Jump to content

Mr. P on the resurrection


Guest Truth Squad

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's your argument? No one can live that way. When a person says "this doesn't happen," 10^16 is more than good enough.

Conversationally, yes. But not in dealing with a proposed counterexample. Your argument could qualify as a fallacy of equivocation.

We have to choose what to believe and how to conduct ourselves. In science, all truths are provisional. In life there are no guarantees.

Exactly. That is why it is unscientific to "guarantee" that coming back to life after three days doesn't happen. LaSquid is the one selling the guarantee in the name of science. You've taken note of the blunder but failed to credit it to the correct source.

Any sane person takes 10^16 (ten quadrillion) 24/7 - about anything.

Guaranteed?

Make up your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of us is much for the kind of "philosophy" you seem to enamored of. You want absolute guarantees.

You could make some minimalistic attempt not to lie.

LaSquid is offering a guarantee based on premises that support probability. I'm simply noting the incongruity that LaSquid ignores.

There are no such things. It's all in your mind.

Can you give an example of an absolute guarantee that is in my mind?

If not, I can suggest one that is in LaSquid's mind.

10,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 is not good enough for you, at least not if it's something you do not wish to believe.

I have a problem with thinking that 10 quadrillion to one offers a guarantee. Apparently you agree but you do not wish to give up your belief that coming back from the dead is impossible. So are you unintentionally ironic or what?

If you want to believe it - weeeeellllll, that's another matter.

I'm simply dealing with the argument as it was given. It is a fallacious argument. Apparently you don't want to believe it even though you have implicitly agreed with my analysis. What does that say about you?

Declining to believe in a god who does not love us is not an appeal to outrage. It's a recognition that such a belief (1) is unsupported, (2) serves no purpose and (3) is harmful to the person who believes it and others.

What I do know is enough about Love and compassion to know that if the God you claim exists, really existed, he would surely prefer to reveal himself in the flesh than to allow me, one of his precious children to suffer forever.

Plainly the above is a suggestion that it would be outrageous for the "God (I) claim exists" to allow a Squid to suffer.

As I've already noted (and you've chosen to ignore), it is possible to take that type of argument and present it formally. Presenting it as above in the form of an emotionally wrought conclusion without the benefit of valid construction is a fallacious appeal to outrage.

The pattern of response from your side is both pathetic and illuminating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is incorrect.

Oh? Why is it incorrect?

The odds of winning the Mega lottery are probabilistic.

True. What does that have to do with what I said? On what basis do you claim it was incorrect?

The observation that dead people do not return to life after being dead for several days is scientific (living tissues undergo several processes over the course of several days, certainly in a climate like the Middle East in springtime, that are incompatible with life) and empirical (it hasn't been observed even once).

That depends on what you mean by "(t)he ohbservation that dead people do not return to life after being dead for several days." If you mean it probabilistically (as a scientific description of a given set of data), then you're stating it accurately. If you mean it as an absolute (does not and cannot happen) then you don't understand the scientific method.

It makes no sense to argue for 1/10^16 for something that has never been observed.

That wasn't my argument. But thanks for the straw man fallacy. It keeps your team's streak of fallacies alive.

10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life

0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely)

Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84366

Shall I expect your apology never?

Maybe he finally became embarrassed being backed into so many corners. However it happened, Bryan’s argument is finally clear. Nearly everything he has written since he joined here can be understood as follows.

If he wants to believe something, a one in ten quadrillion possibility of its occurrence is sufficient. If he does not want to believe in something, a ten quadrillion to one certainty of its occurrence is not sufficient.

Since there is a greater likelihood of misperception than that (about anything!), in practical terms, Bryan’s world is reduced to whatever he has chosen to believe. He calls this “philosophy.”

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

:lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

Ha ha ha. Guest is so clever to ridicule a straw man while claiming that it sums up all of my arguments.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the question would be: Can you produce and argument for the resurrection while avoiding logical fallacies?

Why is that the question, rather than "Can LaSquid produce and argument against the resurrection while avoiding logical fallacies?"?

Is it because you're eager to engage in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof?

