On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

No, it is the statement about empirism that is self refuting, this has nothing to do with empirical evidence, which is anything but self refuting.

no one is trying to say that a piece of empirical evidence like a rock or a cow is self refuting. how would that even be possible?

the empirical statement is self refuting, therefore false. so when you make statements about claims being proven/disproven, true/false, on the basis of having or not having empirical evidence. that statement is false precisely because you are applying a self refuting, false statement to that claim.

? How could i not know it is physical evidence for the moon landings, what do eye witnesses have to do with it?

how would you know it was? take the return vehicle, were you present for its manufacture? did you ride up on the rocket yourself? did you stay with it through retrieval? were you with it whe it was placed in a museum?

of course not.

you just trust that it is indeed the return vehicle from the Apollo missions.whether you trust the museum, or your teacher, it all boils down to trust. even for the moonlanding.

Do you know what physical evidence is? The bible as best would be documented evidence, and it not even that.

do you mean it doesnt physically exist?

 

[AlbertBall]

no one is trying to say that a piece of empirical evidence like a rock or a cow is self refuting. how would that even be possible?

the empirical statement is self refuting, therefore false. so when you make statements about claims being proven/disprove, true/false, on the basis of having or not having empirical evidence. that statement is false precisely because you are applying a self refuting, false statement to that claim.

Well thats great, but when have i ever said claims have been proven or disprove? I have said why the supporting evidence is NOT the same, hence why i ACCEPT one and not the other. Proven and dispoven have NOTHING to do with it, science does not “prove” anything.

how would you know it was? take the return vehicle, were you present for its manufacture? did you ride up on the rocket yourself? did you stay with it through retrieval? were you with it whee it was placed in a museum?

you just trust that it is indeed the return vehicle from the Apollo missions.whether you trust the museum, or your teacher, it all boils down to trust. even for the moonlanding.

No it does not, it boils down to consistency and supporting evidence. You are presenting what is almost a form of nihilism, and you argument is absurd. You are basically saying “we can not know anything for sure, therefore my ridiculous claims are as valid as your verified facts.”

Heres the thing though i do not hold to, or ever preach, absolute certainty. I assess claims individually, on their own merits. Do i claim to be absolutely certain that the moon landings happened? NO! Do i claim to be absolutely certain that the Apollo capsule is the actually Apollo capsule? NO! I am telling you why i accept the claim. So forget the notion of absolute certainty. The moon landing claims** fit all **the obserable evidence, they are supported by mountains of verifiable evidence, and i can view supporting evidence with my own eyes.

The bible claims contradict all the obervable evidence, the book is full of fiction and absrud claims. EG, noahs ark, why would i accept a story about a virgin birth coming from the same source as a story about noahs ark, a story we know to be utter nonsense.

So am i 100% certian that the moon landing happend and there wasn’t a virgin bith? NO! But i tell you what, i am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%Certain.

Oh and by your reasoning if “it all boils down to trust”. Why is it you trust the bible but not other religious texts?

Further more i tell you why i trust science, because of the proven results! I can see the results of science therefore i know it works. That is why i trust it, i have never seen anything from the bible that makes it worth my trust. Name me one application, or great insight derived from the bible?

 

[Leela]

Oh and by your reasoning if “it all boils down to trust”. Why is it you trust the bible but not other religious texts?

Good question.

An assertion such as the moon landing or the many religions that have made claims about virgin births always get weighed against the likelihood of alternative explanations in light of the available evidence. Once we have some evidence–anything both sides of an argument agree relates to the project of getting agreement–the next step is to not to simply claim doubt of the other’s claims but to offer alternative and perhaps more plausible explanations for the evidence

With respect to the claims about the virgin birth of Jesus, there are lots of alternative explanations, all of them more plausible (in my estimation and perhaps not WPS’s) than that a girl was impregnated 2000 years ago without having any sexual contact. I won’t offer them here because they would be likely to offend and most of them are obvious anyway.

I wonder what WPS can offer as an alternative explanation for the evidence of the moon landing. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are usually far less probable than the popularly accepted explanations. (Obviously alternative explanations for the evidence of the virgin birth would not need to include any broad complicated conspiracy.)

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

There could be enough resources if human beings used their intelligence and considered the interests of humanity as a whole.

That is just an assumption. However, even if it were true, and if all humanity would work together, it would not eliminate the pain and misery from natural disasters.

