Continuing with Terncote

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I was however saying God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God. - That is not a circle in logic, if that is what you thought, since explanation and proof are opposite directions."

God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God

That is a definitive example of circular logic and the begging the question logical fallacy.

"since explanation and proof are opposite directions."

You apparently don't understand logic very well at all, given this statement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Perhaps you don't.

"That is a definitive example of circular logic and the begging the question logical fallacy."

No.

There is no such fallacy as "circular logic". There is "circular explanation" and "circular proof".

For instance, "The boss is here, because his hat is on the shelf" we are dealing with proof. The hat proves the boss is here.

On the other hand, "the hat is on the shelf, because the boss is here" we are dealing with causal explanation. The presence of the boss is the cause how the hat came to the shelf and is still on it.

So, causal explanation and proof are opposite directions.

Therefore :

A proves B proves A = vicious circle (in proving).

A explains B explains A = vicious circle (in explaining).

A proves B. B explains A - no vicious circle.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Circular logic - circular reasoning. Whichever.

"God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God"

This is circular reasoning / logic.

Your premise and your conclusion support each other without either being demonstrated to be true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

Miracle is premiss, God is conclusion.

God is explanation, miracle is effect.

"without either being demonstrated to be true."

False.

Documernt is premiss, miracle - as easiest explanation for document about it to come into existence (considering how they usually do) without THAT involving ANOTHER miracle - is conclusion.

Other direction, miracle is explanation, document is effect.

No circle involved at either point.

Tradition from document (supposing we don't have original paper or oral performance before eyes or ears), if credibly leading back to it is premiss, document as genuine is conclusion.

Or, document as genuine is explanation, tradition from it is effect.

Me reading such and such things are (under certain circumstances) credible arguments for a document tradition, the document tradition is the conclusion, which is again premiss for further conclusion of document, which is again further premiss for miracle, which is again premiss for God.

No circle.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You: God is real because God does miracles and miracles are real because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles...

Rinse and repeat.

Invoking scripture doesn't fix the loop because the justification for biblical inerrancy is the authority of God whose authority is proven by scripture...

Logical fallacy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your version of my logic:

"You: God is real because God does miracles and miracles are real because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles..."

My own version:

"God is real because God does miracles and miracles are POSSIBLE because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles..."

Real and possible are not same thing. A proof shows that something is real. A causal explanation shows that something is possible.

Try again ... or try to rethink what you thought you knew about logic! Hint : militant Atheists trying to show Christians guilty of "circular reasoning" (a fallacy which, unlike circular proof and circular explanation, is not there) are NOT the best school in which to learn logic correctly. How about the Teach Yourself Series, there is one dedicated to Formal Logic.

Or, if you want to know why I think miracles true, another real version of my logic:

"God is real because God does miracles and miracles are real because THEY ARE DOCUMENTED."

Non-circular proof.

"Invoking scripture doesn't fix the loop because the justification for biblical inerrancy is the authority of God whose authority is proven by scripture..."

I was NOT invoking Scripture as inerrant. In fact I gave examples of post-NT miracles in non-inerrant documentation, like the two vitas of St Genevieve and the Eugippian Vita Sancti Severini. It is NOT a question of inerrancy, only about credible historic documentation.

Try again ... if you care!

By the way, you have more than once committed "non causa pro causa" also known as "strawman" - which is a logical fallacy.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
""God is real because God does miracles and miracles are POSSIBLE because God can do them so we know that god is real because miracles..."

Again, classic circular reasoning / logic.

Not to mention you defining God into existence. Another classic theist fallacy.

Nevertheless, all the claims you make for your flood model are scientific and historical nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Again, classic circular reasoning / logic."

"Classic" won't convince me you know circular proof or circular explanation. There is no such single thing as "circular reasoning" or "circular logic".

"Not to mention you defining God into existence."

How am I supposed to have done that?

"Another classic theist fallacy."

Well, well, well ...? Aren't you showing that your text book in logic was far from unbiassed here? "Theist fallacies"? Are arguments fallacies when they are those of the other team to you, simple as that?

"Nevertheless, all the claims you make for your flood model are scientific and historical nonsense."

You like pretending that, don't you? How about arguing it? If you can?

Your denial of miracles being possible would logically imply "no miracles are true" which is about as much historic nonsense as saying "no wars ever happened" or "no revolutions were ever made".

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I was however saying God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God. - That is not a circle in logic, if that is what you thought, since explanation and proof are opposite directions."

I'll allow the world to decide if this is circular reasoning or not.

HINT: It is.

But if you want break the circle, provide a few reliably documented (and tested, if you can) miracles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But if you want break the circle,"

Which wasn't there in the first place. But yes, the "circle" you imagine is amply broken.

"provide a few reliably documented (and tested, if you can) miracles."

