Conflicting statements in the bible

[Tex]

This was specifically at A_Nony_Mouse, to be fair. He does this same game to me every time, and now I caught him playing it with you. I'd just like to post the play-by-play for the last 4 conversations, and the likelihood of the end of this one.

---

I lied. It's also kinda including Ryantology, but not every time. Ryan is a good boy sometimes.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

A: "The simplest explanation is always the most likely."
T: Why does the universe just "simply exist"?

It is incredible anyone would deliberately confuse "simply exist" with the simplest explanation of the available physical evidence.

At the moment I will assume you did this deliberately as the alternate explanations are English is a second language and you are not bright enough to tell the difference. Of course if you have a third explanation feel free to post it.

For the record recall no such exchange. If you would like to begin it fine with me. Making it up for one of the above three reasons is stupid.

---

This was specifically at A_Nony_Mouse, to be fair. He does this same game to me every time, and now I caught him playing it with you. I'd just like to post the play-by-play for the last 4 conversations, and the likelihood of the end of this one.

---

I lied. It's also kinda including Ryantology, but not every time. Ryan is a good boy sometimes.

Pray tell what is this game in specific detail.

If you mean insisting upon physical evidence that is what all rational people do.

[Tex]

What physical evidence has told you all rational people that exist now and will exist in the future demand physical evidence?

What physical evidence has told you that physical evidence is required for truth?

What physical evidence says that the events in Boston were a travesty? (People died and were injured) What physical evidence says that dying and being injured is bad? (People don't like being injured and dead) What physical evidence says that majority opinion demands a subsequent ethic?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

What physical evidence has told you all rational people that exist now and will exist in the future demand physical evidence?

Observation that people who insist upon physical evidence generally arrive at correct conclusions. Relying solely upon physical evidence has been the cause of all human progress in the last four centuries. Antibiotics for example.

That is the reason courts of law demand physical evidence before a trial can be convened and all testimony is restricted to the physical evidence. No one can testify to a fact not in evidence.

Did you miss those? One hopes we do not have irrational people running courts.

What physical evidence has told you that physical evidence is required for truth?

Truth is an abstract noun. It has no independent existence. There are only true or false things. True things are determined by inspecting the physical evidence.

What physical evidence says that the events in Boston were a travesty?

Never said they were. Blown all out of proportion by the media if you ask me. There were all kinds of bombs going of in the 1970s what with the Black Panthers and such.

(People died and were injured) What physical evidence says that dying and being injured is bad? (People don't like being injured and dead) What physical evidence says that majority opinion demands a subsequent ethic?

I have no idea what you mean by bad. The dead are dead and do not care regardless of the believer or the atheist being correct. Injured hurts and people consider that bad when it happens to them. For the rest it is most common a prurient interest of Schadenfreude.

That majority opinion most always does have some popular moral or ethic attached is a fact to which there are several plausible explanations at the moment. None of them require or imply or even remotely suggest a god.

[Baalzebutt]

Again you seem to be missing the point of this thread. A contradiction cannot exist if there is any possible way to resolve it, if there are multiple ways to resolve it, it doesn’t matter which one is correct it refutes the existence of a contradiction.

I know you made a lot of points here but I have to jump on this one.

What you are basically saying is that if I can provide an alternate explaination the makes it seem as if there is no contradiction, then there is no contradiction even if the scenarios I offer are complete bullshit.

Lets look at it from a theist point of view: If two science labs take pieces of exactly the same rock to date them and one lab says "This rock is 1 million years old" and the other says "This rock is 1 billion years old", there is a contradiction (which you, as a theist, would be quick to point out).

I come up to you and say, "No, there is no contradiction here. You see, aliens came down and they used a special mixture of chemical that is lightyears beyond our current technology to make one of the pieces of rock actually seem much older than it really is."

In this scenario, I sincerely doubt you would say, "Oh, I see." and walk away, satisfied that there really was no conflict.

See, you cant get around conflicts by making shit up. I can offer a scenario for any conflict you can come up with. That doesn't mean those conflicts don't still exist.

[Tex]

1) You've observed all people? And those people in the future? I strongly doubt you have physical evidence to back this universal statement that is necessary for forming your conclusion.

2) What physical evidence told you that "true things are determined by inspecting the physical evidence"?

3) I'm not trying to prove a deity here. I'm trying to show you that absolute reliance on physical evidence is childish. However, I do find it kind of worrying you view death and pain without sympathy.

If there is a train headed toward a baby on a track, and you have the option to change the train's direction, is changing the direction of the train good or bad?