The present issue is the evidence for the truth of Christ’s teaching and whether there is a better way of eliminating the pain and suffering caused by man. You have agreed that if everyone were like Gandhi and Mother Teresa the problem would be solved…

Being a Catholic is no guarantee of virtue but it is clearly more of a safeguard than being an anarchist, nihilist or megalomaniac…

… or sociopaths, or fanatics… But these are not the only options, are they?

What is the best option in your opinion?

We’re back to God’s puppets! Would you be satisfied with cupboard love? Or a partner who is compelled to toe the line at every instant? A virtuous zombie who had no moral defects whatsoever?

This is simply not true. These are not puppets, just very good people. They can imagine the atrocities, but have no desire to commit them.

Because that is the way they would have been programmed - which is tantamount to being puppets. Your notion of “very good people” is “very efficient rule-keepers” but goodness entails individuality, creativity and spontaneity as well as obedience to moral laws.

I have already pointed that the finest role model and the noblest moral teaching known to the world is that given to us by the man who chose to die to show us that only genuinely unselfish love is the answer to evil. It takes courage to let oneself be crucified… But don’t confuse that with meekness and weakness. Forgiving our enemies and turning the other cheek has to be counterbalanced by denouncing the hypocrites who exploit the poor and driving the profiteers out of the Temple. If there were more men and women like Gandhi and Mother Teresa the world would be a far juster and happier place…

You contradict yourself. Those role models you mention are exactly the type I had in mind, and you don’t assert that they were puppets, do you?

The difference being that they could have acted otherwise…

Besides, based upon the current state of the world, the sacrifice of Jesus was not a roaring success either.

You fail to recognise how morality has progressed since His death. Countless people, including Gandhi and Mother Teresa, have been deeply inspired by His love.

And there are many examples that different versions of Christians fought bloody wars among each other, yet they all professed to be the followers of Jesus.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that it is absurd to equate Christianity with how individual Christians behave?

Furthermore, one does not have to be a Christian or Catholic to lead a helpful, moral life. I am sure you know that.

Of course not but the teaching of Christ is the foundation of the moral principles which are now universally accepted.

No one denies the necessity and usefulness of intuition. It is always the first step in acquiring new idea, whether it turns out to be true, or not. But if one stops there, and does not seek ways and means to verify that the intuition is correct or not, then intuition is just wishful thinking. (I do not mean this in any derogatory way.)

I agree. The best way verification of the truth of Christ’s teaching is in the results achieved by Gandhi, Mother Teresa and many others who put it into practice. Gandhi succeeded where those who drive out the British by force failed…

 

[Leela]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that it is absurd to equate Christianity with how individual Christians behave?

The Gospel accounts disagree with you. Jesus is supposed to have said that we will know a tree by its fruits and that we will know a Christian by her love.

According to Mark you are also supposed to have a bunch of special powers and be able to handle snakes, drink poison, and heal people and stuff.

Mark 16
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

 

[tonyrey]

An assertion such as the moon landing or the many religions that have made claims about virgin births always get weighed against the likelihood of alternative explanations in light of the available evidence. Once we have some evidence–anything both sides of an argument agree relates to the project of getting agreement–the next step is to not to simply claim doubt of the other’s claims but to offer alternative and perhaps more plausible explanations for the evidence.

With respect to the claims about the virgin birth of Jesus, there are lots of alternative explanations, all of them more plausible (in my estimation and perhaps not WPS’s) than that a girl was impregnated 2000 years ago without having any sexual contact. I won’t offer them here because they would be likely to offend and most of them are obvious anyway.

There is a fatal flaw in your argument. You wrongly assume that empirical evidence is the most important type of evidence and you are considering that evidence in isolation from its context. The context of the moon landing is human activity in the wider context of an unexplained physical universe which is assumed to have no value or purpose or raison d’etre. The context of the Virgin Birth is in the context of the evidence for Design, the life and death of Jesus, the Church He founded which has survived for over two thousand years and the noblest moral code known to mankind which is the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The truth of the teaching of Jesus and the love expressed in His life and death are of far greater significance than any physical event in the history of mankind - except His Resurrection. They constitute overwhelming evidence for the unique nature of His birth and are far more convincing evidence than any human achievement…

 

[R_Daneel]

The present issue is the evidence for the truth of Christ’s teaching and whether there is a better way of eliminating the pain and suffering caused by man. You have agreed that if everyone were like Gandhi and Mother Teresa the problem would be solved…

I did, but I have to point out that Ghandi was NOT a Christian.

