[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

No not everyone always says what they mean. I tried to, but it seems I wasn't clear the first time. I apologise, but I would really be interested in your answers to my other questions, specifically the last one - what would it take for you to change your way of thinking?

So, is your question how much money would you have to pay me to change my mind? Or are you asking me how much I need to pay you to change your mind? Or something else entirely?
You see friend, you are not clear and you spend half your time and effort stating that you mis-spoke and were unclear. How am I to know when you finally have your act together?
The beauty of the Holy Bible is, there is no ambiguity. All questions are answered so the dimmest of people can understand. "Living on Earth for Dummies" if you may. Have you read the Bible (I know the answer is 'No', my question is rhetorical)

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

I am so sorry, There was indeed a bit of a problem with copy and paste. I meant to say:i) Argument 'x' cannot both be true and untrue
ii) Argument 'x' must be either true or untrue
iii) If argument 'x' is true, it is indeed true

And yes, as obvious as it might seem, the third one is indeed an official law of logic among philosophers and the like.

That's all that you took from my post? I'm not going to even get a thank you for answering all your questions? Is this because I'm a woman and you see responding to me as something that's beneath you?

Anyway. In your rendering of the laws of logic, you seem to be finally beginning to grasp the (i) law of contradiction, however, if (iii) is supposed to be a rendition of the law of identity, it needs major work, and (ii) needs even more work in order to even resemble the law of excluded middle.

I hope this was helpful. Now, if you really want to seem like someone who understands logic, I would love if you could explain Łukasiewicz's propositional logic, which in addition to "true" and "false" includes a third truth-value which is neither true nor false.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

what would it take for you to change your way of thinking?

!!!

[IWantToUnderstand]

Oh wow, you actually know about this? I somehow didn't expect anyone to know anything about this so I simplified the laws in an effort to get everyone to understand them; I know they're poor shadows of the real thing. Łukasiewicz's propositional logic would have confused things more, and I don't really feel like it applies to much beyond Abstract Mathematics, especially not Theological Debates.No, of course, that's not all I took from your post; It was helpful and I was particularly intrigued by your answer to my first question.


And Mr Hutchins - As far as I can tell, I've been pretty concise, but I will repeat myself for your sake: What would it take for you to change your views on religion? What would have to happen for you to have second thoughts about the bible? If this idea is too unthinkable for your True Christian™ self that's fine, I understand, just say so.

[IWantToUnderstand]

Mrs Etheldreda, I meant more along the lines of; What would it take for you to convert from Christianity? Again, if this idea is too unthinkable for your True Christian™ self that's fine, I understand, just say so.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

Łukasiewicz's propositional logic would have confused things more, and I don't really feel like it applies to much beyond Abstract Mathematics, especially not Theological Debates.

I respectfully disagree, if fuzzy logic has any applications beyond mathematics, it is exactly in theological debates.

No, of course, that's not all I took from your post; It was helpful and I was particularly intrigued by your answer to my first question.

I'm glad, and I do recommend reading the Bible. In my case, reading the Bible, all of it, not just a few selected verses but the whole thing, made me reach my current philosophical position regarding God and religions.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

Oh wow, you actually know about this? I somehow didn't expect anyone to know anything about this so I simplified the laws in an effort to get everyone to understand them; I know they're poor shadows of the real thing. Łukasiewicz's propositional logic would have confused things more, and I don't really feel like it applies to much beyond Abstract Mathematics, especially not Theological Debates.No, of course, that's not all I took from your post; It was helpful and I was particularly intrigued by your answer to my first question.


And Mr Hutchins - As far as I can tell, I've been pretty concise, but I will repeat myself for your sake: What would it take for you to change your views on religion? What would have to happen for you to have second thoughts about the bible? If this idea is too unthinkable for your True Christian™ self that's fine, I understand, just say so.

