Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[Edwardo Piet]

Point to where he supports his belief, point to his evidence.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You want me to do the pointy thing on yo ass agen? DO YA!?!

[Edwardo Piet]

...

I read JP's stuff and I saw no evidence. You got any? You don't have evidnece right? As you always say...but then JP apparently does and you agree with him?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Don't be a beef jerky Evie. Jon Paul didn't provide any impossible evidence just proofs of God's existence. I have enough trouble explaining basic English to you. If you think I'm gonna hold your hand in there you're havin a laff.

[Edwardo Piet]

Proof is the strongest form of evidence possible, it's completely watertight evidence. So there's a contracition there (because you say there can be no evidence but on the other hand JP has proof!)

As I've said on the other threads where we've paraded our differences of evidence and faith, let's keep all matters of evidence and faith between us - to the debate forum now, untill further notice anyway.

EvF

[theVOID]

Don't be a beef jerky Evie. Jon Paul didn't provide any impossible evidence just proofs of God's existence. I have enough trouble explaining basic English to you. If you think I'm gonna hold your hand in there you're havin a laff.

No, JP only made the assumption that God is the only possible cause for the universe and asserted it as fact without any evidence to distinguish his assumption from anything else you could possible imagine.

Unless you have evidence that can distinguish one assumption from another then you have absolutely no way to conclude that one assumption is any more valid than any other regardless of what you want to believe or what makes more sense to you. Making such an assertion without the support of evidence is intellectually premature ejaculation.

[Ryft]

Bullshit! Slavery is not moral. Genocide is not moral. ... And no, 'unbelievers' do not approach the book with prejudice.

Speaking of contradictions! (Look up the word 'prejudice'.)

(1) God created Adam and Eve at the same time. (2) God created Adam ... [then] God took his rib and made Eve.

This is precisely the point Frodo is making, which keeps sailing high over your head. Contradictions are illegitimately forced upon the text, not genuinely found within the text. There is a reason he will not engage these exquisitely retarded allegations: because the fact that they are NOT contradictions is too patently obvious. Just look at this fatuous canard of yours exactly here. Nowhere in Genesis 1:26-27 does it say God created them "at the same time." In order to maintain a contradiction, that had to be forced upon the text. There is no contradiction, until after your egregious feculence has rearranged the text to create one.

You shouldn't even be allowed to use the word logic.

If you're going to turn around and claim that [contradictions] exist because man is infallible and messed up or ... [snip rest]

Seriously? Do you even read his posts, McFly? He did not suggest that he can make excuses for their existence. He said they don't even exist in the first place. Considering the embarrassingly poor job you do at ensuring your posts make sense, it is monstrously ironic hearing you criticize the job God does over his.

We will change our beliefs if they are proven to be incorrect.

Considering your horrifically incorrect butchering of Genesis 1:26-27, we shall see if you mean that.

---

If that is not proof of contradiction ... then may I inquire as to what a contradiction is?

A contradiction occurs when (i) two propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other, and (ii) they are both affirmed as true in the same respect and at the same time. For example, if the proposition is, "The Father is greater than I," then its denial would be, "The Father is not greater than I," and a contradiction would occur if those two propositions were both affirmed as true at the same time and in the same respect.

There is no contradiction between (1) "I and the Father are one" and (2) "the Father is greater than I" because the Father is 'greater' in one respect while they are 'one' in another respect. The two statements are not logical inversions of each other (i.e., if the former is P, in no sense is the latter ¬P). In order to affirm this as a contradiction, you have to force upon the text that their being 'one' and the Father being 'greater' are being affirmed in the same respect, because it is not found within the text itself. Contradictions forced upon the text instead of being derived from the text is blatantly illegitimate.

The reason Frodo appears to exhibit a "Refusal to Discuss symptom" is because even a first-year philosophy student knows what a real contradiction is, and can see that there are none. Remember, a contradiction requires at the very least a logical inversion (i.e., P and ¬P), and then a demonstration from within the text itself that they are both affirmed as true at the same time and in the same respect.

---

A strawman argument is where you refute an argument that bears no resemblance to what was argued. ...

Sorry, just a small correction: it can also bear a vague resemblence. I cannot remember where I had read it—it may have been David H. Lund's Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry—but I heard the Straw Man fallacy described most clearly as attacking an argument that is "different from or weaker than your opponent's actual or best argument." It is evaluated as the contrary of the principle of intellectual charity, which is about confronting your opponent's argument as it's actually affirmed or the strongest version of it.

[Ryft]

{...crickets chirping...}

[Retorth]

There is no contradiction between (1) "I and the Father are one" and (2) "the Father is greater than I" because the Father is 'greater' in one respect while they are 'one' in another respect. The two statements are not logical inversions of each other (i.e., if the former is P, in no sense is the latter ¬P). In order to affirm this as a contradiction, you have to force upon the text that their being 'one' and the Father being 'greater' are being affirmed in the same respect, because it is not found within the text itself. Contradictions forced upon the text instead of being derived from the text is blatantly illegitimate.

- a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
- direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.

"I and the father are one"

He claims they are both one entity.

"The father is greater then I"

Then he claims they are two entitles. It is impossible if it is one single entity to have half of it greater then itself.


That is a clear contradiction, amongst the many others in the bible, needless to say.
How do you mean "one respect" and "another respect"? Please explain that, thank you.

[Dotard]

There is no contradiction between (1) "I and the Father are one" and (2) "the Father is greater than I" because the Father is 'greater' in one respect while they are 'one' in another respect. The two statements are not logical inversions of each other (i.e., if the former is P, in no sense is the latter ¬P). In order to affirm this as a contradiction, you have to force upon the text that their being 'one' and the Father being 'greater' are being affirmed in the same respect....

Please define this 'respect' you speak of. The father is greater in what respect? They are one in what respect?

My father and I are one yet he is greater that I sounds contradictory to me. But my wordsmither doesn't work as well as yours so excuse me if I am not using the most accurate terminology but I am sure there exists a word to describe statements such as these.

How would you describe the statement; "My son's father is me and that father is greater than I."
If the father is me, then how could I be greater than myself? I call it a contradiction. If you want to argue 'I' and 'Father' are meant in different respects then please elaborate and define these 'respects'.