Because that is the way they would have been programmed - which is tantamount to being puppets. Your notion of “very good people” is “very efficient rule-keepers” but goodness entails individuality, creativity and spontaneity as well as obedience to moral laws.

The difference being that they could have acted otherwise…

Those people I mentioned also could act otherwise, they simply don’t do it.

You fail to recognise how morality has progressed since His death. Countless people, including Gandhi and Mother Teresa, have been deeply inspired by His love.

And many, equally good people were not inspired by it. You commit the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy here.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that it is absurd to equate Christianity with how individual Christians behave?

If you wish to give credit to Christianity by using the “good” examples of “good” people, then you cannot simply sweep the deeds of the “not so good” Christians under the rug, and deny their actions - which they also did in the name of Christianity. That would be “cherry-picking”.

Of course not but the teaching of Christ is the foundation of the moral principles which are now universally accepted.

There is very little in Christianity which is original. The “golden rule”, for example was “invented” a few thousands of years before Christianity came into existence. Pretty much every culture had some moral code similar to it.

I agree. The best way verification of the truth of Christ’s teaching is in the results achieved by Gandhi, Mother Teresa and many others who put it into practice. Gandhi succeeded where those who drive out the British by force failed…

What does this have to do with “intuition” as an epistemological method?

 

[tonyrey]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that it is absurd to equate Christianity with how individual Christians behave?

The Gospel accounts disagree with you. Jesus is supposed to have said that we will know a tree by its fruits and that we will know a Christian by her love.
The disagreement exists only in your mind. If a so-called Christian does not have Christian love you cannot judge Christianity by the way s/he behaves.

According to Mark you are also supposed to have a bunch of special powers and be able to handle snakes, drink poison, and heal people and stuff.
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

You wrongly assume that all such powers are given to every Christian. In reality everyone has a particular vocation and its corresponding gifts but the Apostles were pioneers who obviously needed far more help to start from scratch and preach the good news to the entire world. You underestimate the magnitude of the task of converting sophisticated Greeks and Romans to the beliefs of a tiny sect started by a Jewish carpenter in an obscure province of the Empire… You have only to think of Pilate’s cynical response to Jesus and how the Athenians laughed and mocked St Paul when he spoke of the resurrection of Jesus. Human beings have not changed since then - as we are frequently reminded in this forum and in our present society. That is why the conversion of one third of the human race to Christianity is an incredible achievement which requires explanation…

 

[Leela]

There is a fatal flaw in your argument. You wrongly assume that empirical evidence is the most important type of evidence and you are considering that evidence in isolation from its context. The context of the moon landing is human activity in the wider context of an unexplained physical universe which is assumed to have no value or purpose or raison d’etre. The context of the Virgin Birth is in the context of the evidence for Design, the life and death of Jesus, the Church He founded which has survived for over two thousand years and the noblest moral code known to mankind which is the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The truth of the teaching of Jesus and the love expressed in His life and death are of far greater significance than any physical event in the history of mankind - except His Resurrection. They constitute overwhelming evidence for the unique nature of His birth and are far more convincing evidence than any human achievement…

You’ll have to search for another fatal flaw in my argument since I never said “empirical evidence is the most important type of evidence.” I said that evidence is simply whatever has some hope of helping us get agreement.

You are welcome to submit anything you like such as the UN declaration of human rights as evidence, but I don’t see any connection between that and the assertion that Jesus had no earthly father.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Leela;6451948:

The disagreement exists only in your mind. If a so-called Christian does not have Christian love you cannot judge Christianity by the way s/he behaves.

You wrongly assume that all such powers are given to every Christian. In reality everyone has a particular vocation and its corresponding gifts but the Apostles were pioneers who obviously needed far more help to start from scratch and preach the good news to the entire world. You underestimate the magnitude of the task of converting sophisticated Greeks and Romans to the beliefs of a tiny sect started by a Jewish carpenter in an obscure province of the Empire… You have only to think of Pilate’s cynical response to Jesus and how the Athenians laughed and mocked St Paul when he spoke of the resurrection of Jesus. Human beings have not changed since then - as we are frequently reminded in this forum and in our present society. That is why the conversion of one third of the human race to Christianity is an incredible achievement which requires explanation…

I agree that it requires an explanation. I just think we already have all the explanation we need based on the fact that the other two-thirds have subscribed to other religions. See also the cargo cults of the Pacific if you want to understand how religious beliefs emerge.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

The present issue is the evidence for the truth of Christ’s teaching and whether there is a better way of eliminating the pain and suffering caused by man. You have agreed that if everyone were like Gandhi and Mother Teresa the problem would be solved…

You are obviously unaware that Gandhi considered becoming a Christian but realised he would be more effective if he remained a Hindu and put Christ’s teaching of non-violence into practice.

Because that is the way they would have been programmed - which is tantamount to being puppets. Your notion of “very good people” is “very efficient rule-keepers” but goodness entails individuality, creativity and spontaneity as well as obedience to moral laws.

The difference being that they could have acted otherwise…
Those people I mentioned also could act otherwise, they simply don’t do it.

Alas, your “people” are fantasies.

You fail to recognise how morality has progressed since His death. Countless people, including Gandhi and Mother Teresa, have been deeply inspired by His love.

And many, equally good people were not inspired by it. You commit the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy here.

You need to substantiate that remark.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that it is absurd to equate Christianity with how individual Christians behave?

If you wish to give credit to Christianity by using the “good” examples of “good” people, then you cannot simply sweep the deeds of the “not so good” Christians under the rug, and deny their actions - which they also did in the name of Christianity. That would be “cherry-picking”.

To act **in the name of **Christianity is quite different from living according to its principles.

Of course not but the teaching of Christ is the foundation of the moral principles which are now universally accepted.

There is very little in Christianity which is original. The “golden rule”, for example was “invented” a few thousands of years before Christianity came into existence. Pretty much every culture had some moral code similar to it.

How about loving and dying for your enemies and not resisting evil?

I agree. The best way verification of the truth of Christ’s teaching is in the results achieved by Gandhi, Mother Teresa and many others who put it into practice. Gandhi succeeded where those who drive out the British by force failed…

What does this have to do with “intuition” as an epistemological method?

Love, moral discernment and spiritual insight are intuitive forms of knowledge which are superior to empirical knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

You wrongly assume that all such powers are given to every Christian. In reality everyone has a particular vocation and its corresponding gifts but the Apostles were pioneers who obviously needed far more help to start from scratch and preach the good news to the entire world. You underestimate the magnitude of the task of converting sophisticated Greeks and Romans to the beliefs of a tiny sect started by a Jewish carpenter in an obscure province of the Empire… You have only to think of Pilate’s cynical response to Jesus and how the Athenians laughed and mocked St Paul when he spoke of the resurrection of Jesus. Human beings have not changed since then - as we are frequently reminded in this forum and in our present society. That is why the conversion of one third of the human race to Christianity is an incredible achievement which requires explanation…

If you think the teaching of Christ is on a par with cargo cults there is no point in discussing the matter further…

 

[Leela]

If you think the teaching of Christ is on a par with cargo cults there is no point in discussing the matter further…

When did I ever criticize the teaching of Christ? And what does the teaching of Christ have to do with the question of whether or not he had an earthly father?

 

[R_Daneel]

You are obviously unaware that Gandhi considered becoming a Christian but realised he would be more effective if he remained a Hindu and put Christ’s teaching of non-violence into practice.

I am definitely unaware of that. Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?

Alas, your “people” are fantasies.

A possibility (as a thought experiment) is not a fantasy. Do you maintain that God did not create Gandhi and Mother Theresa to be as they were? Who did then? Was it… Saaaatan? (Emulating the Church Lady here. ) The blind forces of nature, you love to put down? You should be careful. I remember what you said before.

You need to substantiate that remark.

Which one? You quoted two remarks. The one which says that it is possible to be a good, moral person outside Christianity? Or the one that it is a fallacy to assume that just because they lived after Christianity became mainstream, therefore they they became good, moral persons because of Christianity?

To act **in the name of **Christianity is quite different from living according to its principles.

They believe that they do live according to the principles of Christianity, and you don’t. How do you plan to convince them about their error? They can quote the Bible just as well as you can.

How about loving and dying for your enemies and not resisting evil?

