There is no health in us.

[Alien]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

Well give us the proof...

The people who claim incredible things to be true and factual, as you appear to do, when one can decipher your wordy not very intelligible posts, are the ones who have to provide the proof!

Incredible in whose eyes?

[Nearly Sane]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

Well give us the proof...

The people who claim incredible things to be true and factual, as you appear to do, when one can decipher your wordy not very intelligible posts, are the ones who have to provide the proof!

Incredible in whose eyes?

Isn't the incredible bit the point? If the gospel told about Jesus feeding the 5 with 12 loaves and two fish, or walking on a  piece of particularly bumpy ground, or rising from his bed, there really wouldn't be much to notice

[Alien]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

Well give us the proof...

The people who claim incredible things to be true and factual, as you appear to do, when one can decipher your wordy not very intelligible posts, are the ones who have to provide the proof!

Incredible in whose eyes?

Isn't the incredible bit the point? If the gospel told about Jesus feeding the 5 with 12 loaves and two fish, or walking on a  piece of particularly bumpy ground, or rising from his bed, there really wouldn't be much to notice

Agreed. So what?

[Nearly Sane]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

Well give us the proof...

The people who claim incredible things to be true and factual, as you appear to do, when one can decipher your wordy not very intelligible posts, are the ones who have to provide the proof!

Incredible in whose eyes?

Isn't the incredible bit the point? If the gospel told about Jesus feeding the 5 with 12 loaves and two fish, or walking on a  piece of particularly bumpy ground, or rising from his bed, there really wouldn't be much to notice

Agreed. So what?

So therefore, incredible in 'whose eyes'?, as you asked makes no sense. If Floo says the statements are  incredible which it is in her opinion,and you want to challenge that opinion as you did with the 'in whose eyes', then accepting that the very point of the myths are that they are incredible, defeats the initial challenge and makes it meaningless

[Alien]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

Well give us the proof...

The people who claim incredible things to be true and factual, as you appear to do, when one can decipher your wordy not very intelligible posts, are the ones who have to provide the proof!

Incredible in whose eyes?

Isn't the incredible bit the point? If the gospel told about Jesus feeding the 5 with 12 loaves and two fish, or walking on a  piece of particularly bumpy ground, or rising from his bed, there really wouldn't be much to notice

Agreed. So what?

So therefore, incredoble in 'whose eyes'?, as you asked makes no sense. if Floo says the studio's incredible which it is in her opinion,and you want to challenge that opinion as you did with the 'in whose eyes', then accepting that the very point of the myths histone incredoble, defeats the initial challenge and makes it meaningless

What's that in English/Scottish?

[Nearly Sane]

Predictive text mangling corrected

[Alien]

...

So therefore, incredible in 'whose eyes'?, as you asked makes no sense. If Floo says the statements are  incredible which it is in her opinion,and you want to challenge that opinion as you did with the 'in whose eyes', then accepting that the very point of the myths are that they are incredible, defeats the initial challenge and makes it meaningless

I'm still not sure I understand your point. What significance should I or anyone else attach to Floo's statement that they are incredible to her? There are various reasons why she might find them incredible, e.g.

1) She might be a good judge of what is possible and what is not and they are in fact not possible.
2) She might be a poor judge of what is possible and what is not and they are in fact possible.

That plenty of people think God's exists and that the things described in the bible are true means they are credible, at least by some people. Therefore, they are not incredible per se.

[Nearly Sane]

The point of miracles is that they are incredible - you have already accepted that. Saying 'incredible to whom' is therefore meaningless. You have already accepted that what floo finds incredible, you think is incredible. 

[wigginhall]

Yes, Alan seems to be abolishing the actual meaning of 'miracle'.   

[Alien]

The point of miracles is that they are incredible - you have already accepted that. Saying 'incredible to whom' is therefore meaningless. You have already accepted that what floo finds incredible, you think is incredible.

No, I have not accepted that. According to the OED, incredible means:

1) Impossible to believe:
2) Difficult to believe; extraordinary:

Clearly miracles are not impossible to believe, because some people do believe they happen/have happened. Since some people believe in them they are thus not impossible to believe, unless, Floo means she finds it impossible for her to believe, in which case, so what? That was why I asked "in whose eyes" Floo thinks they are incredible.

