• 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:
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...



But it is not evidence for why we know the Vedas' writers told the truth which is what is supposed to be relevant here.


Also, the only reason why Hawkins' opinion should have any impact is because he is making a well reasoned, well argumentated point.
If he was saying: 'Aliens exist because the moon is made out of cheese and somebody has to be there to take care of all these cows', he wouldn't be convincing, despite being the exactly same Hawkins.

In the same vein, Obama (or whichever president you fancy) saying that Jesus is 'our Lord and Savior', is not convincing until he gives a compelling reason why.
As far as we know, he believes so because he thinks the cattle-ranchers from the moon told him so by beaming information through his dental fillings...
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
But it is not evidence for why we know the Vedas' writers told the truth which is what is supposed to be relevant here.


Also, the only reason why Hawkins' opinion should have any impact is because he is making a well reasoned, well argumentated point.
If he was saying: 'Aliens exist because the moon is made out of cheese and somebody has to be there to take care of all these cows', he wouldn't be convincing, despite being the exactly same Hawkins.

In the same vein, Obama (or whichever president you fancy) saying that Jesus is 'our Lord and Savior', is not convincing until he gives a compelling reason why.
As far as we know, he believes so because he thinks the cattle-ranchers from the moon told him so by beaming information through his dental fillings...
Click to expand...
But if you "value" Obama's opinion it must be "fact".
Why do you reject "factual" statements?
 
DOC said:
Explain?
Click to expand...

Anything to oblige.

1. You stated that you had taken a logic course.

2. You've made 1800+ posts in this thread. Those posts make a mockery of logic, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
....a. Your constant fallacy of Appeal to Authority
....b. Your constant referral to your number of posts in this thread
....c. Your perpetual circular arguments of using the Bible to prove the Bible is true
....d. Your repeated red herrings
....e. The fallacy of special pleading
....f. The fallacy of appeal to popularity
....g. Your own personal strawmen
....h. The fallacy of false dilemma

3. I expressed the hope that you qualified for a refund of whatever money you paid for the above logic course since you have shown hundreds, literally hundreds, of times that you have no concept of what logic is.

Would you agree or disagree with the above assessment?


ETA: I had even posted a specific example showing a particularly illogical post of yours as evidence that you are deserving of your money back and a logic course was a total waste of time and money for you. Don't you feel that your "Explain?" is a bit disengenuous?
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
This just had to be repeated.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you repeat it and not a strawman.

Pax said:
A statement of someone is "fact" if that person's opinion is "valued". The level of stupid in that statement is truly jaw dropping.
Click to expand...

You really hurt your credibility by saying I said things I didn't say. You (and others) have done this several times. And the more you (and others) do it the worse you look.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Anything to oblige.

1. You stated that you had taken a logic course.

2. You've made 1800+ posts in this thread. Those posts make a mockery of logic, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
....a. Your constant fallacy of Appeal to Authority
....b. Your constant referral to your number of posts in this thread
....c. Your perpetual circular arguments of using the Bible to prove the Bible is true
....d. Your repeated red herrings
....e. The fallacy of special pleading
....f. The fallacy of appeal to popularity
....g. Your own personal strawmen
....h. The fallacy of false dilemma

3. I expressed the hope that you qualified for a refund of whatever money you paid for the above logic course since you have shown hundreds, literally hundreds, of times that you have no concept of what logic is.

Would you agree or disagree with the above assessment?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion. And its my opinion this is just more of attacking the messenger. My posts speak for themselves. That's what's great about this format. Live debates debating tricks don't work in this format because the posts are out there for everyone to read if they want to take the time.
 
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...

paximperium said:
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.
Click to expand...

paximperium said:
But if you "value" Obama's opinion it must be "fact".
Why do you reject "factual" statements?
Click to expand...

Actually, what he said was more akin to the "if you're willing to die for your beliefs, that proves they're true" meme (read the highlighted section above): if you really, really, really, really believe what you say, that makes it a fact (to you.) Never mind that how much you believe something has no power to affect reality. I could really, really, really, really believe that my house is an interstellar vehicle that I can use to travel the universe while still enjoying all the comforts of home, but that won't make my opinion (however dogmatically stated) align with reality.
 
Simon39759 said:
Also, the only reason why Hawkins' opinion should have any impact is because he is making a well reasoned, well argumentated point.
If he was saying: 'Aliens exist because the moon is made out of cheese and somebody has to be there to take care of all these cows', he wouldn't be convincing, despite being the exactly same Hawkins.
Click to expand...



