Asking for Advice about a Friend in Need

[BaccaBoy1999]

Tell her to talk to a priest. It will either reassure, or push her away, and talking to a priest is free, and useful.

 

[Tenebrous]

I am now able to write a formal response since I do not have any homework tonight.

No, my logic does not imply that I would have to believe every single supernatural event that has ever been rumored to occur.

The key element here is that what happened was a prediction where the odds were so insanely slim, and it happened down to the T.

You clearly don't know anything about evidentialism and/or how science works. There is absolutely no way I can vindicate this, taking it on fallible word of mouth is not a reliable way to form conclusions on reality. Here's a google definition:

1. Evidentialism is a theory of justification according to which the justification of a conclusion depends solely on the evidence for it. Technically, though belief is typically the primary object of concern, evidentialism can be applied to doxastic attitudes generally.

You have given 0 evidence for your claims. There is 0 evidence for alien abductions.

Therefore; I should trust your claim as much as I trust the claim of an alien abduction occurring.
See this video as it explains how personal testimony cannot be used as an objective method for deducing what is in reality. There is also an ACX video on the psychology of why it can't be trusted, I will link that one as well if you would like.

Starts around 12:00 but I highly recommend you watch the whole video

The points above don't apply directly to you but it still makes some good points and are very close to what you're trying to assert. The post below addresses your points much more effectively.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.
By that logic, how are you trying to invalidate the observations of over a dozen people? I'm not trying to spread the news of my mom's prediction to gain attention, like many who tell of alien stories. I'm using it as a perspective-basis that, the way I see it, is impossible to deny if you take all the factors and events into consideration.

You still haven't technically established any proof of this. Just saying that it doesn't convince me and shouldn't convince any sane rational person. I will explain how your assertion is completely fallacious and useless. First off, there is absolutely no way for me to know that you are telling the truth/rule out coincidence/etc without objective demonstration. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't make it true universally. Here let's just t̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶d̶i̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶e̶m̶p̶i̶r̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶v̶i̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶m̶e̶t̶h̶o̶d̶ go back to middle school science class: "If my mom predicts an event, then I should reasonably expect this event to occur in objective reality." If your mom truly has physic powers and can predict the future we should reasonably expect those predictions to be testable via experiment.

And if it's repeat occurrences that you're looking for, then how about the other aforementioned predictions and prayers that have all come true?

See above post. Repeat occurrences rules out the chance of coincidence. Go try asking your mom about what is going to happen on a very specific date at a very specific time; I highly doubt she'll be even remotely accurate. If you protest that it was predictable only because it was a close family member you are just making more assumptions. Try to get her to predict something about you, get a bunch of researchers there to record results, publish it in a known scientific psychology journal and I'll believe you no problem. Otherwise you have no right to assert bullshit like that without actual experimental proof that other people can vindicate independently. Your intuition seems to believe that her prediction is completely correct with no chance of coincidence, coincidences happen like this all of the time and the ONLY WAY to prove it's not is by testing it repeatedly. Mind telling me what exactly your mom predicted? Also prayer is so laughably explainable by known psychological phenomenon it's pathetic that anyone would actually believe it.

I highly doubt you've searched all of the related historical documents, even if it does seem like you're pulling up some of the most obscure pages and articles to be found on the entirety of the World Wide Web.

Your argument is extremely fallacious
This is the exact same thing as completely ignoring my points and just proclaiming "It's out there, you just got to find it!" and can be used to justify almost anything.
Person A: Claims to have found indisputable proof of aliens on the internet
Response under your logic: "You haven't found it, which doesn't mean it's not there. Actually let's just believe that it is there without proof!!"
Response under normal logic: Show me proof.

That's literally all I'm asking for... proof. Show me documents then, go ask a historian, etc.

Actually, the exact excerpt that you quoted can be used to determine that this "Tactitus" fellow was referring to Jesus in particular. Pontius Pilatus, more commonly known as Pontius Pilate, sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion, "the extreme penalty," and he was a procurator/prefect for only ten years.

