Is your statement absolutely true? If it is then it follows it is not absolutely true. If your statement is false its false. So if its absolutely true its false if its false its false The position you espoused is incoherent
If you are abandoning absolute truth then you have given up the justification for the second part of your statement. What warrant is there for this part of your statement?
The second quote of your statement is not itself an irrefutable fact
How then can you also say:
This statement too is not itself an irrefutable fact or overwhelmingly objective scientific evidence. Thereâs nothing you could do to prove these statements nor will you find it in a scientific paper or book. These are philosophical statements about the nature of facts/scientific evidence, but it states that anything that is not irrefutable fact or scientific evidence is false. But then it follows that if itâs true, it itself is false.
By your own statement this also cannot be absolutely true since you abandon absolute truth. These are incoherencies.
Its is a possessive pronoun, not an abbreviation of it is, if you canât get a simple word spelling right then no wonder you are unable to differentiate between simple concepts like irrefutable and immutable, but nonetheless they are not the same.
Yes it is, and yes they are, youâre simply wrong. Though by all means link the breaking news that new scientific evidence has falsified those facts? Thereâs nothing on any global news network, whatever can that mean?
Youâre wrong on both counts, and how.
I never claimed anything was an absolute though did I, only that certain scientific facts were irrefutable, you see I understand the difference between irrefutable and immutable. Though I can see why someone who doesnât understand the difference between irrefutable and immutable would fail to grasp their error.
Just to clarify, this was your position, not mine. Any objective evidence to support that this is even possible? I think we already know the answer.
You never addressed your circular reasoning fallacy there, let me see if I can guess whyâŚand responding only to one point, while evading addressing your irrational claims is very dishonest, this has an obvious inference for your claim, though we already knew it was irrational of course, as it used a known fallacy in informal logic.
Nor did you attempt to evidence this claim either, dear oh dear.
Nor this oneâŚ
âŚand still no answer, your reticence while unsurprising, again offers a pretty obvious inference about your claim. Youâre peddling unevidenced superstition, but are holding an empty bag, and you are also being wilfully dishonest.
So despite asking for clarification, and receiving it, you roll past the request a third time, hmmâŚ
Wow, what a load of drivel. If I were going to butt in, I would certainly point out that âWho Are You,â knows nothing about constructing a logical syllogism and even less about listening to what others say. His absolutist script and call for âproof,â a mathematical construct, belies his ignorance.
Cyber hit the nail on the head. Obviously âWhoâ is trying to assert an âabsolute truthâ through an equivocation fallacy in his usage of âproof.â
Science can only disprove ideas.
The Truth: Much like in the previous misconception (âscience proves ideasâ) this idea follows the line of thinking that science has something to
disprove, falsify or reject; that science canât find evidence to support one idea over another. In science, ideas can never be absolutely proved or
disproved, they can only be accepted or rejected based on supporting or refuting evidence. (Why is this so hard for a theist to grasp?)
So, just to get this straight, the magical undead person you venerate is also truth?
But his existence has never been verified, certainly the magical zombie figure as in the gospels is utterly improbable. The human that might have sparked the stories some decades after his or her demise left no traces.
So how does that story become the âabsolute truthâ?
Still . . . define âtruth.â What do you even mean?
In 1 Kings 7:23, there is a molten sea round in compass and 10 cubits across and 30 cubits in circumfrence, which tells us that the Biblical sages of the time thought that Pi was equal to 3, instead of 3.14159265358979323âŚ
We can maybe dismiss this by saying that the difference is so tiny that it doesnât matter, but Pi is also irrational and itâs a transcendental number at the same time.
So, The Bible doesnât just get the quantity wrong, but also the two distinguishing qualities of the value of Pi, as 3 is not irrational and it is not transcendental.
This means that we might casually (or with irritation) simply claim that The Bible isnât a mathematical textbook, so my criticisms about the Biblical value of Pi are immaterial . . . and I agree.
The catch is that if we say this, then we now have a precedent . . . and now I can legitimately claim that The Bible isnât a biology textbook or a geology textbook either . . . so the Creationists can take their Young Earth philosophy and shove it right up the old Hershey highway.
