Diogenes the Cynic

I never said empiricism was a worldview and there's no contradiction. Empiricism -- as a METHOD for discovering information -- corresponds perfectly to reality because it's based on nothing BUT observations of reality.

This is all just more desperate arm waving and evasion on your part anyway and I'm not going to play anymore. It's your turn to answer some of the questions you've been trying so hard to avoid.
No it isn't. Assertions are not empirical evidence.
It's not empirical evidence.
Keep on waving those arms and misrepresenting other people's words. Maybe nobody will notice that you're not actually making any arguments or offering any evidence.

Spanky

It's not even evidence let alone empirical evidence.
Why don't you just concede to the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever and that you and 1 billion other christians take it all on faith?

patchy

He can speak for himself, but don't be too disappointed if the answer isn't essentially "they could of." [sic]

buckshot23

I have no idea how this pertains to what you quoted from me. That being said let me ask a question. Who said that what Luke Matthew Mark and John has written is a complete transcription as to what was said by the women to the disciples? Luke doesn't mention an appearance here and thus does not include any mention of it to the disciples from the women.

I assume you have conceded that you do not have enough information to state with the certainty previously shown that you can distinguish between impossible and possible events.:wave:

Diogenes the Cynic

Luke says the women told the disciples they had seen an empty tomb and no body. That's in direct contradiction to Matthew (and Mark, for that matter).
I'm saying the accounts are totally unrelated and incompatible and that your attempts at harmonization are reaching and specious and wholly unconvincing. We're really only talking about one contradiction of many. Do you think you can write up a chronology of everything that happened in all four Gospels without leaving anything out?

Patriot7

What is it then?


Because then we'd both be wrong.

Odemus

Hearsay.

Patriot7

Kosh,

DTC has asserted that assertions are not empirical evidence. Ignoring the glaring self-contradictory nature of this statment, and for the sake of advancing the discussion, let's operate as though he is right.

Given DTC's premise, we can categorically exclude the author's assertions as empirical evidence. And as I'm about all out of faith for today, can you provide empirical evidence, married to an argument that starts with a premise and logically flows to the conclusion that you've asserted? - That the OT's claims have been proven false?

If you must insist on beating me up, my only request is that you do it slowly and thouroughly.

cognac

Actually, my worldview doesn't prevent me from any line of inquiry at all. What my method of inquiry allows me to do is separate ideas that are garbage from those that have value. The ones that have value are the ones I spend most of my time exploring. On the other hand, sometimes I just enjoy wasting time.

If your view of the world is true, and mine is not, you absolutely should believe that it is better than mine. Where truth is concerned, there's no patience for any other view. Any view of reality that doesn't correspond to reality is a threat to your survival as a human being. If a whole group of people believed that they could fly, and began jumping off cliffs to prove it ... well, you get the picture.

Reality can be discovered objectively using reason and the scientific method. There is no need for revelation to tell us anything about the nature of reality.

Patriot7

Then why do you think it has a whole website (14 pages on this thread alone) derived expressely for the reason of everyone telling each other how right they are about it?

Where is the section for the critisicm of Santa Clause and the Toothfairy? Why aren't we picking apart those stories? Or are those not hearsay?