quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I have coins that will NEVER give heads,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I have coins that will NEVER give heads,

---

I found this post very offensive!
Keep up the good work!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verso

quote:

---

In addition, you make the claim that your faith is supported by a book which is more than a book. That it is the "Word of God". Therein, you have made the claim that the Bible is the "word of God".

Arg A = Bible is the word of God
Arg B = Bible is nothing
Arg C = Bible claims to be the "Word of God"

Your assertation flows as follows

Arg A
Arg C = Arg A if True
Since Arg A, then Arg C

Arg B is referenced only as a meaningless gesture.

---

I think I can see where your confusion is stemming from. I did cite the Bible as support for my faith, but I did not back that up. I simply stated it.

Then I pointed out an "interesting fact" about the Bible (which is also true of any set of statements that internally claim to be true in their entirety), in no way logically connected to my statement that the Bible is the word of God.

In other words, I never logically related your ‘Arg A' and ‘Arg C.' Here is the logical analysis of what I did say.

Arg A = Bible is the word of God OR Bible is nothing
Arg B = Bible claims to be the "Word of God"

IF B THEN A

And that is it! If you are thinking this is a truism, you are right. Which is why I am bewildered that this is so hard to grasp.

I believe your confusion is stemming from your separation of my “Arg A” into two statements. But I never did make a claim as to which it was in the context of that logical argument. I simply said it was “either-or,” not one or the other.

This argument is interesting. Most arguments concern the details of the logic, or the premise on which the logic was built. But this one is simply you insisting I came to a logical conclusion that I never came to!

Anyway, If you cannot understand what I am saying... I'm sorry. Unless 2 or 3 others indicate that they also do not understand that portion of my post, this is the last I will address the topic.

Whether or not you do understand, I'll move on to your next point, which was also raised by Dave.

quote:

---

Saying that it must be the Word of God or nothing is classic bifurcation. It could be a myriad of things.

1) The inerrant "Word of God"
2) A fluff piece full of thees and thous
3) A way to control the pensantry during the Feudal age which gained support
4) A historical document which has been heavily edited thoughout it's history and is now dubious at best
5) A religious text which is very vague on the workings of the world but reflect the opinions of a society 2000 years in the past about spirituality and an afterlife

---

To a fundamental Christian, 2, 3, 4, and 5 all fit under “nothing.” This is a matter of categorization - you have simply categorized it further. Let me give you an analogy. I might have said:

“There are humans and there are animals.”

Then by your argument, you would have said:

“No, you have created a false dichotomy. In reality, there are humans, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.”

Let me annotate your statement, Dave. “In reality, the Bible is (A) the Word of God, (B) fiction (not the Word of God), (C) a tool of political and/or social change or (not the Word of God), (D) some other possibility I haven't considered (not the Word of God).”

To me, as a fundamental Christian, if the Bible is not the Word of God, it is nothing. That same argument translates to my statements about Jesus.

And why was my tangent the important part Dave?

---

quote:

---

I mean, if you're going to make an appeal to authority, you want that authority to have, well, authority.

---

I am not an expert in quantum physics since I have never published papers wherein I would offer some novel ideas in that field.
- Mark Perakh

quote:

---

First of all, I am not Dave.

---