Quite a few members have advanced degrees, I have two, a MBA and a Masters of Organic Chemistry.
I got my chemistry degree expressly to be able to know for a fact, God is Real. Multiple experiments were run to attempt to generate life from primordial soup. All failed.
God created Earth (feel free to prove He did not) and all that lives (again, feel free to prove He did not.) He had the Bible written shortly after time began and had all factual recounts of events from the Beginning recorded in it. Now, after all this time, if there were an error, don't you think it would of been edited? If the Bible was full of hooey, don't you think at some point, someone would of said 'Ah-Ha-trickery!' and clearly laid out irrefutable proofs that God was a lie?
You come here and ask what it would take to change my mind. Proof of implausibility. God to tell me it was all a lie. Science to say 'Here is proof it all came from a sneeze'. Yet there is none of that. As a young child in Princeton, I had the fortunate luck to meet Albert Einstein (my first job, pumping gas at the station in Hopewell at the end of Carter Road). Though he was just a hook nosed joo he was wise enough to know God was true and not a ruse to baffle the simpletons.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

Mrs Etheldreda, I meant more along the lines of; What would it take for you to convert from Christianity? Again, if this idea is too unthinkable for your True Christian™ self that's fine, I understand, just say so.

Your passive aggressive snobbery is not lost on me, missy. I answered your question and you just don't like the answer.

Let me simplify my answer for you, dear:

If Jesus were to tell me the faith He gave, and the Holy Spirit which lives in me, is no longer accurate, salvific, required, or has changed in some way, then I would change my faith according to His Will.

Does that make sense now dear? Why would I listen to someone else tell me Jesus is wrong? If you can prove to me someone is smarter than Jesus, I'll take all the money in my monthly spending budget and donate it to the hateful, immoral, antichrist charity of their choice.

[IWantToUnderstand]

Thank you. Seriously, thank you.I never expected to end up with such clear answers, even if in some cases they did not come immediately.


Yes, Mrs Etheldreda, that does clear it up and I understand now. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was never my intention.


Thank you Basilissa, you helped me understand that True Christians™ Christians are really no different from other people, they just believe the Bible word for word - I thought this somehow made you inherintly illogical, and for that I am sorry.


And Mr Hutchins, thank you for finally helping me understand how you think, too. Yours is also a thought process I did not think I would see here, largely because of this (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showt...t=44533&page=1) thread. Again, I'm sorry if I somehow offended you.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

Thank you. Seriously, thank you.I never expected to end up with such clear answers, even if in some cases they did not come immediately.

You really just can't let off the insults and jabs, can you? Or did you expect gratitude for such a backhanded compliment?

No wonder more and more young people are flocking to the church! The Body of Christ has the most kind, compassionate, honest, welcoming people in the world!

Praise Jesus!

[IWantToUnderstand]

As I said, my intention was never to offend you. That statement was really aimed at the large misunderstanding I had with Mr Hutchins. I do not expect gratitude, I instead feel gratitude towards you.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

Thank you Basilissa, you helped me understand that True Christians™ Christians are really no different from other people, they just believe the Bible word for word - I thought this somehow made you inherintly illogical, and for that I am sorry.

Who is inherently illogical, are people who claim to be Christians, yet ignore and/or deny what the Bible says, and instead construe an image of what they would like the Bible to say (and by extension, what they would like God to be). They are torn trying to live between two paradigms: the "God is real and the Bible is His Word" paradigm and the modern sciences/modern ethics paradigm.

If you read the Bible, you will realize that it is impossible to reconcile these two paradigms. The Bible makes statements about the world which under modern science paradigm are false; the Bible also makes statements which from modern ethics point of view are unethical. At the same time, the Bible is the only evidence of God's existence and the only evidence of His Will, so there is no reason to believe in God if you reject even the tiniest parts of the Bible (because if parts of the Bible are lies, all of it could be a lie).

At Landover, we choose the Biblical paradigm, and we laugh at the other self-proclaimed Christians who have chosen the modern science/ethics paradigm, and thus deny the Truth™. These people, yes, they are inherently illogical, as they live their lives ignoring the fact that the Bible contradicts modern science/ethics. You cannot have it both ways - either (a) the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, or (b) the Bible is a collection of fables and rants composed by schizophrenics. There is no third logical solution - yet millions of self-proclaimed Christians live under the delusion of having reconciled the Absolute Truth™ of the Bible with the contradictory evidence of modern science.

