Uses of logical arguments in debate

Science

(Dale Cutler) #81

Yeah, it was probably not worthy on either of our parts, and hardly witty repartee.


(Neil Rickert) #82

The sentence that you quoted was neither gratuitious nor derogatory nor disrespectful.


(Dale Cutler) #83

Sure it wasn’t. (Consider the source.)


#84

That’s not forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence are two separate things. At best, you have second hand accounts.


(Bill Cole) #85

Sure it does as there is evidence we are in a created universe. “I don’t know” means you have the faith to reject that evidence as being conclusive enough to reject the random accident hypothesis.

The evidence is not proof so belief in God is a statement of faith but faith based on evidence both empirical and historical.


(Guy Coe) #86

That’s just sheer idiocacy on your part. Honestly. Apparently you’re way out of your depth on this particular subject.


(Neil Rickert) #87

I have not come across any such evidence. And I doubt that I ever will.


(Dale Cutler) #88

Of course you would be happier to replace “a created universe” with “a universe that had a beginning”. The material universe, including time, is all of “nature”. But that is evidence of an immaterial and supernatural beginning, and evidence for a Beginner – whether you admit it or not – and of enormous power and intellect, not to mention humor and aesthetics. Let me head you off before you say anything disrespectful that involves spaghetti.


#89

I would suggest you start a thread on that topic.


(Dale Cutler) #90

It speaks for itself.


(Dale Cutler) #91

Some of you may recall that I enjoy “co-instants”. A consequential one that I learned of recently is this…

The Latin anagram answers Pilate’s question:

Quid est veritas? “What is truth?”
Est vir qui adest: “It is the man who is here.”


(Neil Rickert) #92

Actually, I would just replace it with “the universe” or “the universe that we are part of”.

I did not have any plans to talk about what I ate for dinner tonight.


(Timothy Horton) #93

Once again DaleCutler hides his lack of content by resorting to insults. He is consistent in that regard.


(Mikkel R.) #94

There is nothing wrong with what he said.


(Timothy Horton) #95

Actually citing stories written down sometimes hundreds of years after an event as “eyewitness testimony” is the real sheer idiocy. I suggest you look up the definition of eyewitness testimony as well as hearsay because you obviously don’t understand the difference.


(Bill Cole) #96

Take a look in the mirror. How do explain the ultimate origin of what you are looking at? A set of lucky accidents?


(Timothy Horton) #97

All these years of being corrected and Bill still doesn’t understand his personal incredulity isn’t scientific evidence.


(Guy Coe) #98

The documents containing eyewitness testimony of the resurrection were all written down and distributed very widely, despite official persecution, within less than fifty to sixty years of the crucifixion, containing material which is identifiably from within less than a decade from the events they summarize and interpret. You obviously have not studied this subject. I suggest you at least look at the presentation, before embarrassing yourself further.


(Timothy Horton) #99

LOL! You still have no idea what the definition of eyewitness testimony is. Besides the request was to provide physical evidence for the special Creation of the universe and life, not the resurrection.


(Mikkel R.) #100

How are these questions evidence that the universe was created?