|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,654 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,654 Likes: 1 |
Gosh, really?  Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.
Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God? You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence. That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498 |
When Constantine granted Christians the right to practice their faith without being persecuted for it…which was likely the Western world’s first known government document to declare the freedom of belief…Christianity made up maybe 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Only a hundred years later, half of the Empire’s population of 60 million people professed adherence to Christianity. That is absolutely remarkable.
Scholars to this day do not clearly understand how the historical triumph of Christianity came about. The Christian Bible didn’t even exist at the time of Constantine’s conversion, and for those who were living in the Roman Empire at the time, it would have been impossible to even imagine that Christianity would eventually replace all of the other religions of the Empire.
And even Bart Ehrmans position is that Constantine’s conversion made little difference, and that the Roman Empire would have still turned Christian over time without him. Regardless, Christianity triumphed. Against all odds.
The original version of Christianity that Jesus established was something brand new on this earth. It wasn’t closed to women. And it was so concerned with issues of social welfare…like caring for the sick and caring for the poor…that it embedded them into its doctrines. And it was only exclusivist in the sense that it foreclosed devotion to all other deities. Judaism was exclusivist in that capacity as well, but also in so many other ways that have already been mentioned. And Judaism crucially lacked a missionary impulse as well.
Paganism lost adherents and gained none, while Christianity gained adherents and lost none. 1000 Christians in 60 AD goes to to 40,000 Christians in 150 AD and then to 2.5 million Christians in 300 AD.
To 2.5 billion adherents of Christianity throughout the world today, fully 1/3 of the world’s population. That’s an incredible increase from the small band of first-century followers of Jesus who are responsible for the survival of the faith. And Christianity made its greatest strides during that first 280 or so years against absolutely overwhelming odds.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,941 Likes: 15
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,941 Likes: 15 |
Antlers, before Gutenberg's printing press, how many Bibles existed?
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o
"May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498 |
Idk man. But making copies by hand was clearly a Herculean task.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
Gosh, really? Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.
Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God? You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence. That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia. An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms part of the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may also be wrong. However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true. It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. For example, consider this syllogism: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498 |
I think it’s pretty interesting, and important, to understand that the way that we (individually) got our Bibles is not the way that the world got the Bible.
The way that the world got the Bible started with an event, and some eyewitnesses wrote separate and individual documents that documented the life of Jesus, and those written documents were collected and copied, and the Hebrew Scriptures were adopted by the early Christian Church because they realized that it pointed to Jesus. And sequentially it all got put together. But when we were maybe 6 years old somebody handed us the whole thing chaptered, versed, mapped and wrapped and said “here’s the Bible, the word of God.”
But nobody ever explained the sequence. And I think the sequence is pretty important, and interesting.
I absolutely believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead…but not because it says so in ‘the Bible’. It’s way better than that…!
I do not take the above mentioned documents seriously because they are in ‘the Bible’. Those separate and individual documents aren’t valuable because they’re in ‘the Bible’. These extraordinary documents that were written in the first century were included in the Bible because early Christians understood their value in and of themselves. They were valuable and considered valuable long before there was ever ‘the Bible’.
I don’t take Matthew seriously because it’s in the Bible. It’s in the Bible because it’s so valuable. I don’t take John seriously because it’s in the Bible. It got put in this incredible collection of documents that became the Bible because the early church recognized that it was so valuable.
Way back then, when everyone involved with Jesus thought it was ‘game over’ as He died, the founding event of Christianity happened a few days later and it sparked a confidential faith in Jesus, and it started a movement that eventually brought us the Bible.
These documents were written in the first century. They were copied and collected. They were distributed by the third century. And then in the early fourth century, under the Emperor Diocletian (when state-sanctioned persecution of Christians was taking place), they banned and confiscated all of the Christian literature that they could and burned it.
And people risked their lives for these documents, not for the Bible (because there was still no ‘the Bible’), but for a copy of Matthew or a fragment of John. They risked their lives because they had maybe two or three of Paul’s writings (not even knowing that he’d written anything else). They risked their lives for these documents because they considered them so valuable.
And they were so valuable because of who wrote them, what they contained, and when they were written.
Skeptics wanna cross-examine ‘the Bible’. But they don’t cross-examine Matthew all by itself, and then afterwards take on Mark all by itself (who got his information from Peter who was an eyewitness). And then afterwards cross-examine Luke all by itself (who says he thoroughly investigated all of these things so there’d be an orderly account of what happened). And then afterwards take on John, who was an eyewitness, all by itself. And then afterwards go on to Peter, who was an eyewitness who wrote two letters and clearly believed in the resurrection. And then afterwards go on to James all by itself, who clearly came to believe that his own brother was the Son of God…! Then afterwards on to Paul, who stepped onto the pages of history as someone who despises Christians (and committed himself to single-handedly putting this Jesus movement out of business).
And that same Paul became the advocate and the missionary to the Gentiles, and he made it crystal clear that this whole thing rises and falls on the resurrection of Jesus.
The faith of the earliest Christians was tethered to the event that sparked the movement that brought us ‘the Bible’.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,802 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,802 Likes: 1 |
Gosh, really? Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.
Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God? You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence. That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia. An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms part of the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may also be wrong. However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true. It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. For example, consider this syllogism: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4 |
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise. Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise. Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium. Of course....but the atheist do not know that....
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,941 Likes: 15
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,941 Likes: 15 |
It may be a Christmas thing, but, let's keep, It, simple.
"Good Christian Men Rejoice."
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o
"May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,802 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,802 Likes: 1 |
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise. Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium. Of course....but the atheist do not know that.... It's a gas, dickheads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,654 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,654 Likes: 1 |
Gosh, really? Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.
Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God? You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence. That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia. An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms part of the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may also be wrong. However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true. It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. For example, consider this syllogism: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. The assumptions/premises with faith is that what is written in a holy book is true and factual because it is inspired by God, gods, prophets, seers, holy men, etc, and/or it is assumed that the Universe must have been created because such complexity cannot arise without a creator. As these assumptions are founded on faith, the conclusion - that this or that version of God or gods exist - is flawed. It is flawed because there are other possibilities and we do not know the origin of matter/energy, whether time had a beginning or the universe is eternal, cyclic a part of a greater system, or something not yet imagined.... The true premise/situation is: we don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
Gosh, really? Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.
Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God? You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence. That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia. An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms part of the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may also be wrong. However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true. It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. For example, consider this syllogism: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. The assumptions/premises with faith is that what is written in a holy book is true and factual because it is inspired by God, gods, prophets, seers, holy men, etc, and/or it is assumed that the Universe must have been created because such complexity cannot arise without a creator. As these assumptions are founded on faith, the conclusion - that this or that version of God or gods exist - is flawed. It is flawed because there are other possibilities and we do not know the origin of matter/energy, whether time had a beginning or the universe is eternal, cyclic a part of a greater system, or something not yet imagined.... The true premise/situation is: we don't know. Remember, I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania....correct me if I'm wrong, but I did not bring up God...
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Gosh, really? Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:
Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.
Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.
Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. How does inductive reasoning support a justified belief in God? And which version of God? You tell me.... I was just pointing out an example of proving a negative from professor Steven Hales of philosophy, at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. The devil lies in the detail; the definition of 'proof' - if the premises are flawed, it matters not that a conclusion follows from the premises because the conclusion may still be invalid - ie- “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, It's irrelevant to the issue of an absence of sufficient evidence to prove a proposition. If there is insufficient evidence to support a justified belief that Zeus, Odin, Allah, Brahman, etc, exists, there is no reason to be convinced of their existence. That can be applied to any of the long list of gods that humankind has believed in over countless millennia. An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms part of the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may also be wrong. However, it should be noted that whether or not an argument is "valid" does not depend on whether its premises are true. It rather depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. For example, consider this syllogism: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. The assumptions/premises with faith is that what is written in a holy book is true and factual because it is inspired by God, gods, prophets, seers, holy men, etc, and/or it is assumed that the Universe must have been created because such complexity cannot arise without a creator. As these assumptions are founded on faith, the conclusion - that this or that version of God or gods exist - is flawed. It is flawed because there are other possibilities and we do not know the origin of matter/energy, whether time had a beginning or the universe is eternal, cyclic a part of a greater system, or something not yet imagined.... The true premise/situation is: we don't know. Wow…. Been busy and not checked in, but see that this is still “careening” right along. Good! Btw…. DBT is still wrong….he makes the statement that “faith” is somehow dependent upon what is written in a “holy book.” …. His “….conclusion - that this or that version of God or gods exist - is flawed.”…..:this conclusion is without merit. His premise is flawed. Consider that Abraham did not have the “holy book” yet was saved by faith. Also, one of the interesting faith stories is Rahab, the prostitute. She was saved by faith. Seems that she was a practicing prostitute when was saved….by faith. See and read Hebrews 11 to see that….yet again, DBT is way way off target in what says. Just more bafflegab from DBT.
Last edited by TF49; 06/25/22.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise. Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium. Of course....but the atheist do not know that.... It's a gas, dickheads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeuteriumHmm….using the term “dickheads.” Well, we’ll see……
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498 |
Christianity doesn’t rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 separate and independent ancient documents. It rises and falls on the identity of a single individual: Jesus.
Skeptics, scoffers, and those with a clear agenda (and it most certainly isn’t “sorting fact from fiction”) and bias always…always…attack the faith by attacking the Bible; as if the Bible itself is the battleground.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,938 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,938 Likes: 6 |
I read a book which said Pasiphae lay with the bull of Poseidon and gave birth to the Minataur.
I also read of Centaurs, and Satyrs, etc.
Does this mean that I believe Gods produced half human hybrids with animals?
No! But I am convinced the ancient Greeks and Romans screwed anything that moved. Two legged or four.
Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties. Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise. Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium. Of course....but the atheist do not know that.... It's a gas, dickheads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeuteriumHmm….using the term “dickheads.” Well, we’ll see…… mauser9mm[/quote] It's a gas, dickheads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium[/quote] Yes it is, but we are talking about heavy water...Deuterium is very rare in free state...In other words, 99.98% of hydrogen in the ocean is protium and only 0.0156% is deuterium (or 0.0312% by mass)....that is why cccc said heavy water...oh, and i will not call you a dickhead.
Last edited by Raspy; 06/25/22.
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,498 |
So he called y’all “dickheads” when HE didn’t know what ‘heavy water’ is, even though the article he referenced in his derogatory post clearly described ‘heavy water’ as deuterium oxide (D2O)…?
lol
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4 |
Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium. Of course....but the atheist do not know that.... It's a gas, dickheads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
mauserand9mm, you can be as gross and vulgar as you wish - that simply reveals more of your nature. You so missed the mark with Deuterium - if you don't have such knowledge and are going to seek and quote Wikipedia for your "evidence and proof" - it may help if you read it all and comprehend it. So, the evidence was a kicker, wasn't it? And, you made yourself the kickee. You claim to rely so heavily on "evidence" - which can turn out to be a heavy burden in these circumstances. Should we expect additional vulgarity - as evidenced earlier? Does the devil make you do it?
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
141 members (264mag, 44mc, 338rcm, 2500HD, 35, 18 invisible),
1,557
guests, and
1,037
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,628
Posts18,492,960
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
