Search results

Hello, Stu. Certainly definition is unavoidable if there's to be any discussion. Consider "He is.". There's a great deal of definition in this minimal sentence - as you undoubtedly understand. Alternative explanation 2 addresses the manner of becoming that derives its meaning from and...

Brave lady. Exchanged shots with Murray as she calmly walked toward him. If she'd been the one to fall she'd have gone straight to Valhalla. They don't believe in turning the other cheek there.

Mike Holland, the favorite analyst of PBS's Nightly Business Report sez the FED move today will prove to be a disaster. He's calling for a major selloff tomorrow.

Great! And I'll bet you have a million more of these. Proud of you, JB3. At least you're making a sincere effort.

In my opinion there's no need for you to preface everything you present as only your opinion; anything said by anyone is merely an expression of that person's understanding. It's inefficient to add this qualifier to every utterance. The thread title "Is the Bible inerrant?" invites...

Missed this one earlier. Sure, anything I say is just my opinion. By all means - refute what I say and I'll change my opinion. Are you aware of any explanation that's consistent with logic and/or natural law?

The more specifically the believer defines his God, the more difficulty he's going to have in justifying his definition, but we live in a universe of potential 'evidence'. Supporting evidence can be found to justify almost any belief, including the God of the Bible. Yeah, that's agood one...

OK, archaeology is a science of sorts, but lack of proof isn't proof to the contrary; it's just a vague indicator of probability or possibility of the contrary. Examining internal logical consistency is certainly worthwhile but inconsistencies can always be explained away by way of...

This doesn't qualify as scientific proof. I believe Yip is a scientist and probably wants more than common sense or bare logic.

The difference between fairies and God is that we can discount the likelihood of fairies on the basis of our having available more common sense explanations for their purported works.. but there are no explanations for the existence of the Universe that make any more sense than the God...

Sure thing, Nik. It's been a slice. Sorry I didn't get around (yet) to fully responding to your last post, but I will. You can respond if/when you respond. I trade full-time and have a busy home life so I'm able to understand that these debating commitments can be inconvenient...

If we can't disprove fairies then we would have to allow for them as a possibility - just an extremely remote possibility given that we have more credible explanations available. In the God case, though, the alternative explanations are equally fantastical so we have no criterion to help...

AI! Math of Possibility! Ye gads! Sounds like you're more qualified to answer your question than anybody else on ET. Let me ask you a few questions, Yip. Is QM perspectival? Does it describe nature or merely our capacity to know nature? Re the Uncertainty Principle...

Interesting quote. The operative word here is "extraordinary". Any proof in this instance would be extraordinary.

It's true, Yip, I'm just playing here and I truly hope that you're not offended by this. Is the infallibility of the Bible so integral to your faith? If so, why? Also, if your faith were shaken would you be in crisis? It seems that you're already full of doubt. I'm full of doubt...

Pending proof that X is impossible, X must be considered possible. X is possible because it can't be proven impossible. It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so. Whether or not this line of reasoning opens the door to wild speculation is irrelevant. Even if we accept...

Good point. Some might accuse you of semantic nit-picking but not I; if we're sloppy with the application of language our thinking is compromised. Generally excellent response. I'll get back to the balance of it when I have time (soon). Good thinking. I'll have to step up a notch (or...

I say that we can't simply choose our beliefs. There must be some intervening process between need and belief - such as rationalization. We can't just say to ourselves " Gee, I'm horny therefore the girl at the bar is in love with me.". Here I am supposing that choice is conscious and...

1) Some Deists may experience lapses in logic but not all. We should focus on the essentials of the debate independent of the fallibility of those involved in the debate. 2) It is interesting that modern believers feel a need to legitimize their beliefs by way of science, given that science...

Something you might want to consider is that the alternative to Heaven is Hell; in Hell you would be required to bow to an even less reasonable deity - and they have their ways down there to persuade you to comply ( Hell currently managed by former Gestapo agents ). I accept your...