1) Tacitus was born in 56AD, more than 20 years since the death of Jesus. This means that at least 30 years (probably more) must have passed between the event and what Tacitus learned about it.

2) Where did Tacitus get his sources from? How reliable are they? How do you know this? Is there a chance that he's just repeating what Christians believe?

3) Is there reason to think that Tacitus' writings didn't have forgeries? There is discussion about the style of his writing that could have been faked.
He got Pontius' title wrong (procurator vs. prefect) - you have to ask, if he got that wrong, which happens to be a trivial mistake, is it possible that he got other things wrong?

Plus, there's a whole bucket-load of other reasons why he can't possibly have been the right guy.

Says who? Oh yeah, the gospels, which we already established can not be trusted as reliable sources. There is NO evidence of Jesus' miracles outside of the bible, the story literally has the same credibility as The Odyssey or the Iliad.

I won't bother asking - you use a lot of sources, but they're often poorly used and hardly explained at all. It might not be intentional, but it seems like what you're doing is using what I would describe as an informational overload - you're dumping a massive amount of sources and websites, knowing that I'll either be confused or too overwhelmed by the sheer number to properly analyze them all.

No I was just rushed throwing random things at you and seeing how you would respond. An example would be the claimed Messiahs, I obviously didn't research further and you pointed out my mistakes. This is my first formal response.

It would appear that you've misinterpreted my point - it was a reminder that I made to bring to mind the possibility of errors and mistakes in "science" as well as human memory.

I'll let you answer your own point
"I may have done a poor job of explaining that, though."

You really don't know enough about Christianity and the Bible to thoroughly argue against it.
Six days? Do you know how many times even middle school children are told that it's not literal?

That makes me wonder what else in the bible isn't literal, hm let's think.

• The creation story says "six days", but does not mean 1/365th of the Earth's orbit around the sun/six 24-hour periods, where each hour is 60 minutes and each minute is 60 seconds. Some denominations of Christianity will say otherwise, but those are often denominations who are more easily crushed. "Six days" refers more to the different cycles of activity that God went through - remember, if we're taking this story to be interpreted as true (within the situation), then the sun and moon didn't yet exist to be orbited around.
• The flood does not claim to explain all of the geology of the world - where'd he get that from?
• The other guy after the low-res video is treating evolution as a law, not a theory - or in the last few months since I was in biology, did they change it into a law?

1. See above post
2. Your fellow Christians: https://answersingenesis.org/ and www.creation.com. Turns out they have a huge following but I'm not going to use arguments from popularity as they are fallacious, just pointing it out.
3. Where exactly does he say that? Do you know what a theory is? Evolution can never be treated as a law because it fits the definition of theory. The theory of evolution is just as vindicated as the theory of gravity

I'm not saying the Historical Method is flawed, I'm saying that in the sources that I reviewed and analyzed, their alleged usage of the Historical Method (or other Methods) are flawed.

Ok give me sources then

However, just because something can be explained through a simpler process, doesn't make it the correct method 100% of the time.
Occam's Razor, the way I understand it, is an explanation of the way that our minds tend to work, and very little else.

No it's actually not. It represents a very good point. What motivational evidence do you have to add God to the history of the universe if it could have happened naturally?

That is, if the faith is without reasonable basis. The difference here is that Christianity and faith in the divine being that we refer to as "God" does have a reasonable basis, which has previously been explained so many times that I feel it's becoming arbitrary to go much further.

I obviously haven't seen any of this "reasonable" basis so if you could give me a source it would be appreciated.


Thank you and I am looking forward to your responses.

 

[BitoBain]

By the way, I don't mind if this thread goes off track a little. I think the initial question was well answered. Who doesn't like a little controversy?

Anyway, I still assert my claim that God cannot know everything since the origin of the universe is by definition unknowable. The idea is a self-contradiction, and it alone serves to disprove any religion that claims an all-knowing God.

 

[Tenebrous]

By the way, I don't mind if this thread goes off track a little. I think the initial question was well answered. Who doesn't like a little controversy?

