5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonnope there is a law which states that the organisation may be liable for any accidents or breeches of health and safety regulations, the law is termed the health and safety at works act (1974), how much reparation is made, depends upon an interpretation, an interpretation as to what extent the guilty party were liable and how much money you shall receive depending upon your injury and the circumstances, after all, you wouldn't expect to get the same amount for a broken finger as you would if your leg got chopped off, now would you? so dont get wide Mr Hamilton and try to obfuscate the matter, it is perfectly clear. You know its true. Robbies analogy is sound, its application, penetrating, just admit it and we can go home happy in the knowledge.
“...judgement shall be rendered according to an interpretation, that being how much you have suffered, ...”
what? There is a law that is meant to specifically state “ how much you have suffered” that is open to interpretation?
I am strangely unaware of such a law. What is its name? (is it called something like “the how much has the accident victi ...[text shortened]... me interpretation of the laws on who is to blame for avoidable accidents -my point still stands.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“..You never stated anything about p or y or any other variables ..”
not to you directly, never the less, if you read through the post you shall see i stated it to lausey. Yes i make the claim, for I read the beginning of Darwins book, does that mean that i am fully versed in the intricacies of the evolutionary hypothesis? No? Well then enough of the pretence!
You never stated anything about p or y or any othe ...[text shortened]... cite a passage, then be my guest, then we can make a start, otherwise, your talking more bumf!
oh yes, you are correct. My apologies 🙂
It wasn't you but RJHinds that implied that I was a fool for thinking you cannot have both p and not p and foolish for...well, just thinking (deductively). But I got you two confused.
I try and not get you two confused again.
To RJHinds
1, Does the Bible say it is “foolish” to deduce?
2, Does the Bible say you can have both p and not p?
3, If “no” to both the above, then exactly what is “foolish” with my logical deduction that “before time” is a logical self-contradiction and so you cannot have it?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonits ok, we all look alike 🙂
“..You never stated anything about p or y or any other variables ..”
oh yes, you are correct. My apologies 🙂
It wasn't you but RJHinds that implied that I was a fool for thinking you cannot have both p and not p and foolish for...well, just thinking (deductively). But I got you two confused.
I try and not get you two confused again.
To R ...[text shortened]... logical deduction that “before time” is a logical self-contradiction and so you cannot have it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...an interpretation as to what extent the guilty party were liable ...”
nope there is a law which states that the organisation may be liable for any accidents or breeches of health and safety regulations, the law is termed the health and safety at works act (1974), how much reparation is made, depends upon an interpretation, an interpretation as to what extent the guilty party were liable and how much money you shall rec ...[text shortened]... s sound, its application, penetrating, just admit it and we can go home happy in the knowledge.
does “an interpretation as to what extent the guilty party were liable” equate with “an interpretation of the meaning of a stated law” ?
A law can be quite clear on its MEANING in the sense that it has only ONE obvious (at least 'obvious' to lawyers) interpretation on its meaning but it can still be difficult to work out how it applies to a particular legal case due to uncertainties in the evidence and fragmented evidence against the guilty party.
Legal Laws are made to have only one interpretation and most of the time there is general agreement on the correct interpretation of most laws by most lawyers -this doesn’t appear to be the case for the words in the Bible for I see people arguing about that every day.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonok, you have the health and safety at work act, the act sets out which duties employers have towards employees and members of the public, and employees have to each other. These duties are qualified in the act by the principle of, 'so far is reasonably practicable', thus, what you have is a law and a principle having a bearing upon each other. What it in fact means in practical terms is that to what extent an employer needs to reduce risk of accident is determined upon by many other factors, cost as proportionate to the risk and specific technicalities dependent upon the nature of the business. Now i think you will agree that where a case of litigation is concerned all these relevant yet variable values need to be interpreted in order to render a judgement, despite the clear nature of the actual law itself. Is it not the case?
“...an interpretation as to what extent the guilty party were liable ...”
does “an interpretation as to what extent the guilty party were liable” equate with “an interpretation of the meaning of a stated law” ?
A law can be quite clear on its MEANING in the sense that it has only ONE obvious (at least 'obvious' to lawyers) interpretation on its m ...[text shortened]... ppear to be the case for the words in the Bible for I see people arguing about that every day.
Thus in the case of scripture, it is the same, for there are often many variables and sometimes specific laws and principles which need to be interpreted in order to arrive at a clear and proper understanding.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“....despite the CLEAR nature of the actual law itself. Is it not the case? ...” (my emphasis)
ok, you have the health and safety at work act, the act sets out which duties employers have towards employees and members of the public, and employees have to each other. These duties are qualified in the act by the principle of, 'so far is reasonably practicable', thus, what you have is a law and a principle having a bearing upon each other. What ...[text shortened]... rinciples which need to be interpreted in order to arrive at a clear and proper understanding.
“Yes” is my answer to that.
But doesn't that agree with my point? The interpretation of the MEANING (not to be confused with how the law should applies to a particular legal case which may be open to "interpretation" ) of the words that state the law is “CLEAR” (at least usually to lawyers even if it is nonsense to some laypeople) because there is usually only one interpretation of its MEANING but the meaning of the words in the Bible are not so clear because they much more often have more than one interpretation
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI dont think you can differentiate between the two, for they have a bearing upon each other, same with scripture there are specific laws which have no need of interpretation other than in a specific context and principles which apply in the most far reaching and comprehensive fashion leaving room for interpretation, for example, it is clear that you must not kill another person, yet what if you were working, the axe head slipped from its handle and koshed another on the head, killing him. Clearly this is not murder, but unintentional manslaughter, and it will need to be determined to what extent you were culpable if any. Thus you have a law and a principle having a bearing upon a specific instance, three factors which need to be examined and interpreted.
