A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In my post above I quoted the Bible to support my argument. I fully expect Fetchmyjunk to announce that I therefore am a Christian who believes that blasphemers must be stoned to death.

What argument were you trying to support?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What argument were you trying to support?

Does it matter? You claimed that context is irrelevant. You claimed that if I quote something in defence of an argument, then I automatically can be said to support what I quote and, in fact, can be said to have stated what was in the quote.
Is this not what you have said?
Are you contradicting yourself?
Have you changed your mind?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Does it matter? You claimed that context is irrelevant. You claimed that if I quote something in defence of an argument, then I automatically can be said to support what I quote and, in fact, can be said to have stated what was in the quote.
Is this not what you have said?
Are you contradicting yourself?
Have you changed your mind?

The source that you posted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact) says that a fact is

"a true piece of information".

You earlier said

"facts are not 'true'.

Logically it is not possible for a fact to be TRUE and NOT TRUE at the same time. Either you are wrong or your source is wrong. My money is on you. (Though you could both be wrong, but I believe the dictionary is right in this case. You can't both be right either because that would be a clear contradiction).

Originally posted by twhitehead
In my post above I quoted the Bible to support my argument. I fully expect Fetchmyjunk to announce that I therefore am a Christian who believes that blasphemers must be stoned to death.

And what I expect from you, and perhaps others too, is to always go back on any post you make with some kind of escape hatch rationalization that that post is misrepresentative of your thinking.

Did you say that you do not know where the universe came from ?
Can I hold you to that clear admition you made ?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The source that you posted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact) says that a fact is

"a true piece of information".

The Bibles says:

anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Do you believe this or not?

Either you are wrong or your source is wrong.
False dichotomy. The reality is that you are wrong because you are quoting the source out of context.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Bibles says:

anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Do you believe this or not?

[b]Either you are wrong or your source is wrong.
False dichotomy. The reality is that you are wrong because you are quoting the source out of context.[/b]

False dichotomy. The reality is that you are wrong because you are quoting the source out of context.

How am I quoting the source out of context? What would the right context be?

Originally posted by sonship
And what I expect from you, and perhaps others too, is to always go back on any post you make with some kind of escape hatch rationalization that that post is misrepresentative of your thinking.

Expect it all you like. But when you claim I have said something that is misrepresentative of my thinking, then it is usually because you claim I have said something I have not and it is, in fact, not in a post I have made but in your head.

For example, in this very thread you suggested that I had claimed that:
"the cosmic buck stops with an uncreated and eternal Being a greater than cannot be imagined" is lunacy.
I did no such thing. You made it up.

Did you say that you do not know where the universe came from ?
Yes.

Can I hold you to that clear admition you made ?
Yes. And it is hardly a new admission. I have made it many many times in the past as I am sure you are aware. If anything characterising it as 'an admission', when its not like I have ever claimed anything else is somewhat disingenuous on your part.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How am I quoting the source out of context? What would the right context be?

How many times must I tell you? Read the thread for the full context. But even within the quote itself, you are leaving out half the quote. At least have the honesty to admit that the dictionary definition I quoted does not, as you falsely claim, state that the word fact means only that one thing. It gives two different definitions. Now either you must be claiming that every dictionary in the world is self contradictory, or you must admit that more than one meaning per word can exist.

I am still waiting for you to respond to my Bible quote. Do you, or do you not plan to stone me for blasphemy? Its a simple yes no question. Why are you avoiding the question?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Expect it all you like. But when you claim I have said something that is misrepresentative of my thinking, then it is usually because you claim I have said something I have not and it is, in fact, not in a post I have made but in your head.

For example, in this very thread you suggested that I had claimed that:
"the cosmic buck stops with an uncreated ...[text shortened]... ion', when its not like I have ever claimed anything else is somewhat disingenuous on your part.

Expect it all you like.
------------------------------------

Okay.


But when you claim I have said something that is misrepresentative of my thinking, then it is usually because you claim I have said something I have not and it is, in fact, not in a post I have made but in your head.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It can occur and probably has before, that I misunderstood something you wrote.
I am not concerned with those instances.


For example,

I said it can occur. Examples of that are not really necessary.

Now I ask you if you are going to STICK by the statement that you do no know where the universe came from. You claimed you were being somewhat bullied into giving an answer.

You have no idea where the universe and its biosphere ultimately came from.
Is that still your position ?

in this very thread you suggested that I had claimed that:
"the cosmic buck stops with an uncreated and eternal Being a greater than cannot be imagined" is lunacy.
I did no such thing. You made it up.

I did not claim that YOUR opinion was MY opinion at ALL !

I said , I SAID that the cosmic buck stops with God. I did not say that that was YOUR concept.

Read my keyboard - I did not say that YOU thought or said that the cosmic buck stops with God an uncreated, eternal, Supreme Being, a greater than cannot be imagined.

Bad example.
But it is rather good example of a mistake in your reading comprehension.


Can I hold you to that clear admition you made ?


Yes. And it is hardly a new admission. I have made it many many times in the past as I am sure you are aware. If anything characterising it as 'an admission', when its not like I have ever claimed anything else is somewhat disingenuous on your part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disigenuous of me to say you admit that you do not know where the universe came from ? Ridiculous. I reject the accusation of disingenuous.

This is paranoia.

You should not be afraid that you will be forced to say latter something you will regret simply because i aid you admit you don't know where the universe came from.

For certain I don't know either as of first hand witness. I was not there. So we are on somewhat equal footing.

I don't have any hope of convincing you that God is the Creator. But let me ask you this. I think it is reasonable to ask.

IF SOMEONE ... were to TELL you that he did know where the universe came from, what are some of the characteristics of such a person you would consider important ?

