aa5874

Well, you have FINALLY exposed your real problem.

You neither understand basic Physics or Logics.

avi

I apologize for being so picky, here, J-D, but, NO, that is not "the literal sense of the word 'walk'". Moving the feet by means of friction, exerting a force against the immovable planet earth, is ambulation, not simply "moving the feet". Ambulation requires that the feet come into contact with an immovable object, in this case, the planet earth, so that, the person can achieve change in position, i.e. movement, despite gravity which seeks to hold us in one place, by virtue of our having mass, i.e. Newton's first law: an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by some external force.

The key point is not amelia, it is friction. Without friction, we also do not move, (i.e. not just those missing their lower limbs). In space, absent gravity, and absent friction, neither we, nor the folks with amelia, can ambulate. So,too, in aqueous phase water, neither we, nor those with amelia, can ambulate atop the waves. We can swim, we can float, but we cannot maintain an erect posture, alternating both feet, in a futile attempt to ambulate, while standing atop the body of water. We cannot maintain an erect posture, attempting to ambulate by alternating positions of our feet atop the body of water, because the mass of our body, multiplied by the gravitational constant (9.8 m/sec^2) exceeds (greatly exceeds) the friction generated between our feet and the surface of the water.
"I am denying that that is a logically necessary truth.", where the bold "that" refers to ambulation requiring friction.

Well, perhaps you are correct, and I err. In my opinion, there is no such category, as "logically necessary truth". There are facts, laws, hard data, i.e. physics, representing truth, and then there are wishful thoughts, embracing not only some truth, but also some non-truth.

In my opinion, "ambulation requires friction", on planet earth, is about as close to a real, genuine fact, as one can achieve. It is therefore, in my view, a "logically necessary truth". Can you cite some authority to support your contention, else, an authority to repudiate my perspective? I seek a citation explicitly focused on the concept that the phrase "ambulation requires friction" fails to represent a "logically necessary truth". I know of no elements of logic which could explain how "ambulation requires friction" represents the absence of a "logically necessary truth".

baloney.
My infantile knowledge be damned. No one on this forum is fooled for even ten seconds about my profound level of ignorance. This is not a thread about my oblivious state of mind. This is a thread aimed at exploring whether or not the Hysterical Jesus hypothesis has wings or not. Can it fly? Does it make sense? Is it logical? Is it false? If it is false, and if it is illogical, then, the hysterical Jesus hypothesis is a logical fallacy, precisely as explained by aa5874. If on the other hand, the hypothesis is NOT illogical, or, if someone could show that the hysterical jesus hypothesis is not fraudulent, not phony as a three dollar bill, and NOT FALSE, then one could argue, as you have done, J-D, that aa's criticism of the HJ hypothesis does not fall within the category of "logical fallacy".
Perhaps your ocular prescription is out of date.
It IS, precisely, inadequate friction between human feet/shoes, and water surface, that prevents humans from walking on water.


YUP.....Check out Archimedes

Yup....

helas, we are all ignorant of physics, even the physicists, themselves.....Best we can do, is study more......

where "it" refers to the need for "friction, in order to ambulate", a key point, in view of your insistence that this concept conveys no aspect of "logically necessary truth."

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. My own thought is quite different.
Logic, for me, is represented by Boolean Algebra.
Logic is concerned with the relations of digital circuits, i.e. real material objects, not merely ideas.

x∧y = xy
x∨y = x + y − xy
¬x = 1 − x

avi

J-D

You are the one who does not understand logic. But that was obvious from the beginning.

aa5874

There is no need for all this complication. We can just get a dictionary and find out what "LOGIC" means.

Once Scholars have DISCREDITED the authors of the Jesus stories that Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Holy Ghost in Bethlehem, was the Word that was God, was the Creator, was on the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem with the DEVIL, instantly healed INCURABLE diseases with the SPIT and TOUCH technique, walked on the sea, TRANSFIGURED, was RAISED from the dead and ascended in a cloud then it was ILLOGICAL for Scholars to have used the very sources which they have DISCREDITED.

It is ILLOGICAL to use ADMITTED and known unreliable sources for historical purposes.

The very claim that HJ was an ordinary man with a human father INHERENTLY destroys the credibility of the authors.

When a proper theory is being presented the RELEVANT data MUST be simultaneously brought forward to be examined.

If one theorises that there was an historical Pilate the Governor then the writings of Philo and Josephus can be presented.

No credible historical data of antiquity has been presented for the HJ theory.

There is really no HJ theory without credible historical data from antiquity.

In effect, the historical Jesus has no known credible history.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

J-D

If you're going to be picky, you should be accurate when you're picky, and you're not. I didn't say that 'moving the feet' is the literal sense of the word 'walk', I said that the literal sense of the word 'walk' entails moving the feet.It is not a necessary part of the meaning of 'walk' that force be exerted against the earth. People walk along the decks of ships and along the corridors of trains and aeroplanes, and have even walked on the surface of the moon.But you ignore Newton's Third Law of Motion: 'to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Walking along any surface (including the surface of the Earth) involves reciprocal friction, reciprocal force: both bodies move, the one walking and the one being walked on, even when one of them is the Earth: the Earth moves, and you are wrong in describing it as immovable.And yet people in space, and other objects in space also, such as the Earth itself, do move.I know that. There is no need for you to belabour a point I have never disputed.Are you aware of the manner in which logicians use the term? Do you have a reason for dismissing their approach as invalid? Or are you passing judgement on something you haven't made any attempt to understand? You just said that you might be in error. Why are you unconcerned to check?Because you know no elements of logic, obviously. As I suggested before, if you are going to discuss logic, you should acquire more explicit knowledge of the subject first. If you want an authority, any elementary text on the subject you can lay your hands on should do.aa5874 has not explained how it is a logical fallacy because, like you, aa5874 does not know what a logical fallacy is.Well, that's what I suggest you do. Study logic.Boolean algebra is not dependent on digital circuits. George Boole lived, invented Boolean algebra, and died, before digital circuits were invented. He worked with ideas, not with real material objects.

However, since you mention Boolean algebra, I point out that the theorems of Boolean algebra are logically necessary truths, and that neither the things you have been saying about walking nor the things aa5874 has been saying about 'the HJ theory' are theorems of Boolean algebra. If you can prove something by Boolean algebra alone I will accept that it is a logically necessary truth. Why don't you see how far Boolean algebra alone can get you.

aa5874

Well, are you not the one who claimed Logic is NOT concerned with FACTS?

LOGIC is DIRECTLY DEPENDENT upon FACTS.

You have ZERO idea what LOGIC is.

J-D

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ZERO IDEA WHAT LOGIC IS.

mountainman

The words of Eusebius to which I and many others have referred to ad nauseum in this forum for years to are to be found in the opening chapter of the Early Christian Church History.

J-D

What he says there, even if it is true, is that he is the first to attempt to write a history of the Church from its origins to his own time, not that he is the first to write a 'historical Jesus theory'.

mountainman

You have not demonstrated that this is obvious anywhere above, you have merely asserted this to be so, from some perceived authority as a self-confessed logician defending the historical jesus theory from sinking beneath the patterns of the waves of ancient historical evidence.