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

2) What physical evidence told you that "true things are determined by inspecting the physical evidence"?

Physical evidence is not needed there. All that is needed is basic logic.

[Tex]

I thought rational people demanded physical evidence? Perhaps A_Nony_Mouse is wrong in his assertion that physical evidence is needed in everything everywhere?

[Statler Waldorf]

I thought rational people demanded physical evidence? Perhaps A_Nony_Mouse is wrong in his assertion that physical evidence is needed in everything everywhere?

“Checkmate.”

I know you made a lot of points here but I have to jump on this one.

Feel free.

What you are basically saying is that if I can provide an alternate explaination the makes it seem as if there is no contradiction, then there is no contradiction even if the scenarios I offer are complete bullshit.

If an actual logical contradiction exists there is no logically consistent hypothetical scenario that can be given to reconcile it.

Lets look at it from a theist point of view: If two science labs take pieces of exactly the same rock to date them and one lab says "This rock is 1 million years old" and the other says "This rock is 1 billion years old", there is a contradiction (which you, as a theist, would be quick to point out).

No, that’s not an example of a logical contradiction.

I come up to you and say, "No, there is no contradiction here. You see, aliens came down and they used a special mixture of chemical that is lightyears beyond our current technology to make one of the pieces of rock actually seem much older than it really is."

Yes, you’re just proving my point that your example is not an example of a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction would be, “this rock is a million years old and is not a million years old in the same sense and at the same point in time.” The example you gave was just two different groups arriving at conflicting conclusions about the age of the rock based on inductive reasoning.

In this scenario, I sincerely doubt you would say, "Oh, I see." and walk away, satisfied that there really was no conflict.

Well now you are using the word conflict which is not the same as contradiction, nobody here is saying that there are no verses that upon initial reading seem to conflict, however what we are arguing is there are rather simple explanations based on historical, contextual, and theological considerations that can explain the conflicts (nobody here has invoked aliens to explain any of the difficulties in the Bible).

See, you cant get around conflicts by making shit up. I can offer a scenario for any conflict you can come up with. That doesn't mean those conflicts don't still exist.

Atheists are not claiming there are conflicts in the Bible, they are claiming there are contradictions, and you cannot provide a scenario that can logically explain away a logical contradiction.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Again you seem to be missing the point of this thread. A contradiction cannot exist if there is any possible way to resolve it, if there are multiple ways to resolve it, it doesn’t matter which one is correct it refutes the existence of a contradiction.

I know you made a lot of points here but I have to jump on this one.

What you are basically saying is that if I can provide an alternate explaination the makes it seem as if there is no contradiction, then there is no contradiction even if the scenarios I offer are complete bullshit.

Well said but it looks to me he is claiming Rube Goldberg reasoning trumps a bullshit call.

---

1) You've observed all people? And those people in the future? I strongly doubt you have physical evidence to back this universal statement that is necessary for forming your conclusion.

The future is hypothetical. I do not choose to deal in hypotheticals.

2) What physical evidence told you that "true things are determined by inspecting the physical evidence"?

The success of the method of inspection. Data collection is physical evidence. Don't try telling a cop with radar that it is not.

3) I'm not trying to prove a deity here. I'm trying to show you that absolute reliance on physical evidence is childish. However, I do find it kind of worrying you view death and pain without sympathy.

When you come up with something which shows it is childish you be sure to post it. Rather "It is incredible anyone would deliberately confuse "simply exist" with the simplest explanation of the available physical evidence." is not quite adult and statements regarding the possible reasons you posted that, should I add childish to the possible reasons?

I don't have enough sympathy to go around for the (7Billion/average life span in days)* who die every day. It has always been a true statement that funerals are for the living. I have no idea how to invoke sympathy for strangers. That sounds more like a gal thing particularly if very young.

If there is a train headed toward a baby on a track, and you have the option to change the train's direction, is changing the direction of the train good or bad?

I know of no way to change the direction of a train but to run it off the rails. That would likely kill more people but you can add more criteria for this silly test question. Again it sounds like a gal thing.

---

* about 320,000 per day if global life expectancy is 60 years, 380,000 if 50 years, pardon calculation errors.

---

I thought rational people demanded physical evidence? Perhaps A_Nony_Mouse is wrong in his assertion that physical evidence is needed in everything everywhere?

There are two ways of looking at what you posted. One is as a premise in regard to evidence. The other is as I answered regarding the implication of physical having to be a tangible object when data about things is also physical.

Both your possible weasels have now been answered.