Yes, that is definitely a Christian idea. Too bad that is not a sign of morality, but a sign of stupidity. In my opinion, of course.

Love, moral discernment and spiritual insight are intuitive forms of knowledge which are superior to empirical knowledge.

Only in your eyes. They are not part of “knowledge” in the first place. Second they are empty words without actual, observable evidence for practising them.

 

[tonyrey]

When did I ever criticize the teaching of Christ?

Your exact words:
"I agree that it requires an explanation. I just think we already have** all the explanation we need **based on the fact that the other two-thirds have subscribed to other religions. See also the cargo cults of the Pacific if you want to understand how religious beliefs emerge.

And what does the teaching of Christ have to do with the question of whether or not he had an earthly father?

The finest moral teaching known to the world would hardly have come from the lips of a lunatic who claimed to be the Son of God…

 

[Leela]

Your exact words:
"I agree that it requires an explanation. I just think we already have** all the explanation we need **based on the fact that the other two-thirds have subscribed to other religions. See also the cargo cults of the Pacific if you want to understand how religious beliefs emerge.

I missed the part where I criticized Christ’s teachings. Are you sure that’s the right quote?

The finest moral teaching known to the world would hardly have come from the lips of a lunatic who claimed to be the Son of God…

This is just an obvious logical fallacy. I’m not good at giving Latin names for them, but it’s the one about characteristics of the speaker being irrelevant to the truth-value of an assertion.

If an evil man says that 2+2=4 would that make it false? If a good man says that 2+2=5 would that make it true?

How could Jesus’s moral teachings possibly convince us that Jesus had no earthly father? What do the questions about the moral value of his teachings have to do with the plausibility of assertions surrounding his birth?

 

[tonyrey]

I am definitely unaware of that. Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?

I remember reading it in a biography of Gandhi. If you dispute it you are welcome to refute it - if you can…

A possibility (as a thought experiment) is not a fantasy. Do you maintain that God did not create Gandhi and Mother Theresa to be as they were?

Of course I do. I’m not the one who maintains (for the sake of argument) that we are God’s puppets.

Who did then? Was it… Saaaatan? (Emulating the Church Lady here. ) The blind forces of nature, you love to put down?

You are the one who believes all our choices are determined, not me…

Which one? You quoted two remarks. The one which says that it is possible to be a good, moral person outside Christianity? Or the one that it is a fallacy to assume that just because they lived after Christianity became mainstream, therefore they they became good, moral persons because of Christianity?

If you can’t be bothered to quote my statements I’m certainly not going to bother to work out which you’re referring to.

They believe that they do live according to the principles of Christianity, and you don’t. How do you plan to convince them about their error? They can quote the Bible just as well as you can.

Who are “they”?

How about loving and dying for your enemies and not resisting evil?

Yes, that is definitely a Christian idea. Too bad that is not a sign of morality, but a sign of stupidity. In my opinion, of course.

I was expecting that comment. You would blow up Hiroshima and Nagaski again to save your own skin! If necessary the rest of the world if it enables **you **to survive… Nobody would catch you dying for anybody… No, that is the supreme insanity of the Cross - but if it helped you to survive you would certainly encourage others to be Christians and die for you! You’re not stupid, are you? It’s every man for himself in this world… the only world, of course…

Love, moral discernment and spiritual insight are intuitive forms of knowledge which are superior to empirical knowledge.

Only in your eyes. They are not part of “knowledge” in the first place. Second they are empty words without actual, observable evidence for practising them.

You have made it abundantly clear that the only evidence you will accept is something that is in **your **interests - regardless of whether it is observable … You’re not as stupid as those misguided, superstitious fools…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well thats great, but when have i ever said claims have been proven or disprove?

** i will reject it as UNPROVEN! ** post #310

and then i showed you how it might be done using technlogy we can already demonstrate.

I have said why the supporting evidence is NOT the same, hence why i ACCEPT one and not the other.

the evidence is the same, you simply apply a double standard. you trust the evidence for the moonlanding, but not the evidence for Biblical claims.

No it does not, it boils down to consistency and supporting evidence.

first, you have to trust the supporting evidence is actually evidence of the claim. even the return module.

if you disagree surely you can tell me how you know the return module, is actually evidence for the moonlanding.