“....despite the CLEAR nature of the actual law itself. Is it not the case? ...” (my emphasis)
“Yes” is my answer to that.
But doesn't that agree with my point? The interpretation of the MEANING (not to be confused with how the law should applies to a particular legal case which may be open to "interpretation" ) of the words that state the law ...[text shortened]... in the Bible are not so clear because they much more often have more than one interpretation
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...I dont think you can differentiate between the two, ...”
I dont think you can differentiate between the two, for they have a bearing upon each other, same with scripture there are specific laws which have no need of interpretation other than in a specific context and principles which apply in the most far reaching and comprehensive fashion leaving room for interpretation, for example, it is clear that you ...[text shortened]... ing a bearing upon a specific instance, three factors which need to be examined and interpreted.
….you then kind-of in a very round-about way go on to do just that so I am a little confused by your post.
“...for they have a bearing upon each other ...”
“have a bearing” is a bit vague and I don't see how you show this (whatever 'this' means) in your post.
“...Clearly this is not murder, but unintentional manslaughter, and it will need to be DETERMINED to what extent you were culpable if any. ...” (my emphasis)
yes, and what would need to be “DETERMINED” is not what the MEANING of the stated law is but, rather, the facts about your particular case that would define (according to the stated law) to what extent you were culpable if any.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..You never stated anything about p or y or any other variables ..”
oh yes, you are correct. My apologies 🙂
It wasn't you but RJHinds that implied that I was a fool for thinking you cannot have both p and not p and foolish for...well, just thinking (deductively). But I got you two confused.
I try and not get you two confused again.
To R ...[text shortened]... logical deduction that “before time” is a logical self-contradiction and so you cannot have it?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are really confused. I did not say anything about
“..You never stated anything about p or y or any other variables ..”
oh yes, you are correct. My apologies 🙂
It wasn't you but RJHinds that implied that I was a fool for thinking you cannot have both p and not p and foolish for...well, just thinking (deductively). But I got you two confused.
I try and not get you two confused again.
To R ...[text shortened]... logical deduction that “before time” is a logical self-contradiction and so you cannot have it?
to p or not to p. It was you that asked that question.
But I don't think the Holy Bible covers that subject.
And there was no implication you were a fool. I was
refering to 1 Corinthians 2:14 were it indicates that there are
certain things that are revealed by the Spirit and can not be
understood by the natural man, because they are spiritually
apraised. The natural man considers it foolishness, or as you
called it, "gobbledygook".
You want be able to use a computer to figure it out.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“...You are really confused. I did not say anything about
You are really confused. I did not say anything about
to p or not to p. It was you that asked that question.
But I don't think the Holy Bible covers that subject.
And there was no implication you were a fool. I was
refering to 1 Corinthians 2:14 were it indicates that there are
certain things that are revealed by the Spirit and can not be
understo ...[text shortened]... or as you
called it, "gobbledygook".
You want be able to use a computer to figure it out.
to p or not to p. ...”
neither did I. I did not say “to p or not to p”. I don't see any dilemma regarding when to pee. Should that have been “to be or not to be”?
What I basically said was that to say “before time” IMPLIES “p and not p” -don't you agree?
“...And there was no implication you were a fool. ...”
You are correct; I apologise 🙂 -only just now realised I somehow misread it.
-like a game of chess?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI still don't understand this "p and not p" stuff.
“...You are really confused. I did not say anything about
to p or not to p. ...”
neither did I. I did not say “to p or not to p”. I don't see any dilemma regarding when to pee. Should that have been “to be or not to be”?
What I basically said was that to say “before time” IMPLIES “p and not p” -don't you agree?
“...And there was no implica ...[text shortened]... correct; I apologise 🙂 -only just now realised I somehow misread it.
-like a game of chess?
Originally posted by RJHindslet “p” equal any proposition ( “proposition” as in an “assertion that can only be either true or false” and not to be confused with “proposition” as in a “proposed action” ! )
I still don't understand this "p and not p" stuff.
To say that you can have p and not p is to say that BOTH “p” can be true AND “not p” can be true -which is a logical contradiction.
For example, if we let p = “you are human” then to have p and not p is to say that “you are human” is true AND “you are NOT human” is also true which is a contradiction. I have shown in a previous post how “before time” implies “p and not p” and therefore is a logical self-contradiction.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe definition of eternal from Webster's NewWorld Dictionary:
let “p” equal any proposition ( “proposition” as in an “assertion that can only be either true or false” and not to be confused with “proposition” as in a “proposed action” ! )
To say that you can have p and not p is to say that BOTH “p” can be true AND “not p” can be true -which is a logical contradiction.
For example, if we let p = “you are ...[text shortened]... ious post how “before time” implies “p and not p” and therefore is a logical self-contradiction.
1. without beginning or end; everlasting
2. of eternity 3. forever the same; unchanging
4. never stopping or ending; perpetual
5. seeming never to stop; continual
6. timeless
Before time began there was no time. It was timeless.
When time ends, it will be timeless for eternity.