Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[pocaracas]

Oh, dear.

Your own website source says this:

Perhaps your reading comprehension is failing?
"The vast majority of authentic casino chips are “clay” chips but can be more accurately described as compression molded chips. "

Those that aren’t… oh dear… cheap casinos…

 

[Bradski]

You who have traveled in a plane (or had a loved one travel in a plane) based on faith-alone that the pilot is actually licensed?

Having faith and having a reasonable expectation are not the same thing. You’ll need one for crossing a rope bridge in the Andes and another for crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

 

[pocaracas]

Really? You view him (or her?) as having high dignity?

How does that work then that you see her has having little value?

I don’t understand.

He struts around in a dignified way… yes.
But I don’t see much value in the man… didn’t vote for him.
Have you ever seen a retired person candidate for president? And when he became president, he had to choose which salary to earn: his retirement, or the president’s wager… he chose the retirement (which was a higher value)

 

[pocaracas]

The folks who weren’t preaching what the Apostles taught of course.

Which obviously happened “16 centuries later”, huh?

 

[pocaracas]

So it was true to the Nazis that Jews were inferior?

Is it true that the MMR vaccine causes autism to the anti-vaccine folks?

Is it true that the earth is 6000 years old?

Can you give an example of the last thing?

Well then all Christians are being truthful.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, what else can we discuss?

You are correct.

Well, then, the disciples and apostles were proclaiming the truth.

And now that’s taken care of, too!

Wait…what?

Yes, that… Which undermines all your retorts in this post…

 

[PRmerger]

The document is the bible (I assume you won’t need a link). It gives quite a reasonably accurate chronology

Ah.

It is curious to me that atheists and fundamentalists share the same reading of the Bible, and thereby completely miss the boat.

Wasn’t it Napoleon who said: scratch a Russian, find a Tatar.

I’ve also heard it said: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

Suffice it to say that the Catholic Church does not teach that the earth is 6000 years old.

Nor has it ever taught.

So still looking for that change in Catholic teaching, Brad.

 

[PRmerger]

He struts around in a dignified way… yes.

But you said you view him as having dignity.

So how can he have dignity and not value?

Now, we’re not talking about “in a dignified way”, because that actually means that you believe he’s acting dignified, but doesn’t really have dignity.

Is that what you mean?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps your reading comprehension is failing?

Careful, poca.

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned or suspended.

But insulting members is not permitted here.

"The vast majority of authentic casino chips are “clay” chips but can be more accurately described as compression molded chips. "

Those that aren’t… oh dear… cheap casinos…

You can change the goalposts, and now say that “vast majority” is what we were discussing.

But we weren’t.

We were talking about plastic coins being in casinos.

Clearly, your source says they are.

Casino tokens (also known as casino or gaming chips, checks, or cheques) are small discs used in lieu of currency in casinos. Colored metal, injection-molded plastic or compression molded clay tokens of various denominations are used primarily in table games, as opposed to metal token coins, used primarily in slot machines. Casino tokens are also widely used as play money in casual or tournament games.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_token

And, that means our Friendly Alien used them to determine that plastic coins are indeed NOT counterfeit.

Which, of course, is FAULTY reasoning.

Why?

Because…you need to have an actual TRUE canon by which to measure whether things are false.

So, since you have no idea what a God-made rule would sound like, stop declaring things to be counterfeit.

It’s foolish and inane.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t find it… Not that I put too much time into it… but ok, I concede the main teachings have remained the same…

 

[Bradski]

It is curious to me that atheists and fundamentalists share the same reading of the Bible, and thereby completely miss the boat.

So still looking for that change in Catholic teaching, Brad.

My reading of the bible is about as far from fundamentalism as one could possibly get.

And the change in teaching has already been explained. That the church at one time taught that scripture was without fault. And one can use the age of the earth as an example. Using the chronology of the bible (which was said to be without fault) the age is 6,000 years.

The church used to teach that we should trust in what scripture told us. That is quite undeniable. Now it has changed and says we should trust in what science tells us. Equally undeniable.

This is the point where the young Bradski entered the picture. As a child, he accepted everything that he was told. But as he understood more about how the world actually worked he realised that, hey, that bit about Adam and Eve/global flood/tower of Babel/parting seas and burning bushes insn’t actually true.

I had been in the same position as early Catholics. What was written was true, simply because I (and they) knew no better. This is what we had been taught and we accepted it.