True.

Hawkins saying "Aliens probably exits, here are the reasons why:..." followed by a list of well-reasoned arguments in favour of aliens' existence would have an impact, not because it was Stephen Hawkins who said it, but because his arguments were well made.

If Hawkins merely said "Aliens probably exist, because I believe they do.", he'd be ridiculed, no matter his brilliance at physics.

Anyone making such asinine arguments (read: Geisler, Turek, etc) deserves such ridicule. The arguments are so utterly bad that taking ridicule is all they deserve. Likewise anyone who trots those arguments out repeatedly, even after people have been patient enough to explain why the arguments are bad.
 
DOC said:
Thank you for your opinion. And its my opinion this is just more of attacking the messenger. My posts speak for themselves. That's what's great about this format. Live debates debating tricks don't work in this format because the posts are out there for everyone to read if they want to take the time.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you didn't address any of his points.
 
DOC said:
Thank you for your opinion. And its my opinion this is just more of attacking the messenger. My posts speak for themselves. That's what's great about this format. Live debates debating tricks don't work in this format because the posts are out there for everyone to read if they want to take the time.
Click to expand...

No, DOC, pointing out logical fallacies is not attacking the poster. If it were, I would be sanctioned for not following the MA.

I'll ask you again, do you agree or disagree with the above assessment? Do you agree or disagree that you use logical fallacies?
 
RoboTimbo said:
No, DOC, pointing out logical fallacies is not attacking the poster. If it were, I would be sanctioned for not following the MA.

I'll ask you again, do you agree or disagree with the above assessment? Do you agree or disagree that you use logical fallacies?
Click to expand...

If someone thinks I made a logical fallacy then say so when you respond to a specific post.

Whenever you see negative statements about me and it does not "show" a specific statement that I have made then that is a red flag that attack the messenger mode is in session. Please show my specific quote if you are going to make a negative statement.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I'll ask you again, do you agree or disagree with the above assessment? Do you agree or disagree that you use logical fallacies?
Click to expand...

Give a specific post that I made and then explain specifically why you think it has a fallacy, and then I will respond to your specific explanation.
 
to be fair

DOC said:
Who said this, It certainly wasn't me.
Click to expand...

No, you said:

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.
Click to expand...
Every single other poster in this thread would immediately conclude "Barack Obama has lost his mind" and you would think "the possibility that aliens are on earth has increased." Do you wonder why this is?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Give a specific post that I made and then explain specifically why you think it has a fallacy, and then I will respond to your specific explanation.
Click to expand...
Here's one where you use President Obama as the authority figure.
DOC said:
So then I would assume it is your position that the black civil rights activists -- the Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Reverend Al Sharpton (not to mention President Obama) were wrong to embrace Christianity.
Click to expand...
Do you agree or disagree that this is the fallacy of appeal to authority?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Do you agree or disagree that this is the fallacy of appeal to authority?
Click to expand...

I think the difficulty is that doc does not agree that appeal to authority is a fallacy, or does not understand the difference between appealing to an authority in his/her field of expertise and appealing to an authority about any old thing, or possibly both.
 
Elizabeth I said:
I think the difficulty is that doc does not agree that appeal to authority is a fallacy, or does not understand the difference between appealing to an authority in his/her field of expertise and appealing to an authority about any old thing, or possibly both.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that he either 1) doesn't understand, 2) doesn't agree or 3) willfully doesn't want to understand that fallacy or any fallacy. But what started this current discussion is DOC's questioning my post hoping that he could get his money back from the logic course he has taken. He, in fact, stated that he had gotten an 'A' in that course. He can't now use ignorance of fallacious arguments as an excuse for using fallacious arguments.
 
DOC said:
Give a specific post that I made and then explain specifically why you think it has a fallacy, and then I will respond to your specific explanation.
Click to expand...

I bow to Hokulele's excellent post pointing out the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Hokulele said:
Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:

DOC's OP said:
Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death
Click to expand...


Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.

Geisler's book from Ichneumonwasp's link said:
What does martyrdom prove? Does it prove Islam is true too?

Not at all. There are some similarities, but there's one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.
Click to expand...


Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?
Click to expand...

Do you agree or disagree that this is an example of the fallacy of circular reasoning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom