Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

dualist fallacy of equivocation on "feeling" something

Expand Messages
  • TL
    ... There is no evidence for them in the first place except in some people s fantasies. ... Because every bit of evidence apologists have drummed up to try to
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- JesusTrance <jesustrance@...> wrote:
      > You say that the Trinity is impossible because Jesus
      > wouldn't have had a
      > body at one point in history, and bodiless beings
      > are impossible to you.

      There is no evidence for them in the first place
      except in some people's fantasies.

      > I said bodiless beings are possible with a spiritual
      > realm, but you
      > don't believe in a spiritual realm either, just the
      > physical.

      Because every bit of evidence apologists have drummed
      up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
      miserably.

      > Now I ask
      > you how to prove the physical realm, because if the
      > spiritual realm
      > exists, it would follow that it is a form of reality
      > somewhat like the
      > physical.

      Predictability. You throw the ball into the air a
      hundred times, it comes back a hundred times. No
      chance of it flying off into space. That's one test.


      > If there can't be a sufficient test other
      > than "you can feel
      > it," for the physical realm, why scream bloody
      > murder when the same
      > proof is used for the spiritual?

      Because that fallaciously equivocates on the meaning
      of the term "feel". When you "feel" a tree, that is
      not the same thing as "feeling" that some invisible
      person is in a room with you.

      > Again, it's not
      > like we're talking some
      > foreign idea here, but one that spans cultures,
      > peoples, and languages.
      > Just like the physical realm.

      dreams also span cultures, peoples, and languages.
      Does that mean there is a real place outside our minds
      where dreams take place?

      It's just not logical
      > to use double
      > standards like that.

      I agree it's illogical to equate "I feel the presence
      of a loved one who died several years ago" and "this
      sandpaper feels rough".




      __________________________________
      Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
      Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
      http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
    • Jimmy Sloan
      ... TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the first place except in some people s fantasies. J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a circumstantial
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
         

        --- JesusTrance <jesustrance@...> wrote:
        > You say that the Trinity is impossible because Jesus
        > wouldn't have had a
        > body at one point in history, and bodiless beings
        > are impossible to you.

        TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the first place
        except in some people's fantasies.
         
        J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.  However, what one accepts as evidence depends entirely on their presuppositions. Yours are natural presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept the supernatural.  Presenting evidential arguments to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows the non-Christian to engage in their supposed autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can not accept God.  We don't answer the fool according to his folly and become like him (reasoning that rejects God), we answer the fool according to his folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is yours?

        > I said bodiless beings are possible with a spiritual
        > realm, but you
        > don't believe in a spiritual realm either, just the
        > physical.

        TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists have drummed
        up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
        miserably.
         
        J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You?  If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't) that *is* proof of God.

        <snip> 







              
                   

      • TL
        So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped getting messages about a month ago from here. skepticdude __________________________________ Discover
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
          getting messages about a month ago from here.

          skepticdude



          __________________________________
          Discover Yahoo!
          Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
          http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
        • remington186@aol.com
          In a message dated 6/7/05 11:24:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, skepticdude@yahoo.com writes: So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped getting
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 6/7/05 11:24:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, skepticdude@... writes:
            So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
            getting messages about a month ago from here.

            skepticdude
            Well ... you can count on one thing, you weren't kicked off.
             
            Remington Mandel
            Hemet CA USA
          • Eric Pement
            Replying to TL (skepticdude), ... Personally, I m kind of glad that it slowed up a bit. When I get too many messages, I don t read _any_ of them. And believe
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 8, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Replying to TL (skepticdude),

              On 7 Jun 2005 at 23:22, you said:

              > So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
              > getting messages about a month ago from here.

              Personally, I'm kind of glad that it slowed up a bit. When I get too
              many messages, I don't read _any_ of them. And believe me, life has
              been busy enough for me lately!

              --
              Eric Pement
            • Werner Peters
              Looks like just a slow list. WP ... From: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of TL Sent: June 8, 2005
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 8, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Looks like just a slow list.
                WP
                -----Original Message-----
                From: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of TL
                Sent: June 8, 2005 2:23 AM
                To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [biblicalapologetics] slow list or kicked off?

                So how come nobody is talking here anymore, I stopped
                getting messages about a month ago from here.

                skepticdude


              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.