Be warned: If you answer "no" it puts your team's streak in jeopardy (though maybe we could credit you with a red herring even if you don't want to go the burden shifting route).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...c.html#shifting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol.

The resurrection is only found in a myth,

Irrelevant, unless you mean "myth" as in something that did not really happen, in which case you're just duplicating the fallacy of begging the question.

p1 Jesus was supposedly resurrected

p2 Jesus' resurrection was a myth (=didn't happen)

Therefore

Jesus' resurrection didn't happen

That is exactly the form of the fallacy of begging the question.

and it defies physics to survive death in a conscious form.

How does it defy physics, supposedly? When did physics get around to quantifying consciousness?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is zero evidence that this is anymore than just a story.

The claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence seems like an extraordinary claim. What's the evidence for it, then?

Occam's razor says it's BS, whether you like it or not.

I doubt you'd know Occam's razor if it sliced you scalp off the top of your head. Run look it up at Wikipedia before your ignorance is exposed. Then try to explain your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HS student educates Bryan
Irrelevant, unless you mean "myth" as in something that did not really happen, in which case you're just duplicating the fallacy of begging the question.

p1 Jesus was supposedly resurrected

p2 Jesus' resurrection was a myth (=didn't happen)

Therefore

Jesus' resurrection didn't happen

That is exactly the form of the fallacy of begging the question.

Blah, blah, simple fact: it's just a story. People can't come back from the dead.

How does it defy physics, supposedly? When did physics get around to quantifying consciousness?

LOL, no brain activity = no consciousness (proof is seeing how conscious someone who is braindead and on life support is). When the body dies, the brain dies. Therefore, when the body dies, the consciousness is gone. QED.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the mechanism that preserves consciousness after death? :)

The claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence seems like an extraordinary claim.

That's because you're incredibly stupid.

I doubt you'd know Occam's razor if it sliced you scalp off the top of your head.

If it sliced me scalp? rofl

Run look it up at Wikipedia before your ignorance is exposed. Then try to explain your assertion.

Right after you explain how consciousness can survive death, fruitcake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life

0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely)

Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84366

0/10^16 cases (they're not tests) indicates a zero probability. Before you can invoke probability, you must establish possibility, which you do not do.

But let's play in your fantasy world for a few minutes. Four reasons were given why the Jesus myth is false. You’ve attempted to address only the first, and in so doing have admitted that the likelihood of a man returning to life after being dead for several days is 1 in 10 quadrillion. 6.5 billion people now inhabit the earth, most of whom lived within the last century or so. Even if we assume, far too generously, that 100 billion people have lived throughout the course of history, that would mean that if there were 100,000 earth-histories, one person would have arisen from the dead on one of them. So even if we accept your argument, the likelihood of it ever having happened here is on the order of 1 in 100,000.

So let me ask you, Bryan: Why do you believe something when even you assess the likelihood of its being true as 1 in 100,000, at best? Looking at coin from the other side, why do you reject the conclusion that you say will be right 99,999 times out of 100,000?

And that doesn’t even account for the obvious moral problems contained in the other three points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Abner

Uncle Wilber never smelt good anyhow. He lived all by hisself in that little shack down the road ever since his pappy kicked him out when he were about nineteen. It gits right lonesome out in the country, and sometimes a boy – well, we ain’t gotta get inta that.

Anyhow, Wilber was a big feller and kinda round. He liked to eat them greasy pork rinds. Sometime’ we figger them’s all he et. And he weren’t partial to water neither. We was used to smells in the country, but when city folk would come by, they didn’t much seem ta wanna stop by Uncle Wilber’s place. But I liked him just the same, he were just about my fav’rit.

One day some of our cousins come by from the city, so a few of us went on down for a visit. Uncle Wilber were sittin’ in his fav’rit chair. He had part of a pork rind sittin’ on his chest, and at first we figgered he was a-sleepin’. But then we noticed that his eyes was wide and starin’ like, and his skin was blue and he warn’t breathin’. We figgered sure he was daid, but my cousin Bryan said we couldn’t be sure. He said somethin’ about Wilber were probably daid, but maybe there was a 1 in 10^16 chance he were alive.