You are basically saying “we can not know anything for sure, therefore my ridiculous claims are as valid as your verified facts.”

this is the problem.

you have no basis, without engaging in double standards, to make the claim that our claims are ridiculous, and that yours are ‘verified’.

we have refuted verificationism and empiricism as self refuting, scientific credibility as a straw man, et al.

so what basis do you have for simply saying that your claim is believable and ours is not?

Heres the thing though i do not hold to, or ever preach, absolute certainty. I assess claims individually, on their own merits.

thats what i do too.

Do i claim to be absolutely certain that the moon landings happened? NO! Do i claim to be absolutely certain that the Apollo capsule is the actually Apollo capsule? NO! I am telling you why i accept the claim. So forget the notion of absolute certainty.

i dont believe in absolute certainty either.

The moon landing claims** fit all **the obserable evidence, they are supported by mountains of verifiable evidence, and i can view supporting evidence with my own eyes.

verifiability is self refuting, unless you were there you cant verify anything, you just have to trust what you have been told.

The bible claims contradict all the obervable evidence, the book is full of fiction and absrud claims. EG, noahs ark, why would i accept a story about a virgin birth coming from the same source as a story about noahs ark, a story we know to be utter nonsense.

you dont know these stories to be utter nonsense. here is your double standard yet again. you dont understand how something might work, so you deny it.

even worse, i demonstrated how a virgin birth of a male might occur with technology we are currently using.

so you do not know that Biblical events are uttter nonsense, you just want them to be so to maintain your world view.

So am i 100% certian that the moon landing happend and there wasn’t a virgin bith? NO! But i tell you what, i am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%Certain.

and as ive pointed out, you have no basis for that level of certainy without a double standard of evidence.

Oh and by your reasoning if “it all boils down to trust”. Why is it you trust the bible but not other religious texts?

Messianic Prophecy

Further more i tell you why i trust science, because of the proven results! I can see the results of science therefore i know it works. That is why i trust it,

we already refuted verificationism as false because it is self refuting. now your just repeating arguments already lost.

i have never seen anything from the bible that makes it worth my trust. Name me one application, or great insight derived from the bible?

its not a science manual, its a users manual. for people.

 

[R_Daneel]

I remember reading it in a biography of Gandhi. If you dispute it you are welcome to refute it - if you can…

At the very least you could have quoted a url, or a title, or something… I am not interested in refuting unsupported assertions.

Of course I do. I’m not the one who maintains (for the sake of argument) that we are God’s puppets.

Good. So how did they become as they did? Due to random chance?

You are the one who believes all our choices are determined, not me…

I have never said that. So your argument is specious.

If you can’t be bothered to quote my statements I’m certainly not going to bother to work out which you’re referring to.

I quoted your statement. I even quoted mine, you were referring to.

Who are “they”?

Other Christians, who hold different standards.

I was expecting that comment. You would blow up Hiroshima and Nagaski again to save your own skin! If necessary the rest of the world if it enables **you **to survive… Nobody would catch you dying for anybody… No, that is the supreme insanity of the Cross - but if it helped you to survive you would certainly encourage others to be Christians and die for you! You’re not stupid, are you? It’s every man for himself in this world… the only world, of course…

Of course I would. If someone attacks me, I defend myself. And the Catholic Church maintains that self defense is not immoral.

You have made it abundantly clear that the only evidence you will accept is something that is in **your **interests - regardless of whether it is observable … You’re not as stupid as those misguided, superstitious fools…

Nonsense. I am looking for observable, verifyable evidence. If you cannot provide it, it boils down to your word. And your word is just not enough.

 

[R_Daneel]

verifiability is self refuting, unless you were there you cant verify anything, you just have to trust what you have been told.

You certainly have no idea what you are talking about. At best you could say that the “verifyability” principle has an insuffient underpinning. But it is NOT self-refuting. You cannot “verify” that the “verifyablity principle” contradicts itself. That **would be **self-refuting. Don’t you even know what “self-refuting” is? Apparently not.

Messianic Prophecy

What prophecy? Did you already forget that you refused to even tell, what prophecy you mean? Not to mention to quote the verse it is supposed to have happened? Much less those verses, which supposedly “fulfilled” that prophecy? Not to mention the supporting evidence that it was correctly quoted? And the evidence that your unspecified prophecy was actually fulfilled? Come on, come out with the goods… don’t just repeat yourself…