Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cayne-Abel · 12-13-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Could you give me a more specific pointer? post 129 is yours. Who are you debating and where did he counter any of these points?

The poster called "The Eighth King" is the one who I am debating. His counters are just a few posts down. But it keeps going well into the next page.

Amaleq13 · 12-13-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

Why do you say that? Care to elaborate?

I say it because they are two different words describing two different concepts.

History is what actually happened in the past.

Traditions are the stories we tell about the past.

These are certainly interconnected concepts but it is a mistake to equate the two. His argument only works if you allow him to redefine "tradition" as "history".

The only way a tradition can be considered history is if the evidence supports it. Alaskan Natives are worried that the facts will conflict with their traditions. According to your interlocutor, that conflict is impossible because the traditions of the Alaskan Natives are history regardless of the physical evidence.

His argument is fundamentally flawed by circular reasoning since he assumes his conclusion (ie tradition = history).

gstafleu · 12-13-2006, 10:39 AM

Well, now at least we know where Plantinga got his ideas.

Isn't this a McDonald's argument, N people cannot be wrong, where N approaches a large number? Just go to McDonald's one day.

Gerard Stafleu

Toto · 12-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THe 8th King

Before we begin any discussion regarding the logical necessitation of the existence of G-d, let me pose an observation: From what you have expressed thus far, it is clear that you believe in history, and have presented a strong belief in a history that is only inferred. That being the case, I am sure you are aware of the historicity of the mass revelation at Sinai, which is not an inferred history, but rather, it is a strong historical tradition from people who were there themselves (which is the most proper definition of history).

Error 1: we don't know where this tradition came from - probably not from the people at Sinai who were there themselves, but from later story tellers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 8th King

. . . Regarding yoshkele [Jesus], without getting into a comparative religion discussion, I see nothing wrong with believing that he resurrected. The veracity of a prophet is not determined by miraculous perfomances.

Sounds like this may be a difficult discussion. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8th King

1. It assumes a certain nature of an unknowable G-d, whose intentions in Creation are not knowable through any form other than prophecy, in which case one cannot turn to logic and must rely on religion. I.e. From the logical standpoint one cannot determine that G-d is not a liar and a prankster.

2. From the religious standpoint, G-d is indeed a "liar" and a "prankster" if you want to call it that. This world is called by the sages, "Alma D'Shikra - The world of falsity." Moreover, there are clear verses in the Torah (such as Deut. 13:4) that state that G-d may send deceptive forces (such as false prophets like yoshkele) specifically in order to test us.

omigod. . . if Mr. 8 were in the same room with Johnny Skeptic, would their arguments merge and turn into pure energy like an electron meeting a positron? How big would the explosion be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8th K

When one first comes to an understanding that the empirical evidence of his own non-intrinsic existence necessitates the intrinsic existence of a G-d who created the world ex-nihilo, and understands the nature of creation ex-nihilo, one may then understand that the evidence weighs in favor of prophecy over science.

Mr. 8 has decided that G-d must exist, and is very adept at shaping arguments around that.

I'm sorry I don't have the time right now to deconstruct or even read everything he has written. (Life is just too short). Could you pull out one argument that you think is worth addressing? or perhaps someone else here will go through this.

Steven Carr · 12-13-2006, 11:47 AM

When exactly was the Book of Dueteronomy found?

And hadn't the Jews, even the King, forgotten the basic principles behind the book?

Why didn't they just burn it, as not being consonant with their memories?

If Jews had continuous memories of such events, then why were they constantly turning to idols and foreign gods?

Tammuz · 12-13-2006, 12:04 PM

The Kuzari principle falls short because other peoples can use it with equal success. For instance, about 1000 years ago and earlier, all Scandinavians "knew" that the Aesir and Vanir (two tribes of gods) had waged various devastating wars. Norse tales aren't subject to other criteria than Jewish tales, right?

Cayne-Abel · 12-13-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Could you pull out one argument that you think is worth addressing? or perhaps someone else here will go through this.

If you must, skip ahead to post #155. That is his latest response to my rebuttals.

Cayne-Abel · 12-15-2006, 02:37 PM

bwahahahaha! The dipshits actually deleted my last post and closed the thread!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2006, 10:39 AM	#13
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Well, now at least we know where Plantinga got his ideas. Isn't this a McDonald's argument, N people cannot be wrong, where N approaches a large number? Just go to McDonald's one day. Gerard Stafleu

12-13-2006, 11:47 AM	#15
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	When exactly was the Book of Dueteronomy found? And hadn't the Jews, even the King, forgotten the basic principles behind the book? Why didn't they just burn it, as not being consonant with their memories? If Jews had continuous memories of such events, then why were they constantly turning to idols and foreign gods?

12-13-2006, 12:04 PM	#16
Tammuz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 5,525	The Kuzari principle falls short because other peoples can use it with equal success. For instance, about 1000 years ago and earlier, all Scandinavians "knew" that the Aesir and Vanir (two tribes of gods) had waged various devastating wars. Norse tales aren't subject to other criteria than Jewish tales, right?

12-15-2006, 02:37 PM	#18
Cayne-Abel Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 179	bwahahahaha! The dipshits actually deleted my last post and closed the thread!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.