That's all I want. If Some were to say that they knew where it came from and wished to reveal that fact to you, name me, say 10 character traits of such a person which would incline you to want to consider that you'd seriously consider their disclosure.

I would want to know if this were an intelligent person.
I would want to know if this were a good person.
I would want to know if this were an honest person.
I would want to know if this were a person who displayed extensive knowledge about things.
I would want to know if this were a person who possibly could have inside knowledge that I might not be able to have.
I would want to know this was not someone out to cheat me for some reason.
i would want to know that this was a faithful person.

These are some of the personality traits which would cause me to at least listen to his or her disclosure of this fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many times must I tell you? Read the thread for the full context. But even within the quote itself, you are leaving out half the quote. At least have the honesty to admit that the dictionary definition I quoted does not, as you falsely claim, state that the word fact means only that one thing. It gives two different definitions. Now either you must be ...[text shortened]... plan to stone me for blasphemy? Its a simple yes no question. Why are you avoiding the question?

So you are basically saying saying that a fact is TRUE in one context and NOT TRUE in another context?

Even if you do claim that I don't see any source that backs up your claim that a fact is NOT TRUE to start off with.

Originally posted by sonship
Now I ask you if you are going to STICK by the statement that you do no know where the universe came from.

I have clearly responded in the affirmative several times, and I have said it many times in the past. Yet you keep on asking it over and over.

You claimed you were being somewhat bullied into giving an answer. act.
No, I did not. As usual, you are making stuff up.
I did say I was not going to answer your 'fill in the blank' nonsense, nor was I going to explain to you where the universe came from when I had already clearly stated that I did not know.

You have no idea where the universe and its biosphere ultimately came from.
Is that still your position ?
Are you having trouble processing it? How many times will you ask? Or will you change the wording slightly every time and then finally announce that I have said something I didn't? Why is 'biosphere' suddenly included? What relevance does it hold exactly?

I did not claim that YOUR opinion was MY opinion at ALL !
You are having trouble with reading comprehension I see. Read my post again more carefully taking note of things like quotation marks and stuff. (also known as punctuation)

I said , I SAID that the cosmic buck stops with God. I did not say that that was YOUR concept.
Why did you say it was not lunacy, in response to something different that I said was lunacy? Clearly you wished to imply that I had called that lunacy - when I did no such thing.

Read my keyboard - I did not say that YOU thought or said that the cosmic buck stops with God an uncreated, eternal, Supreme Being, a greater than cannot be imagined.
READ MY KEYBOARD - I never said nor suggested that you had said any such thing. Here you are again LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH and deliberately and MALICIOUSLY misrepresenting my post.

Can I hold you to that clear admition you made ?
How many times must you ask that?
And when will you learn to spell admission?

Disigenuous of me to say you admit that you do not know where the universe came from ? Ridiculous. I reject the accusation of disingenuous.
So until very recently you believed that I had a religious belief about were the universe came from, but you never bother to ask? What, pray tell, did you think my belief on the subject was?

IF SOMEONE ... were to TELL you that he did know where the universe came from, what are some of the characteristics of such a person you would consider important ?
Nothing. I don't take such information on authority alone. I would only believe such a person if he could explain where he got that information and provide evidence that the information is valid. I really don't care what characteristics he had. I am more likely to actually sit down and listen to his explanations if he is reasonably sensible and honest.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I have clearly responded in the affirmative several times, and I have said it many times in the past. Yet you keep on asking it over and over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And over and over you insist that whatever the cause it could not be God.


You claimed you were being somewhat bullied into giving an answer. act.
No, I did not. As usual, you are making stuff up.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Yea, yea. Get to the beef of the matter.


I did say I was not going to answer your 'fill in the blank' nonsense, nor was I going to explain to you where the universe came from when I had already clearly stated that I did not know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can do the same thing to me.

"Man, how did God make the very first living organism ?? "
Can't you use the same approach ?


You have no idea where the universe and its biosphere ultimately came from.
Is that still your position ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do have some idea.


Are you having trouble processing it?
-------------------------------------------------

Yea. Because I admit that what I have is a faith.

Do you have trouble processing that faith may in fact point to truth ?


How many times will you ask? Or will you change the wording slightly every time and then finally announce that I have said something I didn't? Why is 'biosphere' suddenly included? What relevance does it hold exactly?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I may not remember the previous wording, i am likely to re-word it.
And the biosphere was included because it is wonderfully designed apparently.

You see, unlike you, I do not yawn at the concept of fine tuning of the universe for life.
You probably have to express skepticism about that fine tuning. For the Atheist the biosphere is, oh I don't know - illusion? poor rationality? superstition? bad reading comprehension?

Whatever you choose today, I am pretty certain that you will argue against any evidence of exquisite calibration of the universe to support life, at least in our little known corner of it.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I haven't checked all posts yet. Was it you that has the few family members who are Christians and higher degreed ? Was I a little right about that ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Nothing. I don't take such information on authority alone. I would only believe such a person if he could explain where he got that information and provide evidence that the information is valid. I really don't care what characteristics he had. I am more likely to actually sit down and listen to his explanations if he is reasonably sensible and honest.

So let's play it your way. I did not say take it on authority alone.

Do you have a quote that I said "on authority ALONE"?

Disingenuous.
I demand an apology.

I really don't care what characteristics he had. I am more likely to actually sit down and listen to his explanations if he is reasonably sensible and honest.

Have you ever in your life been cheated ?

Have you ever in your life been cheated by someone who offered you persuasive reasons ?

I would listen also for integrity, faithfulness, whether vested self interest was the only motive and whether trustworthiness was a trait of the person.

The pure mechanics of the matter is not enough. The nobility and character of the one assisting me to understand is important.

Originally posted by sonship
The nobility and character of the one assisting me to understand is important.

I see you are explaining why you can never be a successful preacher.