None of us ever understood half a’ what Bryan said. Like I say, he were from the city and he liked to use them fancy words. But he seemed pretty sure of hisself, so we just figgered he musta knowed what he was talkin’ about.

When somebody die, most folk put ‘em in a box, dig a hole, put ‘em in the hole and cover the hole over with dirt. After cousin Bryan said Wilber might not be daid, we figgered we had to give him a chance ta wake up. So we locked up his place and let him set there. We figgered if he were gonna wake up the best place ta do it would be in his fav’rit chair, and he warn’t botherin’ nobody long as they don't come in.

I come by ta check on Wilber ever’ day that week. The first few days nothin’ seemed ta change, ‘cep’ on top of all the old smells that was always in his place, a new smell seemed to be a-growin’. It warn’t too pleasin’ but you could stand it them first couple-a days. Fourth day, that smell were overpowerin’, even in Wilber’s place. It were kinda like a whole bunch-a giant stinkweeds overtook an oat field. We wrote my cousin Bryan to ask if we could be sure Wilber were daid yet, and after a couple weeks he wrote back and said we still couldn’t be 100% sure. So let him a-set thar.

That summer I would go by ever’ few days to see if old Wilber were a-stirrin’. After a few weeks that powerful stink went down some, but Wilber weren’t lookin’ no better. In fact, he seemed to be losin’ weight. His cheeks was kinda hollow and his clothes was fittin’ loose. After a few months, I come in one day and found he had moved, kinda slumped over to one side. I figgered maybe he had shifted ta make hisself more comfortabul, so I let him set there. He weren’t a hurtin’ nobody and the smell seemed to keep the prowlers away most a’ the summer, and the critters too.

Wilber never did wake up. By next summer, when cousin Bryan and his family come by for another visit, Uncle Wilber weren’t nothin’ but bones, still sittin’ there in his fav’rit chair. We asked cousin Bryan if we could be sure he were daid yet, and he said no, we still couldn’t be sure. That’s when some of the kin started thinkin’ maybe old cousin Bryan didn’t know so much as he let on.

But I wouldn’t do nothin’ different. I just couldn’t stand ta put old Wilber under the ground if there were a chance he might come back ta life. He warn’t hurtin’ nobody sittin’ there in his own place, and like I said, Uncle Wilber never smelt good anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
Why is that the question, rather than "Can LaSquid produce and argument against the resurrection while avoiding logical fallacies?"?

Is it because you're eager to engage in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof?

Be warned: If you answer "no" it puts your team's streak in jeopardy (though maybe we could credit you with a red herring even if you don't want to go the burden shifting route).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...c.html#shifting

Yes Bryan, I want to shift the burden of proof to you. I want you to provide insurmountable proof, fully documented, citated and footnoted that a ressurection has happend even once involving a human being.

I will not accept accounts of people who awoke after they were declared "clinically dead" because that is an enitirely different matter altogether because they were obvioulsy only thought to be dead.

Accusing me of engaging in fallacy won't make your task any less difficult. I'm sure that I speak for everyone here when I say that I certainly look forward to your presentation. Please resit the urge to use the terms "fallacy" "red herring" and "sock puppet" as those are wholly overused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, simple fact: it's just a story. People can't come back from the dead.

The fallacy of begging the question is extremely popular with you lot.

LOL, no brain activity = no consciousness (proof is seeing how conscious someone who is braindead and on life support is). When the body dies, the brain dies. Therefore, when the body dies, the consciousness is gone. QED.

You appear to have dodged the issue of quantifying consciousness in favor of relying on a relatively thin correspondence.

You must be another one of those who doesn't understand how science works. For people like you, Occam's razor slips from your benumbed fingers whenever its use turns inconvenient.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the mechanism that preserves consciousness after death? :lol:

Perhaps you'd like to explain why a mechanism is required without committing the fallacy of begging the question?

You'd really be educating me with that one. Why don't you give it a try?

That's because you're incredibly stupid.

Because I don't know how to commit logical fallacies as well as you do? Or is it something else?

