president of India. If Barack Obama went on TV and said he saw an alien at Camp David, that would increase the probability in my mind that aliens exist. If a transient on a street corner told me he saw an alien last night it probably wouldn't increase the probability that aliens exist for me.
Click to expand...
 
AFootOfEvidence.gif
 
Ok, let's settle this whole appeal to authority thing. There is a big difference between accepting the word of an expert in a particular field that the information that they present IN THAT FIELD OF STUDY has more credibility than the lay person. This is only as true as confirming evidence provided by that expert and others. This does not extend to fields outside their pervue.

For example, if Dr. Hawking were to make some claim about black holes, then I would pretty much accept him at face value, pending further research. Since I do not have the mathematical chops to go through a rigorous search of his math, I'll leave that to his peers who are ultimatley more qualified than I to do that work. If Dr. Hawking were to make a claim about electromagnetic theory, where I do have the matematical chops and the background to decipher his claim, I could do the fact checking myself. If he were to make a claim about politics, I would listen and give his claim no more weight than any other political pay person - that is I would accept or reject totally by confirmation bias because politics is not a rational arena :p.

If you are using an authority as your only evidence to support a claim, it is a fallacy. If you are using an authority to lend credibility to a claim that is within that authority's field of study, it may work for a while, until the rest of the evidence is weighed.
If you are using an authority as a launching point for a new idea, that's totally acceptable, just remember that any conclusions must be weighed independantly from that authority.
 
What a waste of bandwidth

Just popping in to see if Doc has posted any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth - and I see that he still hasn't.

I'll check again in another couple of months.
 
longfellow said:
Just popping in to see if Doc has posted any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth - and I see that he still hasn't.

I'll check again in another couple of months.
Click to expand...

Heh, you remind me of Toronto Maple Leafs fans. Eternally optimistic!
 
longfellow said:
I'm not at all familiar with hockey. Is that anything like being a Chicago Cubs fan? :D
Click to expand...
Very much so. Except that TML fans are short timers when it comes to time between championships. I mean, they last won the Stanley Cup within my older brother's life time. I think you could fit all those who were alive when the Cubs last won into my cubicle at work.
 
What does a [insert club/team] fan do after they win the championship?
Put down his play station controller and go to bed.:D
 
zooterkin said:
Do you actually read what you write? You're saying that your opinion of the person speaking affects the probability of of what they say being true. I don't think that's what you meant to say.
Click to expand...

People should let my posts say what I am saying rather then making a strawman interpretation.

I said what I said, and it is not what you stated.
 
zooterkin said:
We have to examine the actual claims here. Stephen Hawking is saying that given the size of the universe, and what we know about how it formed, and many other factors including what we can observe directly and indirectly, it is almost certain that life of some sort exists elsewhere in the universe. That is miles away from claiming that such life has developed insterstellar transport and is visiting the earth.
Click to expand...

You imply that I stated that Hawking claimed that such life has developed insterstellar transport and is visiting the earth -- which would be false.
 
DOC said:
No, but it increases the probability of it being true depending on how much one values the opinion of the president of India.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
Nope. It is evidence of nothing beyond the opinion of the president of India.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad we both agree it evidence. See post 13 for a definition of evidence.

ETA. And actually I should have said how much one values "the statements" (not opinions) of the president of India. Because if she really believed what she said it is not an opinion but a statement of fact to her.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Do you actually read what you write? You're saying that your opinion of the person speaking affects the probability of of what they say being true. I don't think that's what you meant to say.
Click to expand...
DOC said:
People should let my posts say what I am saying rather then making a strawman interpretation.

I said what I said, and it is not what you stated.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
Nope. It is evidence of nothing beyond the opinion of the president of India.
Click to expand...
DOC said:
Well, I'm glad we both agree it evidence. See post 13 for a definition of evidence.

ETA. And actually I should have said how much one values "the statements" (not opinions) of the president of India. Because if she really believed what she said it is not an opinion but a statement of fact to her.
Click to expand...
Odd how DOC provided evidence to support zoo's interpretation of DOC's nonsense. Looks like DOC falsified his own rebuttal.
 
DOC said:
ETA. And actually I should have said how much one values "the statements" (not opinions) of the president of India. Because if she really believed what she said it is not an opinion but a statement of fact to her.
Click to expand...
This just had to be repeated.

A statement of someone is "fact" if that person's opinion is "valued". The level of stupid in that statement is truly jaw dropping. DOC obviously would fail miserably in his logic course if he can't even understand a basic Argument from Authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom