Waldorf, how I can destinguish a jar that holds trancendent magical dice that exist, from a jar that holds trancendent magical dice that do not exist.

---

Experiment 2:
Distinguishing a jar that has regular dice that do exist, from a jar that has dice that do not exist. Do you see any difference in either of these experiments?

Quote:You have no clue what the real world is.

Well it isn't populated with gods and demons and little guys with pitchforks, asshole.

(May 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Waldorf, how I can destinguish a jar that holds trancendent magical dice that exist, from a jar that holds trancendent magical dice that do not exist.

---

Experiment 2:
Distinguishing a jar that has regular dice that do exist, from a jar that has dice that do not exist. Do you see any difference in either of these experiments?

It’s a faulty analogy. We are not discussing the existence of some little magical invisible creature that can exist in one jar but not the other. We are talking about the transcendent, immaterial, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Creator God. The existence of this God makes your jar experiment even possible. Our ability to gain knowledge through experience is only made possible by God’s existence.

(May 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Well it isn't populated with gods and demons and little guys with pitchforks, asshole.

I never said that it was, gramps.

(May 16, 2013 at 11:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Christians do not have a monopoly on epistemology.

Anyone can postulate a theory of knowledge, you’re right. However, only the Christian theory of knowledge is logically consistent.

Quote:I never said that it was, gramps.

It's exactly what morons like you believe. As if you beliefs matter at all.

Oh! A faulty analogy. That must be the case. I was flipping pages through my book of "common responses from theists once backed into an illogical corner"...I must have skimmed right over that one. My apologies...ah yes! Here it is on page 59: "any analogy that depicts belief in God as illogical is a Faulty Analogy" I'll try to find something you'd be willing to accept.

(May 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Our ability to gain knowledge through experience is only made possible by God’s existence.

No it isn't.

(May 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Anyone can postulate a theory of knowledge, you’re right. However, only the Christian theory of knowledge is logically consistent.

I do not know about Christian theories as being the only, but I can agree that I have found the atheistic theories on AF that are not nihilistic to be logically inconsistent.

---

(May 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Our ability to gain knowledge through experience is only made possible by God’s existence.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.
No it isn't
Yes it is
No it isn't
...

...it's consistently circular and illogical (Christianity)

(April 23, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Wait...how could jesus be born in 6 BC? BC stands for "Before Christ".

If he was actually born 6 years earlier than scholars originally thought, then he could be born in 6 BC.

An error of 6 years aint so much among 2013 years, its represents approx. 0.3% error.

---

(April 23, 2013 at 3:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Really?

Let's see: 2 Sam 23:8

v 1 Chronicles 11:11

Hi Minimalist,

That must be the worst example of a supposed conflicting statement ever!

So two sources, offer different military estimates of a number of men - big deal?

Can you name any non-recent battle or event in history which has not got at least some doubt over the numbers and dispositions involved?

For example, according to the sources wiki references, the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314:

Scottish army estimates: 5,000 - 10,000

English army estimates: 13,700 - 25,000

(the Scots won decisively, incidentally)

We cant use these discrepancies to rubbish the battle; we still know it took place, and why, and the main persons involved etc - ultimately, the fact we cannot accurate state the numbers means little with regard to our knowledge of the events of the battle and our understanding of its significance.

If there are multiple descriptions of the same event, there will always be some discrepancy: look at any collection of Police witness statements - even ones from just 5 minutes ago will offer different versions of events: what time was it? what colour was the car? how many people were there? etc

What is really important with any historical event or document is understanding the fundamental substance of it.

Don't you think it would be more fishy if all the accounts regarding an event agreed exactly, every time? Wouldn't that be somewhat suspect, as though they had all come from the same source, or had been agreed upon and rehearsed?

Cheers
GS

---

(April 30, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(April 30, 2013 at 1:22 pm)John V Wrote: Come on, you know that the mechanics will just claim that context explains it because they can't emotionally deal with this rock solid contradiction.

And the driver will claim that page 33 means that page 17 doesn't apply, for it is obvious that the creator of the car intends for you to never take the drain plug out.

Hi Ryantology

Ah, but our holy book proscribes that the oil must be changed in year two, or at 20,000 miles, whichever comes first, and so the plug must come out sometimes. It is known.

Grave consequences await those who scorn or ignore these important oil laws, repair bills be upon them.

Ultimately, mainstream drivers will understand pages 17 and 33 in light of how the whole book fits together - (not cherry pick them as isolated and polar opposites) - and viewed from a reasonable perspective.

(May 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It's exactly what morons like you believe. As if you beliefs matter at all.

I do not believe that multiple gods exist, nor do I believe any supernatural being is running around with a pitch fork. How can you argue against a position you so clearly do not understand?

(May 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Oh! A faulty analogy. That must be the case. I was flipping pages through my book of "common responses from theists once backed into an illogical corner"...I must have skimmed right over that one. My apologies...ah yes! Here it is on page 59: "any analogy that depicts belief in God as illogical is a Faulty Analogy" I'll try to find something you'd be willing to accept.

You were trying to treat an omnipresent timeless being as a being extended in space and time; that by definition is the fallacy of the faulty analogy. I am growing weary of having to teach you basic rules of logical reasoning.

(May 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: No it isn't.

Sure it is, try postulating a theory of knowledge that is logically consistent that does not require God to exist. Texas Sailor already tried and failed, can you do any better?

(May 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: ...it's consistently circular and illogical (Christianity)

No, if a theory of knowledge and view of reality is logically consistent and has any component that is known to be true, then the entire system must also be true. I find it interesting you brought up circular logic though considering you’re the one who had to invoke it to establish your memory and senses are reliable. :-P