Anyway, I still assert my claim that God cannot know everything since the origin of the universe is by definition unknowable. The idea is a self-contradiction, and it alone serves to disprove any religion that claims an all-knowing God.

Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience are all logically impossible.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) N a r l z y]

Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience are all logically impossible.

tene I love you and your analysis's

 

[Mooclan]

Thank you and I am looking forward to your responses.

I'm pretty sure I already implied that I was done with this train of discussion, and this:

I think the initial question was well answered.

furthers my reasons for dropping the discussion.
I don't see a need to keep arguing to the point of eternity.

Who doesn't like a little controversy?

oklol, then how about...
Seriously, Tene, you may be good at arguing but you aren't covering as many aspects as you should be in your responses. There's a number of discussion foundations that you're lacking in, judging by the points that you tried to make in your responses on this thread.
I don't claim to be a global expert on debates, but I've been doing it for a damn long time. In your break-down of my words, you're constantly misinterpreting things and I've even noticed you making at least two silly errors in your writing that caused you to end up contradicting yourself.

And for goodness' sake, stop claiming that things are fallacious when you don't understand them LOL
You toss that word around way too often, and it really makes me want to throw a pie at your face, because you're making yourself out to be a clown.

Ok give me sources then

for example, I don't think you realized that I was referring to your own damn sources.

I obviously haven't seen any of this "reasonable" basis so if you could give me a source it would be appreciated.

EXACTLY!
You, Tene, aren't exposed to even a small chunk of the context, information, and teachings that the Christian faith revolves around. On the other hand, virtually everyone that goes through the standardized school system in America, Canada, Australia, Great Britain/England, China, and so many other countries are exposed to science and are able to understand the viewpoints much more comprehensively than an atheist would be able to understand Christianity, unless they've studied it intensively/previously been a believer of that faith.

God cannot know everything since the origin of the universe is by definition unknowable. The idea is a self-contradiction, and it alone serves to disprove any religion that claims an all-knowing God.

The essential point here is that people often call into question the unknowable nature of the origin of the universe. It sort of enters into a nearly endless loop, and the only way out is... well, you can look into that further if you want to. I'm on borrowed time.

Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience are all logically impossible.

Once again, that is called into question based on the possibility of "living" interpretation, which is something that you'll have to look into yourself, because I sure as heck don't have any intention of teaching you the basic principals that you don't understand.

Thank you and I am looking forward to your responses.

let's be honest, you just want to keep arguing lol


pce, ed sheeran just came on and i don't want to miss this.

don't bother replying unless you have a few closing statements you'd like to make.
like i said, i don't have the enthusiasm to keep arguing with you.


P.S. Bito, sorry for being a part of turning this into a cringe-fest. I'm not sure yet, but I might have started to lose my taste for intense controversy. I'm assuming Tene is a friend of yours, so I tried to reign in my scathing remarks, and I've actually deleted quite a few criticisms that would have hit closer to home.

 

[BitoBain]

[most recent post]

I don't completely agree with either you or Tene, and I think that's okay. We had an interesting discussion. When you discuss religion and philosophy, virtually no one will agree, so you may as well just prepare to be frustrated haha.

Even if it gets a little ugly, I tend to enjoy asking tough questions and having these kind of discussions. Even when you think your logic may be perfect, you may be surprised when you put it to test against the ideas of others.

 

[Hovic]

Its a big change. If she wants to be Christian, let her. If Atheist then let her. It is ultimately her choice.

 

[Tenebrous]

I don't completely agree with either you or Tene, and I think that's okay. We had an interesting discussion. When you discuss religion and philosophy, virtually no one will agree, so you may as well just prepare to be frustrated haha.

Even if it gets a little ugly, I tend to enjoy asking tough questions and having these kind of discussions. Even when you think your logic may be perfect, you may be surprised when you put it to test against the ideas of others.

It's a bit frustrating when the opposition doesn't understand basic epistemology and axiomatically assumes that I know nothing of his position.

