Happy Easter

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - these stories are indistinguishable from fiction and can, therefore, be dismissed as being claims of historical fact.

Buzz argument from incredulity.

I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God  dodging behaviour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - these stories are indistinguishable from fiction and can, therefore, be dismissed as being claims of historical fact.

Buzz argument from incredulity.

I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God  dodging behaviour.

[Nearly Sane]

Buzz argument from incredulity.

I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God  dodging behaviour.

They are unfalsifiable. They are not claims investigatible within the historical method which is a subset of the scientific method. At this point is when I ask you for the 6th  7th  8th thousandth time for a method to do so, and for the 6th, 7th, 8th thousandth time you will runaway, not answer, or post drivel.

[Gordon]

Buzz argument from incredulity.

I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God  dodging behaviour.

Don't be silly, Vlad: as ever the burden of proof is with you guys, and if you can firm up the provenance of these anecdotal stories then please feel free - and remember to outline the method(s) you've used.

You can start by explaining on what basis these stories are distinguishable from fiction since without that, along with describing the methods you've employed, there is nothing of substance that could be falsified.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

A belief is not reality. What does it mean to be 'their reality'?

We’ve been through this before. Each of us has our own reality – and very often they overlap. Thus pretty much everyone has the reality that light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 mph. That’s not to say though that someone might not have his own reality that light actually travels at 4 mph and all we observe to the contrary is engineered to look that way by alien lizard people. Nor is it to say either by the way that one day there won’t be more accurate measuring devices that tell us that the previous calculation was wrong (or for that matter that alien lizard people won't make themselves known), so the common reality of most people now is mistaken.

That’s the thing about reality – it’s not an absolute (because of the risk of an unknown unknown that could change our minds) so in epistemological terms functional reality is beliefs that most people cohere around.

How could it be otherwise?           

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Buzz argument from incredulity.

That's not what the argument from incredulity entails, as has been explained to you many times before now.

I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.

Depends what you mean by "dismissal", but absence of evidence is usually a good ground for not accepting them. That's why you "dismiss" my claims about leprechauns. 

They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification.

Ah, your old burden of proof mistake again. I see you offering no falsification of leprechauns either. Now what? 

Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God  dodging behaviour.

Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring leprechaun-dodging behaviour.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

We’ve been through this before. Each of us has our own reality – and very often they overlap. Thus pretty much everyone has the reality that light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 mph. That’s not to say though that someone might not have his own reality that light actually travels at 4 mph and all we observe to the contrary is engineered to look that way by alien lizard people. Nor is it to say either by the way that one day there won’t be more accurate measuring devices that tell us that the previous calculation was wrong (or for that matter that alien lizard people won't make themselves known), so the common reality of most people now is mistaken.

That’s the thing about reality – it’s not an absolute (because of the risk of an unknown unknown that could change our minds) so in epistemological terms functional reality is beliefs that most people cohere around.

How could it be otherwise?         

That's just gibberish. Each of us has our own experiences, to claim those as a 'reality' makes the idea of reality meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Depends what you mean by "dismissal", but absence of evidence is usually a good ground for not accepting them. That's why you "dismiss" my claims about leprechauns. 

I have shaken hands with dismissal of your claims about Leprechauns. We will have to see whether any body elses claims
About Leprechauns are as close to dismissable as yours.

[Nearly Sane]

I have shaken hands with dismissal of your claims about Leprechauns. We will have to see whether any body else claims
About Leprechauns are as close to dismissable as yours.

Drivel

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's just gibberish. Each of us has our own experiences, to claim those as a 'reality' makes the idea of reality meaningless.

No it isn't. Are you claiming to know "the" reality about something?

How so?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have shaken hands with dismissal of your claims about Leprechauns. We will have to see whether any body elses claims
About Leprechauns are as close to dismissable as yours.

What twisted attempt at a thought are you even trying to express here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel

Can you explain why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can you explain why?

Incoherence is drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, your old burden of proof mistake again. I see you offering no falsification of leprechauns either. Now what? 

I see you seem to be confusing burden of proof with falsification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's not what the argument from incredulity entails, as has been explained to you many times before now.

Depends what you mean by "dismissal", but absence of evidence is usually a good ground for not accepting them. That's why you "dismiss" my claims about leprechauns. 

Ah, your old burden of proof mistake again. I see you offering no falsification of leprechauns either. Now what? 

Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring leprechaun-dodging behaviour.

I thought I told you a while back I was agnostic about Leprechauns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see you seem to be confusing burden of proof with falsification.

No, you're confusing falsification with non-acceptance. I've explained to you the burden of proof countless times before but you've never once even tried to address your misunderstanding of it so I really cant see the point of correcting you on it yet again.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I thought I told you a while back I was agnostic about Leprechauns.

Whoosh!

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it isn't. Are you claiming to know "the" reality about something?

How so?

No, I am saying there is a reality. What are other 'realities'? What is someone's reality other than just their belief?

[Nearly Sane]

Can you explain why?

It is incoherent

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What is anyone’s reality except their belief? Some beliefs though better align than others with certain precepts like reason, so we call those beliefs “objective” and those that don’t “subjective”. How we’d know whether either mapped accurately to “reality” though is beyond me.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What is anyone’s reality except their belief? Some beliefs though better align than others with certain precepts like reason, so we call those beliefs “objective” and those that don’t “subjective”. How we’d know whether either mapped accurately to “reality” though is beyond me.

  Then you have just argued your 'reality' is worth only as much as any 'reality'. You don't really understand this stuff.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I’ve argued no such thing. There are functionally useful realities and functionally not useful realities, and the former are “worth” more than the latter.

I think it’s you who doesn’t understand this stuff - which surprises me by the way.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I’ve argued no such thing. There are functionally useful realities and functionally not useful realities, and the former are “worth” more than the latter.

I think it’s you who doesn’t understand this stuff - which surprises me by the way.

It surprises you because you are just that unable to understand. Reality in any sensible discussion is not just what different people believe because it makes the concept worthless as it can be contradictory. Get back to me when you want to deal with your logical contradictions 

[Spud]

I haven't read this page yet, but in response to page 2:

In my earlier post I mentioned the first fruits ritual in the temple on the day after the Sabbath of Passover. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 compares Jesus' resurrection with the first fruits of the harvest. Basically the first sheaf of barley to be cut was taken to the temple and presented to God. The barley started to ripen at this time in Israel. The harvest of the crops is one of those things about the natural world that points to a greater reality. It points to the resurrection of mankind in the future. Jesus' resurrection is like the first sheaf of barley to be harvested, pointing to the final judgment when all the dead will come to life.

Also the one year-old lambs eaten at Passover were born in the spring the year before. They pointed to the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.

The point being that the gospel is revealed in nature. 

[Owlswing]

Buzz argument from incredulity.

I think there are no grounds for the dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly, I can't see any qualification for rejection as a historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God-dodging behaviour.

Any more than you have proof positive that they ever happened!

Owlswing

)O(