As for the second OED meaning, again, "difficult to believe" is very subjective. Some people find it difficult to believe that animals have evolved, etc., yet neither you nor I would claim that biological evolution is in this sense "incredible".

My basic point is that Floo is saying that she doesn't believe certain things because she can't believe certain things. Again, so what?

[Alien]

Yes, Alan seems to be abolishing the actual meaning of 'miracle'.

Nope. Please read what I wrote. Where have I "abolished the actual meaning of miracle"?

[Nearly Sane]

So when I asked 'isn' t the incredible bit the point?' and in reply 155 you agreed, what were you saying? If miracles are not incredible, then surely they are not miracles, just unusual

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and by the way, I would be interested in something that was impossible to believe by anyone?

[Alien]

So when I asked 'isn' t the incredible bit the point?' and in reply 155 you agreed, what were you saying? If miracles are not incredible, then surely they are not miracles, just unusual

Yes, sorry. That was a bad reply by me back there. Sorry for mucking you around.

[Alien]

Oh and by the way, I would be interested in something that was impossible to believe by anyone?

Agreed , but that is part of my point. Floo's replies (on this point) don't actually contribute anything to the discussion (though in other areas she does).

[Andy]

Incredible is hyperbole. Who doesn't use it when describing something we find amazing etc? To start taking it as being used literally is to take the piss.

[floo]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

[Alien]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and by the way, I would be interested in something that was impossible to believe by anyone?

Agreed , but that is part of my point. Floo's replies (on this point) don't actually contribute anything to the discussion (though in other areas she does).

But that then means you have quoted a definition and used it which you think is unusable and meaningless to challenge Floo

[wigginhall]

Yes, Alan seems to be abolishing the actual meaning of 'miracle'.

Nope. Please read what I wrote. Where have I "abolished the actual meaning of miracle"?

Well, you said that they are not incredible per se.  I'm not sure what the 'per se' means there.  Miracles per se are not incredible?  I don't understand that.

[Nearly Sane]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

This makes the challenge even worse, since this means that if anyone believes anything, anyone who says it is not credibie, just has to accept that for someone somewhere it is. This means if I find someone who finds it credibie that Jesus is a voodoo doll that was vomited up by a mole, you will just have to nod and say 'if someone believes it, then it is credibie'

[wigginhall]

The weird thing is that Alan seems to be proposing utter relativism.   Thus, someone may find something credible, so then - what?  I don't see where this is going, except that (again) there seem to be no constraints left, since probably lots of mad things are believed by somebody, the obvious example being abduction by aliens. 

[Alien]

Oh and by the way, I would be interested in something that was impossible to believe by anyone?

Agreed , but that is part of my point. Floo's replies (on this point) don't actually contribute anything to the discussion (though in other areas she does).

But that then means you have quoted a definition and used it which you think is unusable and meaningless to challenge Floo

No. If Floo had said it was "less than credible in my eyes", it would have been clearer what she meant. At that point I would have asked, "So what?"

[Alien]

Yes, Alan seems to be abolishing the actual meaning of 'miracle'.

Nope. Please read what I wrote. Where have I "abolished the actual meaning of miracle"?

Well, you said that they are not incredible per se.  I'm not sure what the 'per se' means there.  Miracles per se are not incredible?  I don't understand that.

Fair enough. However, some of the confusion here may be due to my poor reply to #155.

[Alien]

I meant 'less than credible', rather than 'incredible', sorry about that.

You are OK on this, Floo. You have been saying "less than credible" rather than "incredible", but please answer. "Less than credible" in whose eyes? Yours? If so, then, to be blunt, so what? If you mean "less than credible" in other people's eyes as well, again, so what? Why is it less than credible in their eyes?

This makes the challenge even worse, since this means that if anyone believes anything, anyone who says it is not credibie, just has to accept that for someone somewhere it is. This means if I find someone who finds it credibie that Jesus is a voodoo doll that was vomited up by a mole, you will just have to nod and say 'if someone believes it, then it is credibie'

It would be good if you got your predator taxis sorted out.

As I have mentioned above, if Floo had said, "It is less than credible in my (Floo's) eyes" it would have been a statement worth responding to.