A logical fallacy called The False Dichotomy -- a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. How about hysteria, hypnotism, allergic reaction, psychologically implanted memories, drug hallucination, or the most obvious . . . a hoax or even a conspiracy to hoax. You are professing beliefs, not making logical conclusions, that is the whole problem. I have shredded your arguments logically, they are full of fallacies. The old Argument from Ignorance fallacy, also called the" negative evidence fallacy", says that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false. Irrelevant conclusion. The fact that you cannot walk on water doesn't mean that the Son of God could either. False dilemma. That is not the only question. will –noun 1. the faculty of conscious action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions 2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will. 3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; 4. wish or desire 5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness 6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out You make my point. Matters of will, imagination, choice, faith, and wishes are subjective and a matter of personal belief, not of actual existence. Nonsense, I have already listed 4 or 5. Hoaxes happen all the time. I can Google up a Aramaic dictionary online in 20 seconds and be memorizing Aramaic sentences within in hour, Inshallah. It goes to credibility. If objects actually levitated from time to time for people to observe, then eyewitness testimony holds more credibility. People ruled legally sane have testified that God told them to commit murder. Do you believe this? Are you kidding? I have systematically applied deductive reasoning to each of your arguments and they do not hold water. It is you that is insisting that everyone must accept your beliefs as truth. How perfectly ridiculous. I fully accept both as concepts. It is only when you insist that logical deduction proves that supernatural agents of evil MUST exist that I must defend logic, nature, and science.
BS, you evade all logic in your assertions which are based on faith. They are here, Deek is one. Supa is a major one and the most eloquent, it's just that he has no problem distinguishing his faith from his science. Is your faith so weak that that you must prop it up with dubious claims that don't pass muster in the natural world?
Red: This seems like a bit of a cheap shot, I have to say. If I am exasperating you it is not my intention. I appreciate your patience and have to say I also appreciate the fact that I understand now why scientists are always talking like they do, based on your points in the other thread. That was very helpful. I was able to watch an entire documentary on sexual attraction based on evolutionary theory without pulling my hair out yesterday. I had a good chuckle over some of the points they made, I admit, but it was much more agreeable to watch for me. But no, my faith is not weak. My understanding and thought process regarding faith and science may be somewhat flawed, but I think this is true of any human being. I find it highly unlikely a trained psychiatrist and all the others in the room were suffering from these ailments that you list or that it was a hoax. Don't know how to make the point any clearer. If, and it's big if, I grant you that but if Jesus was the Son of God He could do anything He wants. That's what that concept means....He is God. The son of horse is horse, the son of man is a man and the son of God is God. God can suspend the laws He made anytime He wants. It's completely logical. You can't place limits on a Supreme Being. It's absurd. If you tried to use that in a courtroom to explain how a woman that allegedly was levitating and making accurate statements about events miles away was speaking Aramaic then I submit the jury would decide against you. You reaching with that one. Do you really think that is what happened? I am not insisting that they become catholic or whatever. I am insisting that a decision is reached according to the evidence presented. A reasonable decision. Credibility? You think it is more credible that a trained psychiatrist staged an elaborate hoax and trained a girl to speak Aramaic so he could publish it in a magazine? That seems a more credible verdict to you than deciding that the girl, who was known to be involved in satanic rituals, that were documented went to a psychiatrist and ..blah...blah...blah. You really think a jury would rule that your scenario is more plausible? I would be curious to know, really. Is there a law student or lawyer on this board? I don't expect everyone to be reading this thread but I would be curious if you could ask one...just PM him....have him make a decision and i'll shut up about it after that. Again, I appreciate your patience. I am only trying to make the point that belief in the supernatural is a reasonable conclusion from the facts we have readily at our disposal as human beings. I am not saying I can prove it like you can solve a math problem, but it seems like a perfectly sound interpretion of the world as we observe it....that is my only point. I'm certainly not trying to play Thomas Aquinas here. opcorn:
so to be clear, the question you are asking is which is more likely: a person made some **** up, or lied, or somehow the facts were fudged or a girl levitated probably due to the influence of a demon possession is this in fact what you are asking us? are you truly asking us which of these a court of law would believe? you are not serious? right? you are kidding, right? seriously, could a human being in america in 2010 seriously be asking us this? are you ****ing with us?
Avatar was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, so yeah... This is the world we live in. I'm just glad we got the whole "flat earth" thing sorted out before CNN and FoxNews came to be. The Flat Earth Society or did we??????
i find it more elegant than having to burn a sheep or pray 5 times a day. what do you find crazy about jesus? id think the closest way he was crazy is that he never went crazy on peter or judas. he never even claimed to be god.
martin: think of it like this: The psychiatrist publishes his report then in response he is fired from his job at the university and stripped of his credentials for having attributed an event to supernatural causes, which "science" does not allow. He therefore lose his tenure/pension, everything. He sues the school and the Psychiatrist Association to be reinstated and to receive his pension, etc. It would be a copernicus/gallileo trial in reverse....the psychiatrist is a heretical secularist so to speak. I would be curious if he could win in a courtroom based on the argument that in his professional opinion the event took place because of possession and he has witnesses. The university attorney would have to argue there was another explanation, hoax, allergic reaction, hallucination, etc. I would be curious who would win, yes. If you can get an attorney to just make a statement on it then I will shut up about and accept his decision. What is so terrible about the question? Are you not even curious what the decision would be? I don't understand why you are such a killjoy about these things.
again, so we are clear, you are genuinely asking which is more likely. a guy made something up, or a person levitated because of a demon possession. this is the questione? yes or no? and specifically you cant figure out which side would win in a court of law? this is what fascinates you, correct?
so you mean "elegant" relative to other religions, not relative to sanity? you cant be serious. this dude went around preaching craziness and then got himself nailed to a cross, at which point he whispered to a magic ghost "forgive them father for they know not what they do". are you f'ing kidding me? and ia m not bibilical scholoar, but i think you are wrong, jesus did make all manner of loony claims. if jesus existed, and he might have, he was an idiot and he deserved a punch in the face.
