Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 08:42 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 07:56 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Secondly, this makes making sense of your OP rather hard.
Too hard to think logically? Why then the forum is called "the thinking atheist"? You could start to play sudoku. it is extremely complicated task! We can hardly add to the efficiency of your thinking process.

Because it's based off a brand/podcast/youtube channel label.

It has nothing to do with any mentality or thought process of any forum member or is any indicator of any real thought or mentality of any person here. To make any presumptions within a question of that type is just a sign of someone making queries into that, shows they do have a lacking knowledge about the case and may be a sign the person who came to a place with a loaded view to what they would proclaim to find. Another way to go around the world is to take things as they are.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 08:54 AM by cactus.)
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 08:42 AM)theBorg Wrote:  We can hardly add to the efficiency of your thinking process.

Who is "we"? Are you role playing as your screen name right now?
This thread is drying out my brain. Water you going to do about that, Borg?

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cactus's post
10-08-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 08:50 AM)cactus Wrote:  Who is "we"? Are you role playing as your screen name right now?
This thread is drying out my brain. Water you going to do about that, Borg?
You could consider the other Borg's posts in the "Science" section. The star track Borg were represented as evil. However in real life it is not the case. I am not isolated from the good company, not isolated from people. Therefore, we are the borg.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 07:49 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 06:32 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um..... what 'Proof'?
If I have no proof, then there is mistake in my proof. Because it is the proof in my opinion. Correct? Please reveal me this mistake.
...
Proof:
The uncertainty principle of Heisenberg admits the two ways of thinking:
A) electron has exact position, but there is no information on momentum, which the N. Bohr theory failed to provide.
B) electron has exact momentum, with no information on position.

I thought I already did. You premises are neither obvious nor indisputable. In fact, they are the gist of the debate. Therefore, regardless of the validity of your argument it is not worth dick because it is unsound. You grok soundness vs. validity, yes?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
10-08-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 09:14 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You premises are neither obvious nor indisputable.
Why? To our opinion: 1) the Science is not always so obvious, 2) the disputes are welcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 09:21 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 09:18 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 09:14 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You premises are neither obvious nor indisputable.
Why? To our opinion: 1) the Science is not always so obvious, 2) the disputes are welcome.

So apparently you do not grok the difference between soundness and validity. Arguments require indisputable premises which everyone stipulates to or they are unsound. Their validity is irrelevant without sound premises. This is Logic 101 which apparently you have not yet taken.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 09:21 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
At work.

Thanks GirlyMan. I didn't realize quote mixing had chopped off a bit of B's rely. Doesn't make said post have more meaning though. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 09:21 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So apparently you do not grok the difference between soundness and validity. Arguments require indisputable premises which everyone stipulates to or they are unsound. Their validity is irrelevant without sound premises. This is Logic 101 which apparently you have not yet taken.
These are at best the common facts from the theory of making a proof. How my case is linked to it? What premises I have? Your wise-looking tactic is to copy and paste a wise text from text-book with unsupported saying "therefore, your proof is not the proof." This way you failed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 11:37 AM
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
At work.

Again 'B'.

As I suggested to another poster who seems to have problems with the English language.

Take things slowly. Look for feed back and questions etc and we'll work through to understanding each other.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:22 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 12:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Can Biblical Realism be proved the secular way?
(10-08-2016 11:30 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 09:21 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So apparently you do not grok the difference between soundness and validity. Arguments require indisputable premises which everyone stipulates to or they are unsound. Their validity is irrelevant without sound premises. This is Logic 101 which apparently you have not yet taken.
These are at best the common facts from the theory of making a proof. How my case is linked to it? What premises I have? Your wise-looking tactic is to copy and paste a wise text from text-book with unsupported saying "therefore, your proof is not the proof." This way you failed.

You have now exposed yourself as having no clue what the fuck a premise even is. Or even a fucking argument for that matter. You are logically impaired. But please keep pretending you know what you're talking about because it amuses me.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: