(Laughable Logic - Read Between the Lines)
Michael Koller koller@freethinker.org
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:12:51 -0400 (00875592771, 343027E3.A8C086E7@freethinker.org)
> MATT
> A) There is no direct evidence to show that Thaddeus and Judas were the
> same person. This does not mean they were not or that they are, only that
> there is no direct means of establishing such.
>
> NANCY
> And there isn't any implied evidence, either. There is nothing at all to
> indicate that (Lebbaeus) Thaddeus and Judas are the same person.
>
> MATT
> Neither is there any direct or implied evidence to say they were not.
>
> KOLLER
> This reminds me of a STUPID remark made by a marketing person at my
> company. It was during a functional specification review and
> engineering got into a shouting match with marketing over something
> which was not in the spec. Engineering refused to do it because it was
> not documented. In an act of desperation, the marketing person
> exclaimed:
>
> "You still should do it because...well...it's not not in the spec!"
>
> In other words, an argument from silence. Since it doesn't say anything
> to the contrary, therefore it must be....
>
> MATT
> It is your logic that is faulty Michael, or maybe more your ability to read
> properly rather than your logic. I have nowhere stated in all this thread
> that there is any argument to state as true that Labbeaus Thaddeus and
> Judas are one and the same. This applies to my above statement also.
KOLLER
This statement would not be so absurd if Matt had snipped out his
argument from silence, but he left it in and then accused me of a false
accusation!
> NANCY
> And there isn't any implied evidence, either. There is nothing at all to
> indicate that (Lebbaeus) Thaddeus and Judas are the same person.
>
> MATT
> Neither is there any direct or implied evidence to say they were not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And so because there is no "evidence to say they were not", this is
sufficient for you to assert that it casts doubt on the existence of the
contradictions.
MATT
> I am not making an argument from silence i.e. it does not say they are not so
> they are.
KOLLER
And because no where does it say that the moon is not made of human
dung, therefore it is made of human dung. Until you show otherwise, it
is so.
MATT
> I am saying that the Scriptures are inconclusive on the matter so
> we cannot determine whether they were or were not. The arguments I have
> presented are to cast sufficient doubt on there being a contradiction here,
> not to state a fact.
KOLLER
Is the glass half empty or half full? You state that there is
"sufficient doubt on there being a contradiction here." I say, there is
sufficient doubt to withhold belief as long as doubt exists. The fact
is, many of the arguments you are likely to make will end up in
uncertainty.
The fact that it ends up in uncertainty is perhaps the best evidence of
all that the bible is not the word of any god. If all that you believe
is true, then god should be ashamed of herself for choosing such a
pitiful way of propagating her message of salvation - a book written by
fallible people, translated by fallible people, interpreted by fallible
people, leading to all manner of uncertainty and ambiguity.
--
=====================================================================
Michael Koller, B.S. Computer Engineering, Penn State University
e-mail: koller@freethinker.org
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2667/index.html
.....................................................................
Support the Blue Ribbon Campaign for free speech online ()
http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html /\
=====================================================================