And it’s only natural, from believing it all to be true to knowing that some of it isn’t, to think, hang on, how much of this can we actually trust?

If you then end up talking to honest Catholics and they use weak arguments such as: ‘there was a list of 500 people who saw him’ and ‘people don’t die for a lie’ and ignore basic human psychology (people exaggerate, say what people want to hear, refute what they don’t want to hear, misinterpret stories and, let’s be fair, outright lie), then it only justifies the skepticism.

Lots of poor arguments don’t add to the veracity of any given claim. They actually chip away at it.

 

[rcwitness]

Using the chronology of the bible (which was said to be without fault) the age is 6,000 years.

Are you assuming six days were literally six rotations of the earth?

And do you believe knowledge about the age of the earth will help you have peace with the Giver of Life?

 

[PRmerger]

My reading of the bible is about as far from fundamentalism as one could possibly get.

I would think so.

Except that every time you quote the Bible you do it with the same reading that Fundamentalists do.

I wonder why this is.

And the change in teaching has already been explained. That the church at one time taught that scripture was without fault.

Indeed.

And now you need to find a teaching in the nonce that has the Church declaring that Scripture is with fault.

And one can use the age of the earth as an example. Using the chronology of the bible (which was said to be without fault) the age is 6,000 years.

Perhaps if you could cite the Church teaching that says we use the chronology of the Bible to determine the earth’s age, that would be helpful.

You should look here:
vatican.va
and in the Catechism.

The church used to teach that we should trust in what scripture told us. That is quite undeniable. Now it has changed and says we should trust in what science tells us. Equally undeniable.

The Church says we do both.

It’s that pesky little both/and that makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.

So what you need to do is find a teaching from the Magisterium that says we should trust in what Scripture told us. And then find a teaching from the Magisterium that says we should NOT trust in what Scripture told us.

 

[PRmerger]

If you then end up talking to honest Catholics and they use weak arguments such as: ‘there was a list of 500 people who saw him’ and ‘people don’t die for a lie’

LOL!

You, my friend, were the one who asserted (and quite rightly so!) that people don’t die for a lie.

But it is plainly obvious that people will die for what they believe is true. Not for what they believe is a lie.

Also, you asserted something else which I want to re-visit.

Something about atheism being the default position for all the dumb people who don’t examine their belief system.

Do you really want to claim them for atheism?

Just wondering…

If you wish to retract that I promise I won’t crow and trash talk.

Right now, though, I keep wanting to bring it up because it’s so odd to want to claim these lumps for your side. “We get all the dumb dumbs who don’t know anything!”

 

[Bradski]

Are you assuming six days were literally six rotations of the earth?

Unless you assume that each day was about 790,000,000 years, then Genesis gets it wrong. If you do assume that, then it’s still 6,000 years from the first man to the present time. Unless those years aren’t each 365 orbits of the sun.

And do you believe knowledge about the age of the earth will help you have peace with the Giver of Life?

No. But it will help me differentiate between what is meant to be taken as fact and what isn’t. Could you tell me how you do it?

 

[PRmerger]

Unless you assume that each day was about 790,000,000 years, then Genesis gets it wrong. If you do assume that, then it’s still 6,000 years from the first man to the present time. Unless those years aren’t each 365 orbits of the sun.

“Your eyes are like pools of limpid water”.

How in the world can eyes be pools?

This is a pool:



And this is an eyeball:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Clearly whoever wrote that had no business writing an anatomy textbook.

Oh…

wait…

that wasn’t found in an anatomy textbook?

It was found in a love letter?

Oh.

#explainseverything!

 

[PRmerger]

No. But it will help me differentiate between what is meant to be taken as fact and what isn’t. Could you tell me how you do it?

Yeah.

You look to the Source which gave you this Book.

She’ll give you the lowdown.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Gorgias]

It was true to the Nazis.

OK – so, you’re calling ‘truth’ the false things that some people incorrectly believe to be true.

This is not what the Catholic Church means when it talks about ‘truth’. So, if you want to call it “personal opinion”, that’s cool; but, we’re not going to get very far in our discussion if you look at the Nazis and give their beliefs the label ‘truth’.

Somehow, I think you’re not getting the whole thing…

I think I’m calling things by different names than you are:

True statements can fall into different categories:

• Accurate description of reality

If you define ‘reality’, then this definition has a chance of working.

