Back on Jorden’s topics, neither ‘scholar’ nor Fisherman have provided any justification whatsoever for the several ways that JW interpretations about the ‘appointed times of the nations’ and related concepts deviate from what the Bible actually says.
Scholar and Fisherman
by Jorden 207 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Beth Sarim
Because there is no "evidence" of such things.
-
scholar
Jefro
Back on Jorden’s topics, neither ‘scholar’ nor Fisherman have provided any justification whatsoever for the several ways that JW interpretations about the ‘appointed times of the nations’ and related concepts deviate from what the Bible actually says.
--
A demand from a person who does not even believe in the Bible especially the Flood and Noah's Ark. The said scholar is ready and more than happy to discuss the subject of the 'Gentile Times ' or the 'appointed times of the nations'.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
‘scholar’ seems to imagine these are negative qualities. But in reality, in the absence of evidence for assertions about deities, the default position is atheism. Not to mention the mountains of evidence that categorically show that the ‘flood’ is nothing more than a tale adapted from the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Do better, ‘scholar’.
--
If a person does not stand for something then where is the credibility? In relation to the Flood, there is a mountain of evidence for a global Flood and the fact that the story of the Flood is widespread in ancient and modern cultures is a testament to its authenticity..
scholar JW
-
scholar
Beth Sarim
Because there is no "evidence" of such things.
--
The evidence is in God's Word, the Holy Bible
scholar JW
-
Fisherman
I think I see why you don’t very often try to construct logical syllogisms. 🤦♂️ Your first premise is rejected as unfalsifiable, and your argument is circular because your first premise assumes your conclusion. As to your second premise, it is invalidated by the fact that you attempted a logical proof, which if based on a properly formed syllogism with accepted premises would be proof without empirical evidence. Additionally, the part of your claim that only god can produce a miracle is not supported by your premises. Logically, your argument is rejected. Do try something convincing next time.
Horsefeathers. Your logic is based on a false premise that God does not exist.Also. to those that conclude that God does not exist. How can you know for a fact that he doesn’t? It is only a belief that he doesn’t. If is plausible that he does. But how could you know something is fact? Not by hearing testimony but only by taking a measurement. You would need to experience God physically and not by logic. The reality of God does not depend on proof. Any evidence natural or supernatural can be rejected like assuming the parting of the Red sea or resurrection of someone from the cemetery . Bible says “they will have to know that I am YHWH” means that people will be compelled to accept the evidence: proof from God in such a way that s person is forced to see and realize and know for a fact that it is coming from God. Only God could fo that. -
Jeffro
🤦♂️
Fallacy: shifting the burden of proof.
How do you know for a fact that there aren’t invisible goblins that want your socks.
-
Jeffro
Just for fun, here’s what ChatGPT thought of Fisherman’s last bit of drivel:
There are several fallacies and poor reasoning in the provided passage:
And yes, I know, AI bad, ChatGPT leftist, yadda yadda. 🙄
1. False dichotomy: The passage presents a false dichotomy between only two options - either experiencing God physically or only having a belief that He doesn't exist. There are other possibilities, such as making an inference based on evidence or lack thereof.
2. Appeal to ignorance: The passage suggests that since there is no way to disprove the existence of God, it is plausible that He exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and lack of evidence for the existence of God does not make it more likely that He exists.
3. Special pleading: The passage argues that the reality of God does not depend on proof, which is a form of special pleading - offering an exception to a general rule without justification.
4. Ad hoc reasoning: The passage uses ad hoc reasoning to explain away any evidence that contradicts its claims, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the resurrection of someone from the cemetery, by suggesting that such evidence can be rejected.
5. Circular reasoning: The passage cites the Bible to support its claims, which is an example of circular reasoning - using the conclusion to support the premise.
Overall, the passage presents several fallacies and poor reasoning, which weaken its argument and make it less persuasive. -
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
If a person does not stand for something then where is the credibility?
It seems that you are using ‘stand for something’ as a placeholder for ‘maintain some kind of religious superstition’, which is, of course, ridiculous. Credibility, on the other hand, is derived from not appealing to arbitrary interpretations.
-
joey jojo
scholar
If a person does not stand for something then where is the credibility? In relation to the Flood, there is a mountain of evidence for a global Flood and the fact that the story of the Flood is widespread in ancient and modern cultures is a testament to its authenticity.The flood story is not widespread. We have 1 biblical flood story and all the rest from around the world are different. Given that pretty much every human settlement of any size have always lived close to rivers/ lakes, it would be strange NOT to have numerous flood legends from all around the place.
Come on Scholar, you can do better than that.