- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
339d
@moonbus saidWhat is general, and which is specific, when it comes to facts.
What facts do we Christians have ?
Courtesy of the grammar gestapo.
While the correction is proper for grammar, we needed more details from the diver of the abyss. Correct grammar contributes to the better understanding of communication. Minor grammar errors can be overlooked by those who are grammatically gifted. Gifted enough to correct others' ignorance of grammatical correctness. To be fair with our grammatical corrections, we must give the benefit of a doubt. Sometimes one knows the correctness, but through unintentional key strokes, or by missed key strikes, will type what is then incorrectly seen as being errors of grammar.
However, without a doubt, it seems that by using the term,"what", he has no idea of "which" facts Christians have, if any.
Provided he first clearly understands what constitutes a fact, he may then go looking for facts which are floating around the internet. If he finds any, he can then make another deep dive for the proper use of "what" and "which" may be deemed factual for use by us Christians. When he comes up for air again, he can go back down and find the proper way to "which" and "what" can be the use of "what" we do now have by us Christians, specifically. The factual pearls to throw at the feet of the "unbelievers"? All thanks due to our hardworking deep diver for the pearly facts, and which are for what any everyday Christian would use.
Disclaimer: Any grammatical incorrectness which can be spotted by anyone other than my club members, please be advised that it's an unintentional key strike.
339d
3 edits
@pettytalk saidIn almost every discussion we get into here at the Spirituality Forum, we run up against people who cite the Bible as evidence of various alleged facts, such as that God created the universe or that Jesus did this or that. Theists of this ilk (i.e., literalists) tend to have a very vague or confused notion of what would constitute either evidence or a fact, and so these discussions tend to go round and round in circles without accomplishing much of anything.
What is general, and which is specific, when it comes to facts.
While the correction is proper for grammar, we needed more details from the diver of the abyss. Correct grammar contributes to the better understanding of communication. Minor grammar errors can be overlooked by those who are grammatically gifted. Gifted enough to correct others' ignorance of grammatical co ...[text shortened]... otted by anyone other than my club members, please be advised that it's an unintentional key strike.
So, to set the record straight, the Bible is not evidence for anything which allegedly happened in ancient times. No more so than Tacitus's Annals is evidence that a great battle was fought in the German forest in the year 9 CE. They are both stories standing in need of evidence.
Secondly, while it is a fact that many people report having seen ghosts, the existence of ghosts is not a fact. Similarly, while there is an unconfirmed a report that a man rose from the dead about 2,000 years ago, that man's having risen from the dead is not a fact. What we have is a story about a resurrection with no evidence to support it, and no conceivable evidence would support it (since, if the body were produced, it would refute the story).
So, to return to the issue "what" facts or "which" facts, I think we first have to agree what a fact is before we can even begin to assess whether Christianity is in possession of any facts and if so which ones.
339d
@pettytalk saidThese threads often consist of crisscross-discussions among several interlocutors, so, no, I don't 'correct' wrong-poster posts, unless someone attributes views to me which I do not hold.
I forgot to ask if you also deal with "wrong poster" corrections? I'm trying to lend a hand, by being an active informant. But don't give me away, please.
339d
@moonbus saidHis feathers have been ruffled, pay him no heed.
These threads often consist of crisscross-discussions among several interlocutors, so, no, I don't 'correct' wrong-poster posts, unless someone attributes views to me which I do not hold.
339d
@kellyjay saidWhat 'views on the beginning' are you talking about? As aforesaid, nobody here cares what you believe, or why you believe it, belief will always be only belief. All I and others ask you to do is to confront some of the obvious contradictions inherent therein, but that's when you 'go quiet' isn't it. You do have a problem with this snake business, don't you, it's you who continues to raise it; there is no 'question about a snake', it's very simple; snakes can't talk, and you believe that snakes can talk, there's really nothing else to say.
What facts do you have to support your views on the beginning? I've stated why I believe what I do numerous times and typically from you all I get is a question about a snake, you don't engage in discussions about information, you bring up the snake and go quiet.
@pettytalk saidYou don't have an answer but you posted anyway.
Provided he first clearly understands what constitutes a fact, he may then go looking for facts which are floating around the internet. If he finds any, he can then make another deep dive for the proper use of "what" and "which" may be deemed factual for use by us Christians. When he comes up for air again, he can go back down and find the proper way to "which" and "what" c ...[text shortened]... ardworking deep diver for the pearly facts, and which are for what any everyday Christian would use.
339d
@indonesia-phil saidWell, the first few words of the Bible are true meaning than all of the others are reasonable as well due to the foundation for them was laid. It is just as easy to say the same thing if they are not wrong then the foundation for them has been false. So this is an either-or-binary choice, true or not, and simply saying what we believe is not evidence one way or the other.
What 'views on the beginning' are you talking about? As aforesaid, nobody here cares what you believe, or why you believe it, belief will always be only belief. All I and others ask you to do is to confront some of the obvious contradictions inherent therein, but that's when you 'go quiet' isn't it. You do have a problem with this snake business, don't you, it's you wh ...[text shortened]... simple; snakes can't talk, and you believe that snakes can talk, there's really nothing else to say.