 

[Mooclan]

It's a bit frustrating when the opposition doesn't understand basic epistemology and axiomatically assumes that I know nothing of his position.

...aren't exposed to even a small chunk...

there's a difference between "nothing" and "almost nothing". The way that my statement was worded purposefully implied that you still have some knowledge of it, although it is severely limited. Not in the sense that you haven't heard enough about it, but rather that what you have heard has most likely been from an external/non-believer point of view, and interpreted by yourself with a similar perspective.
and also, it wasn't "automatically" assumed. You, yourself, helped me reach that conclusion:

I obviously haven't seen any of this

See?

the opposition doesn't understand basic epistemology

not to mention that this is quite obviously false and intended to be provocative.

"the study and philosophy of the nature and origin of knowledge, especially its limits"
I'm giving you a massive amount of valid information and you're claiming to discredit it as invalid or coincidental.

And seriously, what did I say about trying to call me stupid in fancy terms?
I can respect your general textbook knowledge and logical capacity, but not the clown-like way that it's being used.

Tene, don't make me bring this to the point that the thread gets locked. I will put in a request to have it locked if I need to, but I wouldn't like to do that to Bito. Making round-about scathing remarks isn't helping at all, and they're a large part of the reason that I haven't been taking you seriously.

I've already PM'ed you, and you should know better.

"You still haven't demonstrated where I'm wrong."
'scuse me, but that's all I've been doing for the past few posts aside from offering the other perspective that Bito asked about.


Personally, this is one of my favorite responses on this whole thread:

Its a big change. If she wants to be Christian, let her. If Atheist then let her. It is ultimately her choice.

this guy has the right idea

 

[CAmadeusA]

*puts down popcorn*

This has been an interesting read, and im not going to get too involved, but I do have a few comments to make... Now, I may not be as fancy with my verbiage as Mooclan or as you're trying to be Tenebrous12321, but I think simplest terms might be the best.

So, few constructive criticisms, Tene, you're throwing around a lot of fancy words, but a lot of it doesn't necessarily fit with the content you're trying to argue for. Based on work out of Princeton in three studies, research shows that using big/fancy words it's shown that using these kinds terms gives a general psychological impression that you're not as smart as you may be, makes your point less clear to the common man, and reduces your chances at a higher education. Now, if you really want me to go dig up these studies, I will, but I think that if you take it with a grain of salt, you may be able to strengthen your argument significantly. I think if nothing else, this was one of Mooclan's main points.

Few for Mooclan as well;
First, welcome back to the forums my old friend.
Second, I think with this newer generation of discussion leaders, we cannot be as cynical as you tend to be in these posts. If anything, we need to show them how it truly works by example, and surely by not insulting their ability; else that simply forces their hand at more aggression.

Now, @TheBothOfYou, this is obviously not asking about the internal theistic repercussions of the religion and the logic of them... However, as someone who has spent more than three years studying these sorts of things, there is logical merit to just about any argument you want to make based on your world view. Remember logic is only mind games and if your mind is skewed one way or another, your logic may be different from someone else's. It all depends on your core beliefs.

@TheOriginalPoster, Obviously your friend has free reign to believe as she wants in the modern world, (mostly) regardless of which western nation she's in. If you want my solid suggestion, find a mentor in the things she's interested in, and learn about them, and make a decision based on what she learned and which benefited her the most. If its comforting to believe in a perfect, all powerful, all knowing, and all present deity, so let her. If she is violently opposed to the idea, research the core values of agnosticism/atheism. Or any of the other dozens of the worlds religions. Obviously the "right answer" here will be entirely relative to whom is answering the question. Which will ultimately be your friend. Overall, wish him/her the best of luck, its a tough decision to make.

Hope this has helped with some things, and there isnt as much (be it interesting) conflict happening here. (Also, forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes, I typed this up quickly and its 1:30 am).

(((And I dont need to quote a lot of things to make my posts long )))

 

[Hovic]

this guy has the right idea

damn I must be cool