Brian: Freethinking

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> POOBAH

POOBAH

> Suggest a better forum and perhaps we can discuss it.


(DAVE 7/10)  Brian:  This forum seems fine.  As the list owner, Farrell
allows far more deviant topics then this on his list so I'm sure he wouldn't
be unfair enough to censure this.  Besides, this is relevant.  This issue
deals with how you have come to your version of truth - and from that truth,
you claim that the Bible is errant and that Christianity is false (I assume
you claim these anyway - if not, I apologize).  Farrell has spent post after
post explaining his journey to this point, which has nothing to do with
errancy either.  So, don't dodge this Brian, let's discuss it.

POOBAH
I will not discuss this on this forum. My version of truth is irrelevant to
discussions which use well-established rules of logic, inference & evidence
to examine the question of whether a given statement should be given
provisional acceptance.

If you have some reason why such standards should not be used, let's here
it, but it better not be special pleading, and you will necessarily be
admitting that you have no "rational" reason for your beliefs.

Your point of view is ridiculous. Do you require definitions of truth before
any discussion of matters of fact & evidence? When your mother asks you if
you picked up milk at the store, do you respond, "Well, Mom, before I can
answer that question you need to explain to me your notion of truth."

Pul-lease. We know whose dodging here.

But prove me wrong & pick a topic related to questions of the accuracy of
the Bible and let's start.

(DAVE 7/10)  Brian:  I'm sure you know that putting words into someone
else's mouth is unfair.  You're giving me too much credit - this is not
"where I'm going with this" at all.  I am asking where your reference point
for reason is - if you have no reasonable method of arriving at truth, then
why should I discuss something you claim is truthful?

POOBAH
Because I've never asked for truth, I've asked for evidence & criteria, and
if I've use the word true, I've intended it as short-hand for evidence &
criteria. So I ask again. What evidence & criteria do you use (other than
sophistry & spurious logic) to determine which miraculous claims are
accurate & which are not?

But fine, Davie, I'll give you one shot. No, I see no use for using the term
"truth" outside of formal realms of mathematics & logic where it has a
precise meaning. In ordinary affairs one should speak of provisional
acceptance based on inductive methods of correlation which tend to agree
with experience & memory.

So now what, Dave? Where are you going?

If you have some examples of where such inductive provisional methods will
consistently give provisional acceptance to something that is demonstratably
"false" (whatever that means), and where such inductive methods will never
give provisional acceptance to something that is "true" (whatever that
means), then let's hear it, but otherwise your speculations are nothing more
than a waste of time and the logical fallacy of poisoning the well to boot.

(DAVE 7/10)  Brian:  I agree.  But it is important.  It is tedious, as well,
to assume that science and reason are grounds for truth and basing all
opinions and arguments on these grounds.  You would have more to explain and
define there.  You still have to explain to me WHOSE "reason" we are using
as our reference point: yours?  mine?  Farrells?  Hitlers?  whose?  You
still have to explain why you believe that science is capable of finding all
truth - science is a method of discovery based on and interpreted through
the  "reasoning" of various individuals, which brings us back to the first
dilemma.

POOBAH
Once again, you confuse truth with provisional acceptance.

No one has claimed that science is capable of finding all truth; the
statement is meaningless, like bridge-builders are capable of spanning all
colors.

Further, science is not dependent of a given individuals "reason," but on
that individuals ability to apply certain pre-agreed standards of
investigation, and other peers' ability to evaluate that individuals ability
to follow said standards. But science is irrelevant to your task.

As I said, I am not interested in truth claims, I am interested in evidence.
What evidence & criteria do you have for your position, or are you willing
to admit you have no rational reason for your beliefs?

POOBAH

>(snip)

>then you won't mind telling us what criteria you

> use to determine which non-Biblical miracles you choose to accept

> and which

> Biblical miracles you choose to reject without begging the question of the

> accuracy of the Bible? Or is it just because of some warm-fuzzy feeling in

> your chest?


(DAVE 7/10)  Brian:  The first criteria in accepting which miracles are
true and which are false in the Bible would be whether I accept the accuracy
of the Bible or not.  Your question is a dishonest one and your direction is
clear (and quite simple I might add) - you offer me no acceptable means of
discussion through this question: by not allowing the accuracy of the Bible,
you will counter anything I say by saying it is question begging the
accuracy of the Bible; by allowing me to question beg the accuracy of the
Bible, you will ask me to prove any of these alleged miracles, which I
obviously can't, and accuse me of basing all I say or believe on the
accuracy of the Bible, which you will say is question begging in the first
place.

POOBAH
The first criteria for accepting miraculous claims should not be the Bible;
there are miraculous claims made by individuals & works outside the Bible.
Do you reject those out of hand?

So are you saying the only criteria you apply to accepting miraculous claims
is whether the Bible says so?

But for you David, evidently the Bible must be assumed to be accurate before
you can discuss its miraculous claims? So David in his fancy language and
quests for truths, ends up with "Everything in the Bible is TRUE because I
believe the Bible is TRUE."

Well that's brilliant, David, that is.

So we're back to the statement that you have no RATIONAL reason for your
beliefs. Have a nice deluded life, David. At least you know what truth is.

DAVID
I'd like to discuss these miracles, but would like to suggest that we
discuss it in a fair manner.  How about starting with this: what is a
"miracle"?

POOBAH
You tell me. Part of explaining your criteria for acceptance would be what
you think something is. You seem confused as usual. You think I'm asking you
if miracles are TRUE. I'm asking you for your criteria for evaluating
miraculous claims.

The two are not the same except in your seemingly muddled thought processes.

• Previous message: Brian: Freethinking
• Next message: Brian: Freethinking
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]