Intellectual Honesty from a Christian

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
One thing that is clear is that you don't seem to have the intellectual honesty to admit that your assertion was false. The lengths some will go in order to deny something never ceases to amaze me, though it does seem much more prevalent amongst Christains than non-Christians.

It also seems pretty clear that you're similarly determined to keep from ...[text shortened]... e keeping you from actually considering what I'm trying to tell you.[/b]

One thing that is clear is that you don't seem to have the intellectual honesty to admit that your assertion was false.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nonsense.

No, nonsense is dismissing a claim without any countervailing evidence or rationale.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No, nonsense is dismissing a claim without any countervailing evidence or rationale.

I see no need to provide evidence against nonsense. Common sense should suffice. HalleluYah!!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I see no need to provide evidence against nonsense. Common sense should suffice. HalleluYah!!!

Well, let's hear it. Don't just interrupt the conversation. What's your common sense objection to my post?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Well, let's hear it. Don't just interrupt the conversation. What's your common sense objection to my post?

You can post all you want. I have no objection to that. I was just pointing out
that the imaginations of someone believing in a lost document "Q" that all the
new testament was created from is "nonsense" and has no basis in common sense
logic. 😏

Correction: "that the Gospels were create from"

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can post all you want. I have no objection to that. I was just pointing out
that the imaginations of someone believing in a lost document "Q" that all the
new testament was created from is "nonsense" and has no basis in common sense
logic. 😏

Correction: "that the Gospels were create from"

First, the Q document is purported to be the source for Christ's sayings - just the quotations - specifically for Matthew and Luke, not the entire New Testament. Second, declaring the existence of a Q source "nonsense" without providing good reason to believe it is nonsense, is mere opinion. Opinions aren't arguments and carry no weight unless you are an expert in the field, which you are not. Unless you have a reason for your dissent, I can only assume you're interrupting because you need some attention. My daughter does the same thing when I'm trying to talk on the phone...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
First, the Q document is purported to be the source for Christ's sayings - just the quotations - specifically for Matthew and Luke, not the entire New Testament. Second, declaring the existence of a Q source "nonsense" without providing good reason to believe it is nonsense, is mere opinion. Opinions aren't arguments and carry no weight unless you are ...[text shortened]... d some attention. My daughter does the same thing when I'm trying to talk on the phone...

Even if there ever was a source containing just Christ's sayings, it would still be
mere opinion to declare any of the Gospels were created around these sayings.
Luke even claimed to have verified what he wrote. Even the opinion of a so-called
expert can sometimes be "nonsense" so I suggest to you not to accept everything
someone says just because he claims to be an expert or has a PHD in front of
his name. I need solid evidence for a claim like this and there is none. So there
is no reason to refute it with evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if there ever was a source containing just Christ's sayings, it would still be
mere opinion to declare any of the Gospels were created around these sayings.
Luke even claimed to have verified what he wrote. Even the opinion of a so-called
expert can sometimes be "nonsense" so I suggest to you not to accept everything
someone says just because he cl ...[text shortened]... for a claim like this and there is none. So there
is no reason to refute it with evidence.

Even if there ever was a source containing just Christ's sayings, it would still be
mere opinion to declare any of the Gospels were created around these sayings.

As long as you have premises backing up your conclusion, then it is no longer merely an opinion.

I need solid evidence for a claim like this and there is none. So there
is no reason to refute it with evidence.

Of course there is evidence: the synoptic Gospels. The reason the hypothetical Q source was proposed in the first place was due to an analysis of the sayings of Jesus found there. Q may or may not have existed, but even though it has not been proven to have existed, there are good reasons to believe that it did. So at the very least your claim that there is nothing to refute is false.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Even if there ever was a source containing just Christ's sayings, it would still be
mere opinion to declare any of the Gospels were created around these sayings.

As long as you have premises backing up your conclusion, then it is no longer merely an opinion.

I need solid evidence for a claim like this and there is none. So there
is no ...[text shortened]... believe that it did. So at the very least your claim that there is nothing to refute is false.

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.
In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

Do you see why I say to ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME?

Originally posted by RJHinds
A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.
In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

Do you see why I say to [b]ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME?[/b]

C'mon, RJ, you're not making any sense. Everything anyone says is always going to be based on an assumption. But if a conclusion is supported by premises, we can at least test whether those premises (1) are true and (2) logically support the conclusion.

The only way your assumptions could make an ass out of you would be if you decided not to challenge them. And it's awfully hard to challenge your assumptions if you refuse to state them (for example, by stating a mere opinion).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
C'mon, RJ, you're not making any sense. Everything anyone says is always going to be based on an assumption. But if a conclusion is supported by premises, we can at least test whether those premises (1) are true and (2) logically support the conclusion.

The only way your assumptions could make an ass out of you would be if you decided not to challen ...[text shortened]... llenge your assumptions if you refuse to state them (for example, by stating a mere opinion).

I don't know what assumptions I am making. I try not to do that. I was referring
to the assumptions, you call premises, made by those so-called experts.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know what assumptions I am making. I try not to do that. I was referring
to the assumptions, you call premises, made by those so-called experts.

You are a true ignoramus.

Let me explain to you.

A logical argument is one that given a premise (or set of premises) A is true.
And given a logically sound argument B.
Then conclusion C MUST be true as well.

The power of logic is that it allows you to prove that IF A THEN C.
Now if you can't prove that A is true (by rational or evidentiary means) then your argument
rests on the assumption that A is true and thus does not in of itself prove that C is actually true.

However if you CAN prove that your premise IS true then C MUST also be true.

In rationalism the point of having as accurate a world view as possible and holding as few false
beliefs as possible is so as to make sure that as many premises that you use as possible are
factually verified and not just assumed.


All logical arguments take the form of IF premise/s THEN conclusion/s.
So it is impossible to make a logical argument without premises.

However no illogical argument proves anything, (by definition).
Illogical arguments are utterly useless and meaningless.


And you believe based on faith things that contradict the laws of physics and all known evidence.
You use nothing but assumptions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are a true ignoramus.

Let me explain to you.

A logical argument is one that given a premise (or set of premises) A is true.
And given a logically sound argument B.
Then conclusion C MUST be true as well.

The power of logic is that it allows you to prove that IF A THEN C.
Now if you can't prove that A is true (by rational or evidentiary me ...[text shortened]... s that contradict the laws of physics and all known evidence.
You use nothing but assumptions.

I understand logic. I have already demonstrated that before. But you can't use
something that is assumed to prove the truth. That is what the evolutionists
try to do. Even in religion one can not prove the truth with assumptions.
HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Give it up Freaky. You're only continuing to embarrass yourself. Sometimes you have to know when to cut bait.

You went off on the guy without cause. That you choose to "pile on" in an effort to try to "save face" is really too much.

I will take your advice and give up the attempt to set you straight, since you clearly do not even know your own mind.

If your intentions for starting the thread in the first place are anything other than what I have surmised, the OP is rendered nonsense. Par for course, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_or_cut_bait