J-D

You seem to me to be saying, in effect, that 'logically possible' and 'physically possible' are synonymous. That seems odd to me, because I'm not aware of anybody who says that 'logically' and 'physically' are synonymous. If 'logically' and 'physically' have different meanings, how can it be that 'logically possible' and 'physically possible' have the same meaning? I don't think they can have.

J-D

Are you aware of any unambiguous evidence for any theory? You mentioned before two 'postulates' (rather than 'theories', if the distinction is significant in this context): can you cite any unambiguous evidence for either of them?

avi

No, J-D, that is not what I have written. I do not make such a claim. I believe that it is physically possible to convert lead into gold, but not logical at all, because the enormous expense involved, in converting lead into gold, far outweighs the economic benefit derived.

In the present circumstance, you have alleged that it is "logically possible" for a human to walk on water. I deny that this is either logical or possible, and I claim, as I have indicated on the chart, above, that it is not possible. My question to you, which you seem to be avoiding, is why you think it is logically possible to perform an action which you acknowledge to be physically impossible? That is a mystery to me.

Getting back to walking on water, in this case, let us employ, and indeed it was for exactly this circumstance that I sought such an example, the unfortunate victim of thalidomide exposure in utero, born sans lower extremities. You have acknowledged, J-D, that it is logically impossible to amputate non-existent lower extremities.

Why is that? I believe, that is it illogical because the limbs, which we seek to amputate, do not exist. In other words, there is a PHYSICAL trait, with which we interact, in making our decision about logical possibilities. In this case, bilateral lower limb amelia, we recognize that the physical absence of matter precludes our interacting with it.

Then, let us reconsider the case of walking on water. Just as the person with bilateral lower limb amelia could not walk on water, so too, an ordinary human has an equivalent handicap, when not on terra firma. Even with both lower limbs intact, any human will sink in the water. This is the same interaction between physical universe and living human matter, as we discussed earlier with amelia. You agreed with us, that the person born with bilateral LE amelia could not undergo amputation of the lower extremities.

I assume, I hope correctly, that you would agree with us, that such an unfortunate person could also not logically walk on water. If you will extend your thinking to embrace the entire realm of physics, then, you will observe that the same limitation that prevents the person with developmental amelia from ambulation on the surface of a large and deep pool of water, also prevents us from walking on the same pool of water. We are all of us, all humans, with bilateral lower limb amelia, from the perspective of logically walking on water. No mammal can tread water, and ambulate on top of the waves. The activity is both physically impossible, and accordingly, illogical to propose.

avi

J-D

I think you're going to need to explain to me what you think the expressions 'logically possible' and 'logically impossible' mean. What I mean by 'logically possible' is 'entailing no logical contradiction' and what I mean by 'logically impossible' is 'entailing a logical contradiction', and until now that's the only way I have ever seen anybody using those expressions.

avi

Is this correct? Do you acknowledge that a person with bilateral lower extremity amelia could neither physically, nor logically walk on water?

a. does the apparent fact that you have heretofore not encountered someone using the expression "logically impossible" as I have used it, above, imply an encyclopedic experience on your part, such that, my own limited use of the term, by virtue of your having never before encountered it, must, then, by definition, fall outside the boundary of comprehension?

b. a process or activity which may be physically possible is not necessarily logical--I offered the illustration of making gold from lead. Let us explore this illustration using your terse definitions:

lead into gold entails the logical contradiction that it costs more to make the gold from lead, than it is worth on the open market, therefore, by your definition ought to be "logically impossible". I am very uncomfortable with such a stance. I prefer to simply write: illogical, for economic circumstances could change, and thus, the process could one day become logical.

c. Your definition needs improvement, but, let's use it, anyway, for sake of improving communication:

logically impossible, according to J-D means "entailing a logical contradiction".

Ambulation, i.e. locomotion accomplished by walking, on any medium, requires friction, as anyone, who has ever attempted to walk or run on ice can attest.

So, J-D, where is the friction between the amelic person, and the planet earth? There isn't any, because there are no lower extremities available to participate in the frictional effort. Logical contradiction, n'est pas?

How about those of us born without having been exposed to thalidomide while gestating in utero? We possess "normal" lower extremities. Can we achieve friction between our lower extremities and the surface of the water?

NO, we cannot. We simply sink. The attribute of friction is indiscernible in water in its aqueous state. The authors of the new testament knew that fact. They recognized that the physical impossibility of walking on water in its liquid state, would be viewed as a logical impossibility by their readers, therefore, Jesus walking on water MUST, by definition, have been a miracle. It was a miracle, because human feet cannot generate a competent force against the slippery water, to compete with gravity, which draws us beneath the water, regardless of how many Hail Mary's we have recited.

It has to be a miracle, because walking on water was understood, two thousand years ago, to be both a physical impossibility, as you have acknowledged, and, in harmony with your defiinitions, a logical impossibility, as well.

The action entails the logical contradiction that there is insufficient friction between the lower extremities and the water, anywhere on planet earth, due to gravity, we will sink (but, not to worry, J-D, eventually, we will float back up to the surface, as the methane and hydrogen sulfide gas, produced by the anaerobic bacteria, fills our gut.

avi

J-D

The expression 'logically walk' is not conveying meaning to me, so I can't respond meaningfully to the question.It's beyond the boundary of my comprehension. I still don't know what you mean by it--you haven't told me. I've told you what I mean by it, and it's easily verified that other people use it the way I do.That's not what I mean by a logical contradiction, and once again it's easily verifiable that other people use the expression the same way I do. How you're using the expression I don't know.'Logically contradictory' and 'logically impossible' are more specific than 'illogical'.Why?That statement is true, but it's not a logically necessary truth.No. No logical contradiction.That's not even a phyiscal truth, let alone a logically necessary one.I see no reason to think the writers of the New Testament had any explicit knowledge of logic.There is no logical contradiction there.I did not choose to initiate a discussion of logic. The subject of logic was introduced into this discussion by the original post. If you want to discuss logic, then I suggest, respectfully, that you need to acquire more explicit knowledge of the subject first.

PyramidHead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

Does this help with the distinction, avi? There are lots of people over in the Philosophy forum who could explain it even better, I'd imagine (which is where this thread belongs anyway at this point).

TedM

It is possible that there was a historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but resembled in some or many respects the gospel Jesus.

Therefore, to claim otherwise and to call it a 'logical fallacy' on any basis that doesn't 'prove' that he didn't live is simply ridiculous.

There are a very few people, aa being one of them, that somehow can't grasp this simple concept.

aa's claim is ridiculous, and is based on the belief that if there is no CREDIBLE source then the claim is without merit. This makes an assumption that all knowledge is contained in the current known records of history, which of course is a ridiculous assumption.

Here's the OP assumption:
The fact is that this position is--in HIS OWN ADMISSION--based on an ASSUMPTION that can neither be proven or disproven. There is no 'logical' reason to simply assume that every word that describes Jesus in the NT is false and that he did not say or do anything ascribed to him. IT IS AN UNTENABLE POSITION TO TAKE IN THE FIRST PLACE, so everything that follows must ALSO be an assumption, and not a conclusion.


This mindset makes assumptions with regard to credibility that cannot be proven or disproven. Can Josephus be 'proven' to be a credible source 100% of the time? Can the gospel writers be 'proven' to be non-credible sources 100% of the time?

The obvious answer is NO. Therefore any assumptions made on that basis are in error. The claim that a HJ is a 'logical fallacy' is therefore not only ridiculous--it is just plain WRONG.

aa5874

People here seem not to even know what is proposed in the HJ theory.

A proper theory needs CREDIBLE and RELIABLE data.

It is IRRATIONAL or ILLOGICAL to put forward a "theory" based on BELIEF alone.

A proper theory is NOT an article of FAITH.

Let us EXAMINE the HJ theory.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The HJ theory as proposed is an article of FAITH which is IRRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE and ILLOGICAL because there is NO credible or reliable data from antiquity at all to support the proposal.

It was a Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified under Pilate in the NT.

The "historical Pilate" theory is completely RATIONAL and Logical because there is supporting reliable data from antiquity.

The "historical Tiberius" theory is completely rational and logical because there is supporting reliable data from antiquity.

The "historical Caiaphas" theory is completely rational and logical because there is credible and reliable data from antiquity.

How was the HJ theory developed? On what basis was it determined that an ordinary man/woman lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate?

The answer is rather simple.

False Dichotomies or logical fallacies were EMPLOYED.

It is MOST logical and rational that Without a credible and reliable source for HJ then there can be no such thing as an "HJ theory".

A proper theory is NOT an article of FAITH.

The BELIEF that there was an HJ from Nazareth is NOT a theory.

It is IRRATIONAL to use BELIEF as EVIDENCE to support the same IRRATIONAL Belief.

Can some one EXPLAIN the LOGICAL reason why Scholars claim that HJ was BORN and lived in Nazareth?

There is NO Logical explanation.

LOGICALLY HJ could have been BORN anywhere if he did exist.

The HJ theory is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

J-D

A theory unsupported by evidence is just that: a theory unsupported by evidence. That's not the same thing as a logical fallacy.