Innerrantcy

Originally posted by Nemesio
What equivocation! You assume it's above 90%?!

You can't even say that you're 99.9998% sure that 5x5=25?!?

Why should we trust anything you say if you aren't sure of even this rudimentary fact mathematical
statement?! You're waiting for God to come down and assert it or something? If you are unsure and
not confident with this simple stateme ...[text shortened]... ng complex and elusive like theology?

Dr Scribbs: I'm 100% sure it's true.

Nemesio

OK, so what has been accomplished here? So we all know that 5x5=25. Great!!! Now what?

Originally posted by whodey
OK, so what has been accomplished here? So we all know that 5x5=25. Great!!! Now what?

The distinction between misapplying logic and the idea that logic itself could be fallible.

Do you now agree that a properly-constructed logical proof is necessarily infallible?

Do you now agree that a properly-constructed mathematical statement is necessarily infallible?

If not, then your bizarre skepticism makes it impossible to proceed.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Somewhat interestingly, however, I am not 0% or 100% certain about all claims of number theory. For example, I'd estimate my confidence in the claim
"44887691022537878243 is prime" at being very near 50%.

Well, of course. But that's merely a product of your interest in the problem and the consequent
unwillingness to research the necessary elements to bring your confidence up. I have 100% certainty
that, if someone offered you $1000, say, you could deduce the answer with 100% certainty. All of
the elements for the deduction of this problem are there (with a little elbow grease or some clever
computer programming) to figure it out.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The distinction between misapplying logic and the idea that logic itself could be fallible.

Do you now agree that a properly-constructed logical proof is necessarily infallible?

Do you now agree that a properly-constructed mathematical statement is necessarily infallible?

If not, then your bizarre skepticism makes it impossible to proceed.

Nemesio

I have maintaned that errors lie in human perceptions of data and/or misapplying data, not in the acrtual data they study.

Originally posted by whodey
I have maintaned that errors lie in human perceptions of data and/or misapplying data, not in the actual data they study.

That isn't what I asked. Naturally data is what it is.

You wrote:
The problem is, however, that I am using logic. How does a fallible human being interpret or calculate data that is "infallible"? That is the question. At some point I am more than likely going to fail. Have you ever failed in this pursuit? Odds are you have or you are lying. However, each time you correct yourself you think you have "arrived" at perfection. At least, this has been my experience.

I gave an example where I most certainly have arrived at perfection. You seem to think that I should
be uncomfortable with the idea or something. There are many examples where I have certainly arrived
at perfection, and so have you, and everyone else here, too.

If all you were saying was sometimes people misperceive or misinterpret data, then what's the big
revelation here? This seems to be pretty self-evident.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
That isn't what I asked. Naturally data is what it is.

You wrote:
[b]The problem is, however, that I am using logic. How does a fallible human being interpret or calculate data that is "infallible"? That is the question. At some point I am more than likely going to fail. Have you ever failed in this pursuit? Odds are you have or you are lying. However ...[text shortened]... a, then what's the big
revelation here? This seems to be pretty self-evident.

Nemesio

So you have arrived at perfection? Good job. If only I could make it. Any advice you could give me?

Originally posted by whodey
So you have arrived at perfection? Good job. If only I could make it. Any advice you could give me?

You are being deliberately petulant. I said that I had arrived at perfection in that particular example,
as you have in many other examples.

The advice I'd give is threefold: 1) Abandon the idea that some things cannot be perfectly known and/or
understood, especially abstract ones; 2) Abandon the idea that the Bible contains no errors; and
3) Abandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical reporting means you should have less
faith in its spiritual message (or that simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are being deliberately petulant. I said that I had arrived at perfection in that particular example,
as you have in many other examples.

The advice I'd give is threefold: 1) Abandon the idea that some things cannot be perfectly known and/or
understood, especially abstract ones; 2) Abandon the idea that the Bible contains no errors; and
3) Abando ...[text shortened]... t simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).

Nemesio

As I'd
4) Abandon the idea people are always getting it right by looking at
the universe around them too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I'd
4) Abandon the idea people are always getting it right by looking at
the universe around them too.
Kelly

I'm assuming that he like everyone else doesn't possess this idea.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
3) Abandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical reporting means you should have less
faith in its spiritual message (or that simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).

