"Guess the Fallacy and What is the most common?"

Author: Christen

Posts

Total: 49
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Nah, I don't think there was any agreement or misunderstanding.
(IFF) you believe the claim that "the bible is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god" is functionally indistinguishable from FALSE (THEN) we are in agreement regarding this particular claim.
#32
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
So how do you explain the FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation...
Same way I explain all FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation. Different people, different experiences, bias, hidden agendas, insanity, low IQ.

you believe the claim that "the bible is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god" is functionally indistinguishable from FALSE
(THEN) we are in agreement regarding this particular claim.
Nope.

You are committing a logical fallacy. The "bible" refers to 66 separate books with different authors written over a period of 6,000+ years. Each part of the bible does not necessarily carry all the qualities of the whole.

For example, a car is %100 a vehicle, but a tire isn't. The bible is true, but everything in it isn't. Satan speaks in the bible. But what he says is untrue. Thus, not everything in the bible is true. Some things are just records of innocuous conversations. Not "true" or "false" in the factual sense.

Must everything with you always be about the truth of the bible? I'm showing your claim insisting that any work be taken as wholly literal or wholly figurative is illogical, and all you're consumed with is to discredit the bible.

Sometimes we want to discuss things other than is the bible/god true? If you can't discuss other things than that, get out of the way and let people with broader interests talk.
#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
So how do you explain the FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation...
Same way I explain all FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation. Different people, different experiences, bias, hidden agendas, insanity, low IQ.
Who do you personally believe is the most reliable "authority" on the subject of "interpreting the word of god", the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist RABBIS (OR) the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist CATHOLIC PRIESTS (OR) the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist BAPTIST PREACHERS (OR) the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist ESSENES (OR) some other "authority" I've neglected to mention?
#34
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Sometimes we want to discuss things other than is the bible/god true? If you can't discuss other things than that, get out of the way and let people with broader interests talk.
You're the one who brought it up. [POST#4]
#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) you believe the claim that "the bible is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god" is functionally indistinguishable from FALSE (THEN) we are in agreement regarding this particular claim.

The "bible" refers to 66 separate books with different authors written over a period of 6,000+ years. Each part of the bible does not necessarily carry all the qualities of the whole.
Sure, no problem.  Do you believe ANY of the "66 separate books" that comprise "the bible" are "the 100% factually true word of a perfect god"?
#36
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Who do you personally believe is the most reliable "authority" on the subject of "interpreting the word of god",
The Bible itself.

2Pe 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Everything in the bible attributed to God is true, and cannot be otherwise. And any insistence that the bible, or any other work of literature, must be taken as either wholly figurative or wholly literal is abject nonsense.

I know you don't believe the bible. You've told me. I disagree with you. I believe it. Telling me over and over makes me think you suffer some personality disorder. Plus, I don't care that you disbelieve.

Now, can we put that one to rest?
#37
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Sometimes we want to discuss things other than is the bible/god true? If you can't discuss other things than that, get out of the way and let people with broader interests talk.

You're the one who brought it up. [POST#4]
Untrue. Post #4 says nothing about the veracity of the bible. It only says that the claim that it must be taken as completely figurative or as completely literal is illogical.

As always, you brought up the truth of the bible, and are compulsively continuing to do so now even after being told of your obsession.

Now, can we put that one to rest?
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. Post #4 says nothing about the veracity of the bible. It only says that the claim that it must be taken as completely figurative [FALSE] or as completely literal [TRUE] is illogical.
You've contradicted yourself here.
#39
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Figurative does not necessarily mean false. And literal does not necessarily mean true.

You want it to be so that you find emotional release by calling the bible untrue. It is irrational.

And "illogical" in my comment refers to the claim, not the bible. There is nothing about the truth or falsehood about the bible in my comment. You just see it everywhere because you are consumed with it.
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Who do you personally believe is the most reliable "authority" on the subject of "interpreting the word of god",
The Bible itself.
Conflict of interest.  Circular reasoning.
#41
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol!!

OK Brut.

Aaah, that was funny.

#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Figurative does not necessarily mean false.
(IFF) REAL-TRUE-FACT = empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (THEN) figurative and metaphorical statements do not qualify, they are not necessarily verifiably FALSE, but they are functionally indistinguishable from FALSE (either "not true" or "neither true nor false" falling into the realm of personal opinion).

And literal does not necessarily mean true.
(IFF) REAL-TRUE-FACT = empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (AND) literal statements = empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (THEN) literal statements must always be REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
#43
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I feel sorry for you because its obvious that your life is lacking. If you cannot see  truth in figurative and metaphorical works, imagine how many wonderful literary works of art fly by you.

Not all truth is logically necessary. Not every truth is empirically verifiable. You're like the little kid insisting you cannot subtract 9 from 4 because that is the extent of his knowlege, and is unable to see that a whole world exists past his meager perception.

You fight for your little view as if you'd die if I didn't believe it. I don't. You cling to materialism like a frightened puppy. Materialism is self contradictory.

Figurative does not necessarily mean false. And literal does not necessarily mean true. And no amount of convoluted rationalization will change that.
#44
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
If you cannot see  truth in figurative and metaphorical works...
Please provide a specific example of either a figurative "truth" or metaphorical "truth".
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Christen
Here's a good one,

The formal fallacy of the modal fallacy is a special type of fallacy that occurs in modal logic. It is the fallacy of placing a proposition in the wrong modal scope,[1] most commonly confusing the scope of what is necessarily true. A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false. Some philosophers further argue that a necessarily true statement must be true in all possible worlds. [WIKI]
#46
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Please provide a specific example of either a figurative "truth" or metaphorical "truth".
Do you not see how silly it is for you to ask me to show you what you have admitted you cannot see?

This is like a colorblind person asking to be shown the color green. You can't see it Brut!

You have become so invested in your dogmatic materialism, you are incapable of appreciating any of the higher functions of language or art.

For you, the great works of literature of the world that have enchanted millions and imparted sublime truths about life, are all just collections of words. As I said, I feel sorry for you.
Topic's author
#47
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
That looks like a rare case or something. I haven't seen that fallacy committed yet, or maybe I did but missed it due to it's obscurity.
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Christen
That looks like a rare case or something. I haven't seen that fallacy committed yet, or maybe I did but missed it due to it's obscurity.
It is the most pervasive and insidious logical fallacy.

"A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false." - This is also known as APODICTIC TRUTH.

ethang5 has built their entire philosophical foundation on this fallacy (conflating opinion with fact, which is a category error, also known as "the modal fallacy").
#49
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
...""A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false." - This is also known as APODICTIC TRUTH.".......


Cosmic Trinity:

Subcatgories of 1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

.....1a} absolute truth, --aka physical laws or cosmic principle i.e true everywhere and everywhen---

....Ex all scientists have ever observed is the conservation of energy i.e. energy { occupied space } cannot be created nor destroyed and this is also known as integrity and old news to those who follow pathways of rational, logical common sense scientific methodology

......2b} relative truths,

...the sky is blue......

....3} lies, falsehoods

...ex all that is stated in Bible is true or the sky and/or atmosphere does not exist