You can give me your best obvious contradiction you think is inherent if you like, and I can do the same. I should say I could do the same only if you were to produce some reason for the beginning of everything and can explain the reasons you think everything you acknowledge as real is here. Without a reason, without a cause, you just have denial, nothing positive to count on. Evidential reasons are objective facts, not a theory, you have any reasons for the things you believe?
Only a belief, very simplistic, you walk out your worldview daily on those things you believe, but you consider that not worthy much?
339d
@kellyjay saidI could do the same only if you were to produce some reason for the beginning of everything and can explain the reasons you think everything you acknowledge as real is here.
Well, the first few words of the Bible are true meaning than all of the others are reasonable as well due to the foundation for them was laid. It is just as easy to say the same thing if they are not wrong then the foundation for them has been false. So this is an either-or-binary choice, true or not, and simply saying what we believe is not evidence one way or the other. ...[text shortened]... ou walk out your worldview daily on those things you believe, but you consider that not worthy much?
Why must there be "reasons"? Nobody knows what the origin of the universe was. Why must others give credence to the subjective "reasons" you personally insist on inserting into the gap in our knowledge ~ or, indeed, any of the morally incoherent assertions you then build on top of your "reasons"?
339d
@indonesia-phil saidIf you don’t care what I believe why ask about what I am talking about? You are not very consistent!
What 'views on the beginning' are you talking about? As aforesaid, nobody here cares what you believe, or why you believe it, belief will always be only belief. All I and others ask you to do is to confront some of the obvious contradictions inherent therein, but that's when you 'go quiet' isn't it. You do have a problem with this snake business, don't you, it's you wh ...[text shortened]... simple; snakes can't talk, and you believe that snakes can talk, there's really nothing else to say.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
339d
@moonbus saidWhat we have here is a failure to communicate.
In almost every discussion we get into here at the Spirituality Forum, we run up against people who cite the Bible as evidence of various alleged facts, such as that God created the universe or that Jesus did this or that. Theists of this ilk (i.e., literalists) tend to have a very vague or confused notion of what would constitute either evidence or a fact, and so these discu ...[text shortened]... we can even begin to assess whether Christianity is in possession of any facts and if so which ones.
Let us try to make it a success, but it will take some doing.
Let me say that, on "what" and "which" was meant for divegeester. I only took your correction of his grammar on "What facts do us Christians have?", as the springboard to get it to dive. He put is as "us" and you corrected with "we." That's as far as you needed to go, as far as it concerned you.
Still, I appreciate your own assessment of what and which, regarding facts of a religious nature. And for God's sake, do try to be consistent. You credited Augustine for the mainstream, and now you seem to be wanting to discredit Tacitus for a small contributory statement lending a hand with providing a reliable historical marker, for establishing and arguing for an historical existence of Jesus.
Are you perhaps one of those who also argue against an historical Jesus?
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
339d
@moonbus saidHere too we have a communication failure. It was my failure. It was my mistake of a case of mistaken perception of the wrong-person incident. I apologize for this.
These threads often consist of crisscross-discussions among several interlocutors, so, no, I don't 'correct' wrong-poster posts, unless someone attributes views to me which I do not hold.
I agree and concur with the necessity and allowance for cross-discussions among the interlocutors involved. Looking back at my beginning here, it was a matter of my asking for the 'ball', which has now made me one of the active interlocutors on the forums. Perhaps it would have been better for me to stay on the sidelines and waited until it was the coach's decision for me to substitute someone else. So far, I have only managed to fumble the 'balls'. What's worse, I can't even seem to locate what I've lost or what others have lost. I'm a fumbling hazard to my team.
I'm expressing my feelings of remorse for feeling low and dejected. And I have to add that I seem to have lost my good looks too, because some birdwatcher sees me with ruffled feathers.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
339d
@fmf saidWho says I have to post answers? How about questions? Can I question your lack of answers?
You don't have an answer but you posted anyway.
If I post that "science is best supported by question mark? Is that an answer or a question? And if you don't have an answer perhaps you don't have a valid question. It's a matter of a question on a question without an answer.
Questions, after all, basically, are the best supporters of science, since science, in essence, rests on questioning everything.
The foundations of science involve the methods and principles used in scientific research and the philosophical issues surrounding these methods. This includes the ability to ask questions about the world, test hypotheses, and seek explanations for observed phenomena. Therefore science does rest on the act of questioning everything. This is how scientists seek to understand the universe and our place in it. It's through continuous questioning and exploration that new discoveries are made, theories are developed, and our understanding of the world expands.
But it should go without saying, that if God were here and now, there would be no need for any of us to question anything. He has already given us all the answers. We just need to remember what we already know. It's all written on our souls. It's an invisible internal hard drive. One with a storage capacity to have enough room for all the information in the universe, and still have the space to allow a Three-Rings Circus to perform all the typical acts, clowns notwithstanding.
339d
@pettytalk saidMore waffle.
What is general, and which is specific, when it comes to facts.
While the correction is proper for grammar, we needed more details from the diver of the abyss. Correct grammar contributes to the better understanding of communication. Minor grammar errors can be overlooked by those who are grammatically gifted. Gifted enough to correct others' ignorance of grammatical co ...[text shortened]... otted by anyone other than my club members, please be advised that it's an unintentional key strike.