Nemesio[/b]

Perhaps you should be the one who should abandon the idea that the Bible is a poor source of historical information. Ever heard of Biblical archaeology? It is a scientific discipline based upon the Bible. Perhaps you are the one who should abondon the assumption that the Bible is simply a bunch of made up stories and perhaps this should lead you to the conclusion that the spiritual aspect has merit?

Nah, your right, I am asking to much. After all, you are the perfect one not me. :'(

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps you should be the one who should abandon the idea that the Bible is a poor source of historical information. Ever heard of Biblical archaeology? It is a scientific discipline based upon the Bible. Perhaps you are the one who should abondon the assumption that the Bible is simply a bunch of made up stories and perhaps this should lead you to the con ...[text shortened]... erit?

Nah, your right, I am asking to much. After all, you are the perfect one not me. :'(

I'm not denying all historical claims of the Bible, or are you just being intentionally obnoxious.
Yes, I believe Jesus existed. Yes, there was a Temple and Garden of Gesthemane. Yes, people
actually went fishing and so forth.

I don't think that the Bible is 'simply a bunch of made up stories.' I also don't think it's exclusively
a historical presentation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm assuming that he like everyone else doesn't possess this idea.

Nemesio

You'd think that is true, but many I believe have all the facts
necessary to believe many things they have told themselves are
true, like the Big Bang, for them it is like the 5X5=25 equation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You'd think that is true, but many I believe have all the facts
necessary to believe many things they have told themselves are
true, like the Big Bang, for them it is like the 5X5=25 equation.
Kelly

You're right that it is indeed different than knowing that 5x5=25, the former is inferred where the
latter is deduced. And you're right, theories can turn out to be wrong, either very slightly wrong or
totally incorrect, whereas deduced things will hold true as long as the premises defining them remain
true and the arguments used to deduce them are sound.

What makes inferred theories credible is the amount of evidence which point exclusively to them and
excludes other theories. The more things are observed and the more consistent the results remain,
we asymptotically approach 'truth.'

We can have strong confidence in the 'Big Bang' because of the tremendous amount of independent
evidence which all points towards the same thing, just like you can have strong confidence in the
fact that you will remain male from day to day.

Take this for example: No dog has wings as part of their physiology. Do you consider this a statement
of faith? I don't. It's not meaningful to do so. I've not seen every dog in existence or even a
reasonable sample size to infer this claim, and yet I have great confidence in it. In fact, I have
nearly as much confidence in it as I do that 5x5=25.

How do you consider this statement? How do you think it compares to the claim that Jesus rose
bodily into heaven? How do you think it compares to the idea that Hercules rose bodily into heaven?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm not denying all historical claims of the Bible, or are you just being intentionally obnoxious.
Yes, I believe Jesus existed. Yes, there was a Temple and Garden of Gesthemane. Yes, people
actually went fishing and so forth.

I don't think that the Bible is 'simply a bunch of made up stories.' I also don't think it's exclusively
a historical presentation.

Nemesio

The reason I am being obnoxious is because you are being obnoxious. Your original assertion made it sound as though the Bible has no historical relevance so why give it spiritiual relevance? However, I promptly blasted you out of the water for this assertion and now you are screaming "Foul!!". After all, you are knitpicking in terms of the details of the Biblical accounts rather than assessing the validity of them having occured. For example, I could care less as to whether or not Peter had a beard or which side he parted his hair, however, I do care that he actually existed and that the events surrounding his life actually happened such as Christ's crusifixian and subsequent resurrection. If it pleases you to focus on the details of such stories then so be it. However, I think we know that the devil is in the details, so to speak, so you may live their if it pleases you.

I suppose I could even reverse the question that you posed to me. Now that I have shown that the Bible has historical relevance, why not admitt that it may have spiritual relevance as well?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are being deliberately petulant. I said that I had arrived at perfection in that particular example,
as you have in many other examples.

The advice I'd give is threefold: 1) Abandon the idea that some things cannot be perfectly known and/or
understood, especially abstract ones; 2) Abandon the idea that the Bible contains no errors; and
3) Abando t simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).

Nemesio

The only problem with number three is that the Bible declares itself an objective reporter of historical events. It does not claim that it is beholden to any particular style of reporting, but it certainly positions itself time after time as a reliable source of information with respect to people, events and time.

That being said, if shown to be unreliable (which, in total contrast to the arrogant voices of a few herein, it has never been shown to be in error), the Bible cannot be anything more than the work of some 40-odd men. Certainly, it cannot be said to be the word of God.

Thankfully, your proposition number three is based on a faulty premise.