If it sliced me scalp? rofl

That couldn't have been a typo.

Are you that desperate?

Right after you explain how consciousness can survive death, fruitcake.

Right after you tell me why Occam's razor doesn't rule out consciousness according to your epistemology, genius (you can't explain consciousness given life as a premise).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0/10^16 cases (they're not tests) indicates a zero probability.

No, it doesn't; at least not the way you probably mean it.

http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~duongt/mwe/zero/zero.html

Before you can invoke probability, you must establish possibility, which you do not do.

If I don't assume possibility then I'd be fallaciously begging the question as in the original argument.

How did you forget about that? Did you misplace your brain?

But let's play in your fantasy world for a few minutes. Four reasons were given why the Jesus myth is false. You’ve attempted to address only the first, and in so doing have admitted that the likelihood of a man returning to life after being dead for several days is 1 in 10 quadrillion. 6.5 billion people now inhabit the earth, most of whom lived within the last century or so.

That's pure baloney, since I was plucking numbers out of the air to use as an example. No matter how many uninterrupted deaths have been observed, it is less than the total number that have occurred. Only one exception is required in the case of Jesus.

Even if we assume, far too generously, that 100 billion people have lived throughout the course of history, that would mean that if there were 100,000 earth-histories, one person would have arisen from the dead on one of them. So even if we accept your argument, the likelihood of it ever having happened here is on the order of 1 in 100,000.

That's good enough for you when it comes to cosmology, isn't it? :lol:

So let me ask you, Bryan: Why do you believe something when even you assess the likelihood of its being true as 1 in 100,000, at best? Looking at coin from the other side, why do you reject the conclusion that you say will be right 99,999 times out of 100,000?

Straw man fallacy. Boring.

And that doesn’t even account for the obvious moral problems contained in the other three points.

The ones that you are too craven to organize into deductive syllogisms? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
I thought so. And apparently it's perfectly fine with you if the converse argument is rife with fallacies.

Semper Fi. Marines.com

Can you or can you not offer any definitive proof that a ressurection has ever happed in all of mankind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you or can you not offer any definitive proof that a ressurection has ever happed in all of mankind?

No, I can't, because there's no such thing as a definitive proof of any temporal occurrence.

It's like you're not even embarrassed about obviously trying to shift the burden of proof, Keith. The argument that started this thread has been shown a fraud. So you show up to save the day by making an irrelevant point.

Congratulations. Semper Fi. Marines.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
No, I can't, because there's no such thing as a definitive proof of any temporal occurrence.

It's like you're not even embarrassed about obviously trying to shift the burden of proof, Keith. The argument that started this thread has been shown a fraud. So you show up to save the day by making an irrelevant point.

Congratulations. Semper Fi. Marines.com

Actually it is very relevent, and yes as I stated before I did purposely shift the burden of proof because I wanted to see your proof of any ressurection. I'm still waiting by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Kyle*

I hope all of you continuing to argue over this can give it a rest. Bryan, we get it. You were Mr. P's altar boy growing up. The rest of you have to realize what you're arguing about at this point. The existence of God. I mean, are you kidding me? People will be arguing about this 100 years from now... in the same exact terms, because there will be no knew evidence to prove God by then and the religious folk will cling to their same wacky claims. I try to believe in something, but I know there's no proof for it. And how dare somebody insult my intelligence by telling me a man can rise from the dead. Jesus clearly told some other bearded fella, "yo, i'ma die tomorrow. here's all my gold and shit, just walk out of this cave on sunday, say you're me and be all philosophical and shit. Thanks, g." When it comes to Mr. P, do all of you know him personally? Or have any of you dealt with him first hand? I delivered him food one time and he yelled at me for posting something on facebook about him. This was during the height of the whole fiasco. I quoted him and he tried to tell me I was a liar. IT was something he knew he said about abortion and here he is calling me a liar. IT's just me and him too. It's like 2 people farted in the elevator and both trying to say "wasn't me." What the f**k is the point? The guy who didn't fart totally knows it was you. What are you trying to change my mind for? The guy is ***** is my point. And he does talk about God in class too much. And anybody who isn't a Christian shares this opinion with me. The tohers (Christians) just lie so they can keep their bible bumper in our public school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Can you or can you not offer any definitive proof that a ressurection has ever happed in all of mankind?

You must've missed the bulletin, if Bryan says something it's fact, verified by him, just ask, he'll tell you so.

A legend in his own mind...........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad
I hope all of you continuing to argue over this can give it a rest. Bryan, we get it. You were Mr. P's altar boy growing up. The rest of you have to realize what you're arguing about at this point. The existence of God. I mean, are you kidding me? People will be arguing about this 100 years from now... in the same exact terms, because there will be no knew evidence to prove God by then and the religious folk will cling to their same wacky claims. I try to believe in something, but I know there's no proof for it. And how dare somebody insult my intelligence by telling me a man can rise from the dead. Jesus clearly told some other bearded fella, "yo, i'ma die tomorrow. here's all my gold and shit, just walk out of this cave on sunday, say you're me and be all philosophical and shit. Thanks, g." When it comes to Mr. P, do all of you know him personally? Or have any of you dealt with him first hand? I delivered him food one time and he yelled at me for posting something on facebook about him. This was during the height of the whole fiasco. I quoted him and he tried to tell me I was a liar. IT was something he knew he said about abortion and here he is calling me a liar. IT's just me and him too. It's like 2 people farted in the elevator and both trying to say "wasn't me." What the f**k is the point? The guy who didn't fart totally knows it was you. What are you trying to change my mind for? The guy is ***** is my point. And he does talk about God in class too much. And anybody who isn't a Christian shares this opinion with me. The tohers (Christians) just lie so they can keep their bible bumper in our public school.

Kyle, I appreciate your points, but this is not just about Mr. P. He unwittingly made himself a symbol of overzealous proselytizers. There is a growing movement to oppose what he does, and none too soon because the religious right thinks it has the right to destroy the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy - rule by their religion.

That's why this discussion keeps going, at least from our side. So if you value your right to think for yourself, as you seem to do, join us. It's a very big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope all of you continuing to argue over this can give it a rest. Bryan, we get it. You were Mr. P's altar boy growing up.

Nice try, but I've never been to New Jersey and I've never served as a altar boy (that's rather rare in Southern Baptist churches anyway).

You're just another loser who won't admit that the argument in the OP was a stinker.

The rest of you have to realize what you're arguing about at this point. The existence of God. I mean, are you kidding me? People will be arguing about this 100 years from now... in the same exact terms, because there will be no knew evidence to prove God by then and the religious folk will cling to their same wacky claims. I try to believe in something, but I know there's no proof for it. And how dare somebody insult my intelligence by telling me a man can rise from the dead.

Why would that insult your intelligence? Are you waiting for a scientist to tell you that it happens before you'll believe it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Nice try, but I've never been to New Jersey and I've never served as a altar boy (that's rather rare in Southern Baptist churches anyway).

You're just another loser who won't admit that the argument in the OP was a stinker.

You make this many posts on a local forum from another state and you're calling people losers? Riiiiiiight-project much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make this many posts on a local forum from another state and you're calling people losers? Riiiiiiight-project much?

It may surprise you to learn that the "local forum" is published pretty much across the globe on the World Wide Web.

If the forum is so terrible that no self-respecting non-local could possibly take an interest then what does that say about your involvement, BTW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyle, I appreciate your points, but this is not just about Mr. P. He unwittingly made himself a symbol of overzealous proselytizers.

The LaClairs did that, chiefly via misrepresentation. The LaClairs have likewise made themselves symbolic of overzealous proselytizers.

There is a growing movement to oppose what he does, and none too soon because the religious right thinks it has the right to destroy the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy - rule by their religion.

Case in point.

That's why this discussion keeps going, at least from our side. So if you value your right to think for yourself, as you seem to do, join us. It's a very big deal.

Call:

You've got to think for yourselves!

Response:

We've got to think for ourselves.

It's a good time to revisit the fallacious arguments presented by the LaClairs and the sock puppet army. If that's what thinking for yourself is, is that really what you should be doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...