[IWantToUnderstand]

If there's one point on which I can agree with you, it's that. One must choose between Science and Religion - you can't have both.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

As I said, my intention was never to offend you. That statement was really aimed at the large misunderstanding I had with Mr Hutchins. I do not expect gratitude, I instead feel gratitude towards you.

I never misunderstood you. You completely failed at expressing yourself. The same reason why as a child, I was wondering why the large mouth bass I just caught failed to communicate clearly. It mouthed words yet failed to articulate. How could I possibly know what it was trying to say. It would be inappropriate for me to assume I had the answer. In life, we have the Holy Bible to speak for the silent.


Patience is a virtue (so I have been told).

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

If there's one point on which I can agree with you, it's that. One must choose between Science and Religion - you can't have both.

Not true. Science only exists because of God. He wants us to question everything and give faith unconditionally. Free Will.

[IWantToUnderstand]

Again, I apologise for my phrasing. I am still young and learning how to express myself clearly.
By "you can't have both" I meant you have to choose to either believe all of Science or all of the Holy Bible, as Basilissa has said.

[James Hutchins]

I want to know when you are going to abide by forum rules. We have all been more than reasonable listening to your near incoherent rants and tolerating your belittling.

[IWantToUnderstand]

The purpose of this account was to ask some questions, which I have done. I might create a proper account in the near future. I agree that this post was against forum rules, and I am grateful to you for letting it slide long enough for me to gain knowledge and understanding - I can help you understand the Atheist mindset in return if you like; though I think you already understand it quite well.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

If you read the Bible, you will realize that it is impossible to reconcile these two paradigms. The Bible makes statements about the world which under modern science paradigm are false

.... though possibly not, Sister, under the "simplified" (for which read "misunderstood") rules of logic which we have had explained to us here. I would be asking for any tuition fees to be refunded and for that teacher to be fired.

I am curious, though, about this:

Originally Posted by IWantToUnderstand

Yours is also a thought process I did not think I would see here, largely because of this (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showt...t=44533&page=1) thread.

Tell us, did you just look at the thread title/first post and start out on the basis of a false assumption? Or did you actually take the time to read the entire thread, which (at only 30 pages over a period of eight-and-a-half years) is probably not too challenging for most people. Just to say that it is sometimes unwise to weigh in while so sadly uninformed.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Is that supposed to be a syllogism? Because if it is, it doesn't work.

An "argument" can be valid and can be sound but the idea of an "argument" being "true" is new to me. Perhaps its conclusion may be true and the premises need to be true for the argument to be sound, of course.

Scientists (as they call themselves) do not consider the rules of logic to apply universally. Someone like Aristotle would think they did, but work from Democritus or Epicurus.—.relating to the properties of minima.—.refuted claims of that type 2½ millennia ago.

2 + 2 = 4 may or may not be a tautology depending on what the numerals (2) and (4) signify. The superficial meaning could be

: + : = ::

where the counting system is

1 .
2 :
3 :.
4 ::

and so on. But other counting systems may exist, after all the laws of logic and numbers are just human inventions for the purpose of describing observations, the scientists tell us. Another counting system may have values we'd otherwise describe as follows

1 one
2 the square root of two
3 the cube root of three
4 the fourth root of four

et cetera. This would be absolutely internally consistent, new rules and relationships between numbers could be worked out but obviously 1 + 1 would not equal 2.

The Bible is not like that. God is always consistent and there are no mistakes in what He has given us. Because as humans we're limited, living within horizons of perception and experience, it's not always the reality we think we see that actually exists. And let's face it, if we already knew (or could discover) what God knows there wouldn't be much point giving us The Bible. Measured with the rubber ruler of human imperfection serves merely to demonstrate the inadequacies of "science" and "logic" even when it's applied correctly.

Psalm 18:30-32 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.