• As accurate as possible (within certain bounds) description of reality

This is your ‘Nazi’ example; given the latitude you’re allowing for ‘within certain bounds’, then you’re not talking about ‘truth’ – maybe about ‘personal opinion’, but not ‘truth’.

• Accurate description of events thought to have been real, even if they weren’t.

This might be a description that is thought to be true of an unreal event, but calling it ‘truth’ muddies the water.

Yes.
I assure you that a person is being truthful when she claims something about that which she believes.

But that’s different than saying that she is speaking the truth.

Certainly, hallucinations exist - people suffer from them and, often are unable to discern reality from hallucination. Any claim influenced by a hallucination is a truthful claim.
The person is not lying, hence she’s saying the truth.

No – the person is unknowingly speaking an untruth. Big difference.

I’d say that an individual’s or group’s truthful statement does not imply an accurate perspective of reality.

Getting closer, now.

Still, though, speaking an untruth – even unknowingly – does not make a statement ‘true’.

 

[rcwitness]

Unless you assume that each day was about 790,000,000 years, then Genesis gets it wrong. If you do assume that, then it’s still 6,000 years from the first man to the present time. Unless those years aren’t each 365 orbits of the sun.

I don’t assume the increments of time (6 days of God working, and resting on the 7th) were for the purpose of dating the earth.

No. But it will help me differentiate between what is meant to be taken as fact and what isn’t. Could you tell me how you do it?

I accept the Scripture as Divine Revelation about mankind’s relation to his creator and Father. I trust this, which has given me peace and joy, by submitting and co-operation with the person to whom it all points toward.

 

[Gorgias]

My reading of the bible is about as far from fundamentalism as one could possibly get.

:nope:

And the change in teaching has already been explained. That the church at one time taught that scripture was without fault.

Umm… the Church still teaches that the Bible is inerrant.

And one can use the age of the earth as an example. Using the chronology of the bible (which was said to be without fault) the age is 6,000 years.

The Church never taught that the Bible was a science book. Even as early as Augustine (ca. 4th century AD), we see the claim that we shouldn’t look at the Bible as if it’s teaching natural science. For your claim to hold, then, we really do need to assert a fundamentalist’s literalist interpretation of the Bible… which the Church does not teach.

The church used to teach that we should trust in what scripture told us. That is quite undeniable.

Psst… the Church still teaches us this.

Now it has changed and says we should trust in what science tells us. Equally undeniable.

Two thoughts: first, when the Church talks about science, it does not do so doctrinally – that is, the subject matter of doctrine and dogma is the realm of faith and morals, not the realm of science – so, a Church teaching on science is not something that applies to infallibility or unchangeability, by definition!

Second, if we presume that the Church teaches “trust in science”, it does not imply a change from the teaching “trust in Scripture”. The Church continues to teach “trust in Scripture”.

So, on two counts, your assertion of a ‘change’ fails here.

This is the point where the young Bradski entered the picture. As a child, he accepted everything that he was told. But as he understood more about how the world actually worked he realised that, hey, that bit about Adam and Eve/global flood/tower of Babel/parting seas and burning bushes insn’t actually true.

What a shame young Bradski drew an invalid conclusion.

Some of that stuff may not have been literal; but it is all ‘true’ – even if that truth is expressed in metaphor. Hopefully, there’s still a chance for old Bradski to realize his youthful conclusions were mistaken…

Lots of poor arguments don’t add to the veracity of any given claim. They actually chip away at it.

So, the truth of a proposition is dependent on the strength of the argument that a person makes for it? Wow…

Here’s a piece of advice for old Bradski, then: don’t watch any debates; you might reach really bad conclusions about what’s ‘true’…!

 

[PRmerger]

Having faith and having a reasonable expectation are not the same thing. You’ll need one for crossing a rope bridge in the Andes and another for crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

I think you might have the wrong idea about what faith is.

Faith, as we talk about it in this context, is nothing more than trust.

So we use Faith and Reason (that is, we have Trust in who has given us the kerygma) and we use our intellect.

Both help us to come to a deeper understanding of Reality.

Using only 1 means, when we have 2, is foolish.

But you use Faith (that is, Trust) as well.

As I’ve already demonstrated, you don’t rely on empirical data whenever you cross a bridge.

You simply have faith. You trust in the entities which built that bridge.

So I sure wish that you folks would stop talking about empiricism only when NO ONE. Not.A.Single.Person…

lives by empiricism only.

.