and also keep in mind that it is clear that most religious statements are obviously untrue in all but the most stringent logical sense. they are impossible to prove untrue, but are so wildly absurd as to be laughable. in college i took logic, but i was impaneled on a year long grand jury and i kept missing class so i dropped it. then i took it again and my teacher liked me so much her daughter gave my girlfriend and me a kitten. i named the kitten willis and it lives on now with my parents in baton rouge, a living symbol of my wonderful logic.
technically i think i said the pope was spreading lies, which is a bit different than lying. you clearly can spread lies with no intent to decieve, if you believe you are spreading truth. which is what i have had to explain a hundred times. if you pay attention to my wonderful phrasing and note that i didnt call the pope a liar, these sort of problems can be avoided.
Logical conclusion: The pope may or may not be lying. Deductive Reasoning: Some matters of faith cannot be proven to be untrue. Fallacy of relevance: No religious statement can be a lie. Logical conclusion: The Pope may or may not be lying. Fallacy of relevance: the unprovable must be proven for the Pope to lie Logical conclusion: The Pope may or may not be lying. Fallacy of relevance: the unprovable must be proven for the Pope to be telling the truth Logical conclusion: The Pope may or may not be lying.
why do people need to feel significant at all? why not just accept that life may be WYSIWYG? you hang around, do your thing, tell each other jokes, get some ladies, maybe a kid or two, knock about for a while, and that is all. is that too harsh to accept? why always search for some made up meaning to everything? why not accept things as they are?
In all your logic and fallacy stuff you are forgetting the most important thing. God gave the Pope magical super powers which prevent him from teaching error or untruth on matters of faith and morals. So on matters of faith and morals the Pope cannot be lying. If he isn't lying he must be telling the truth. red I do not need you to diagnose the fallacy of my arguement as my argument is based on faith.
I did not use any of these logical fallacies. I simply said it is impossible to call a statement a lie giving its unprovability. spout your kemerling all day; i learned from this guy: http://aaweb.lsu.edu/catalogs/2002/Bindex.htm THOM BARBER, Adjunct Instructor in Philosophy (Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies); Instructor, Baton Rouge Magnet High School. M.A., LSU.
Of course. You are not actually making an argument at all. You are reciting incantations and shaking rattles on behalf of the High Shaman in worship of The True God. :wink: Hare Krishna, brother. I wouldn't dream of trying to argue faith using science or logic. Certainly not with you, because you actually "get it". It is those who try to argue logic and science using faith, that I must challenge.
i'm now convinced that you are one of those people who are content in his own resources and life. that's OK though, it's impossible to know Christ until you come to the end of your own resources.