âŚbut you canât and wonât prove it. Youâre too drunk off of the Kool-Aid. So much that youâre just bullshitting and trying to look intelligent. I donât see the point in debating with a religious purple dishwasher monkey.
Exactly so, and when the evidence is sufficient the original premise become an irrefutable scientific fact, note it never becomes immutable, as this would be unscientific.
You can see his scripted gotcha moment a mile off, as we have all seen it too often before. Eventually he will assert that this requirement that even irrefutable scientific facts are not immutable, means we somehow canât accept what science says as any more reliable than archaic unevidenced superstition.
Beyond the obvious errancy of the assertion, amply disproved in the self evident success of scientific facts in matching reality with things like medicine, and ubiquitous technologies, the irony of the shared denigration with their own cherished beliefs seems entirely lost on such risible apologetics. That a deity purportedly with limitless knowledge and power can do no better than a method they wrongly assert is little more than the hunches or guesses of evolved apes. You almost feel sorry for someone whose reasoning is so impaired.
Bottom line irrefutable and immutable are not the same, science has irrefutable facts, it does not nor can it ever have any immutable ones. and I have already challenged @WhoAreYou to demonstrate any objective evidence that an immutable truth is even possible, so far rhetoric, platitudes, bare unevidenced claims using circular reasoning fallacies and dishonest semantics abut what objective and evidence mean, is all heâs offered, is anyone really surprised.
Since he appears to be stalling and obfuscating, try this: @WhoAreYou please demonstrate the best most compelling evidence you have for the deity you believe is real?
Now itâs hard to dodge that one, and not infer you know deep down youâre holding an empty bag.
Firstly truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality. This has been explained, and that is yet another circular reasoning fallacy, where your premise assumes your conclusion, please try again. No one here will be swayed by obviously irrational and unevidenced claims. Especially when we know that beyond the very scant evidence of a crucifixion, there is only the anonymous hearsay of the gospels, the earliest of which dates to decades after the events it purports to describe. If you think anyone here will accept archaic claims for magic from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition, then you are not paying attention. If you care at all about convincing others that your superstitious belief are valid, then itâs time to up your game beyond the usual vapid preaching.
As for Jesus, assuming I was to accept he existed at all, not one single word was written about him until decades after he is alleged to have died, and the earliest copies of the gospels were unauthored, they are anonymous, so if you expect us to accept their claims you will need more than a circular reasoning fallacy.
Humour and logic are not mutually exclusive, so yes it can be both funny and a no true Scotsman fallacy. While you may recognise this as may others here, it seems important to point it out to @WhoAreYou, as like so many religious apologists who visit us, logic seems anathema to him.
I think what youâre getting at is that the interval of time betweent the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels would have introduced legendary Influences to expunge historical facts?
If so there was insufficient time for it. âThis point has been well explained by A. N. Sherwin-WhiteâŚ(he) is not a theologian, he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander, the great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexanderâs death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the great did not develop, until during centuries, after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend, accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short, a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the Gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legend, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be âunbelievableâ. More generations would be needed.
This point becomes even more devastating for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesusâs life. For example, the story of Jesusâs suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for his narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Matk, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesusâs death.
Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paulâs letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesusâs death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.â
Start with the fact that there were many prophecies written of Christ that He has fulfilled. Just take the following 8: Where he was to he born, the time of his birth, being born of a virgin, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, he would be mocked, crucified,pierced, die with the wocked but buried with the rich. For any one person to even fulfill these 8 prophecies alone would be 1 in 10^17. And Christ fulfilled many more but this is a peak at how improbable it is yet it is recorded.
HmmmâŚ.letâs just look into Sherwin-White for a moment.
From Richard Carrier:
â In actual fact, Sherwin-White never conducted any study of this question, he never said myths and legends couldnât arise in two generations (or even immediately), and what he did actually sayâthat some kernels of history must survive even in a highly embellished legend two generations laterâis not only demonstrably false, he based his assertion of it on a single example that didnât even evidence the point. This has been pointed out a lot. Not only, as I just noted, by myself and Komarnitsky, but many othersâincluding multiple times by Vince Hart (in 2007, 2010, and 2011), and recently by Bob Seidensticker.â
!!!