Re: Hard logic

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:47:35 -0800 (PST), Roaming Rider
<interested.reader37@xxxxxxx> wrote in talk.origins:

On 16 Nov, 03:28, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:18:27 -0800 (PST), Roaming Rider
<interested.reade...@xxxxxxx> wrote in talk.origins:





On 16 Nov, 03:00, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:54:07 -0800 (PST), Roaming Rider
<interested.reade...@xxxxxxx> wrote in talk.origins:

On 16 Nov, 01:37, Hatunen <hatu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:35:14 -0800 (PST), Roaming Rider

<interested.reade...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
We know,

(1) The fall happened because man got knowledge.
(2) Jesus saves every believer from the fall.
(3) Literal interpretation of the OT in the Bible is wrong.

From (1) and (3) the Adam, Eve and snake account must be interpreted
metaphorically.

"Hard logic" is syllogistic.

Syllogistic means by means of a syllogism. And syllogism means a
reasoned argument in which there are 2
statements leading to a third conclusion. Logic or "hard logic" is by
no means limited to only this; do you really seriously believe this?
So your definition fails.

You have to state your premises.
I just did 1-3. Can't you read?

So you first bit of "hard logic" is your unsted premise that there
was a "fall". But this is is an proposed axiom, to be taken for
granted. many of us don't take it for granted, so your logic
fails.
The 3 axioms or premises are for the sake of the conclusions. If you
don't agree with these axioms, fine, that's your choice, just as a
person who doesn't know how to count doesn't have to agree with the
mathematical axiom that you *can* count. Are you saying axioms and
logic depends on how many agrees with them. That is a strange
attitude, considering that many illiterate and uneducated wouldn't
accept many axioms of mathematics or logic. If they even know what an
axiom is.

While it is possible to be logically consistent by ignoring reality,
there isn't any value in doing so.

You don't know what reality is, that's my take.

I suppose you are one of those who thinks reality is defined as to
what science has evidence for, in the form of repeated experiments.

You're dead wrong, if so. There is a lot of non-repeatable evidence
for a spiritual co-existing reality.

So you claim, but it is convenient for you to hide behind the claim that
absolutely none of it can be repeated. Your mysticism isn't worth a bowl
of warm spit.

Why should evidences be required to be repeatable. Can you tell me
that?

I only see science haters use the construction "evidences", usually when
they are talking about something that is clearly not evidence.

Ask the Catholic church for evidences of that sort (non-repeatable),
they have recorded them.

Show me. The Catholic Church's track record on 'miracles' is less than
stellar.

Just that you fail to see it in
your ignorance; but that's your problem.

So, you get to make things up and it's my problem when I don't
immediately fall for them? Fine, I'm happy not to be your sucker.

I make things up??? There are 2.1 billion Christians, minus the
Creationists, who don't agree with that. (that there was a fall, that
Jesus save them from the fall, and that the OT of the Bible should
not be taken literally)

Christianity does not have any evidence to rely on. The whole thing
relies on faith. Yes, 2 billion people can be wrong. The question is not
how many people believe something but what caused it. When it comes to
gods, no evidence ever persuaded anyone that a god exists.

With Love,

/RR

Are you sure you aren't Harold Hill?

No, I'm not a con man. I try to be honest.

So you say.

/RR

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: biblical literalism and problems with science
    ... The short version goes like this: Axioms don't require evidence. ... abstractions are a different category to physical ... So there's a case where mathematics is not an abstraction and math is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: biblical literalism and problems with science
    ... not willing to demand evidence for mathematical axioms, ... should one demand evidence for theological axioms. ... So there's a case where mathematics is not an abstraction and math is ... It would be nice to say that my abstraction of the computer I'm using is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Faith and Skepticism
    ... The only evidence for the Resurrection ... We have the same type of evidence for the origin of Christianity that ... > What has occured to make you think God is friendly to mankind? ... both parties must accept certain axioms. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: biblical literalism and problems with science
    ... evidence as to existence of, say, arithmetic? ... position amongst mathematicians. ... his axioms were supported by evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: biblical literalism and problems with science
    ... phrased (the existence of arithmetic should be as self-evident as the ... not willing to demand evidence for mathematical axioms, ... should one demand evidence for theological axioms. ... to the usual usage of symbols in mathematics, ...
    (talk.origins)