St Severin of Noricum lights candles in Church miraculously and stems a flooding forever (or at least for all years up to biography):

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severinus_02_text.htm

St Genevieve of Paris twice raises each time a drowned boy from the dead:

https://www.amazon.ca/GENOVEFAE-VIRGINIS-PARISIORUM-Prolegomena-Conscripsit/dp/B0093FAQPM

Richard Carrier very clearly knows this, since he counts on arguing against anti-Catholic Fundies who will themselves find it ridiculous to believe she actually did so. Especially since she was also responsible for introducing the cult of relics to Paris region, where it had been neglected. Not gaining any points with me, I'm Catholic, I believe she did what the biography said she did. Give or take a few mistakes, but such do not add up to otherwise non-extant miracles.

St Bridget prophecies the deaths of both theological adversaries and even of friends VERY accurately:

http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3436754

My Latin professor in Lund was an Atheist, he used to think she was obviously "mad" since she believed God talked to her, but admitted in the same breath that her predictions of deaths were EERILY accurate. Birger Bergh, now retired in favour of Father Anders Pilz, if you want to consult this. But of course there is the life itself ... was this one in Latin? OK, let's take a modern rendering of Thomas Gascoigne instead:

http://www.umilta.net/thgascbirgitta.html

St Francis of Assisi made several miracles, unlike "reference" most of them are NOT about communicating with animals, but about healing:

http://www.indiana.edu/~dmdhist/francis.htm

Check especially part III.

A new book “Saint Patrick After The Ancient Narrations” by Rev. Philip Lynch C.S.Sp. has just been published by his nephew James Lynch. The story of our National Saint has been directly transcribed from the ancient narratives with suitable commentary, nonetheless in agreement with the ancient narrators. No less than 64 Bishop-Saints wrote several lives of Saint Patrick. Our National Saint was British, hails from Armoric Britain, present day Northern France, spent 60 years on mission to our Isle where he consecrated 355 bishops and ordained 3000 priests. ...

These ancient narrations have been dismissed by modern historians for the very obvious reason they contain too many miracles. The recent pil pul for omitting them is to use instead his very scanty autobiographical material + his letter to Coroticus as "only things we really know about him" which is simply not true.

Here is a presentation of the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btOLVI8bo7k

Here is where you send for it:

Available from;

James Lynch
Carrickmore
St.Johnston
Co. Donegal
Ireland

087 2899762

Jaslynch1234@gmail.com
or
James1234Lynch@twitter.com

€20 includes p+p.

Renewed Debate, mostly on Miracles as Such

Under some debate with Tony Reed:

Terncote
[who probably has *nothing* to do
with "turn coat", just pronounced the same ...]

"Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out. "

Once you invoke miracles your claims can't be falsified and are no longer credible. And once you invoke miracles I can invoke COUNTER miracles so nyah nyah nyah...

And quite frankly, your scenario of a global flood, interlaced with right angle currents, capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed, is laughable.

If you want to know how the air and water currents on a water-world would function, look at Jupiter. Without continental land masses to break up air and water currents, they form into lateral bands. Storms don't last for days, they last for years, centuries.

There would be no surgical counter currents, delicately excising mountain sized chunks of sediment and depositing them, intact, at fanciful angles.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Once you invoke miracles your claims can't be falsified and are no longer credible."

Would be true if "miracles can happen" meant "anything whatsoever can happen in any sequence whatsoever". Which is not the case.

"And once you invoke miracles I can invoke COUNTER miracles so nyah nyah nyah..."

Attributable to what God or divinity? Testified by - for the case of the Flood - what ancient source?

"And quite frankly, your scenario of a global flood, interlaced with right angle currents, capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed, is laughable."

What do you mean "right angle currents"? A current comes at one angle, abates, another current comes at another angle.

As to "capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed" would perhaps depend on the angle of the current - vertically, that is.

"If you want to know how the air and water currents on a water-world would function, look at Jupiter. Without continental land masses to break up air and water currents, they form into lateral bands. Storms don't last for days, they last for years, centuries."

But Earth during Flood was not a water world. There was land - functioning as sea bottom - underneath the waters.

Also certain parallels to Jupiter can be observed about the Flood. Currents go very far in rather broad lateral bands at any given time, and we do find rocks very far apart across US carved into the trail of what seem to be parallel currents. Or serial ones, same in two places.

"There would be no surgical counter currents, delicately excising mountain sized chunks of sediment and depositing them, intact, at fanciful angles."

Since there was sea bottom - previously land, some of it rocks - there WOULD have been counter currents. As for currents excising chunks of anything (Tony Reed was talking about a boulder of coral reef, not sediment) and depositing them, that would depend on how much mud the current was already carrying.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Would be true if "miracles can happen" meant "anything whatsoever can happen in any sequence whatsoever".

That's pretty much what miracles are, magic. Or do you have some novel definition from your personal lexicon?

"Attributable to what God or divinity?"

The Great And Powerful Woo-Woo!

"Testified by - for the case of the Flood - what ancient source?"

If you don't know I can't help you. He only reveals himself to the faithful. You know how that works, right.

"What do you mean "right angle currents"? A current comes at one angle, abates, another current comes at another angle.

Geological features you are attempting to explain with your magic current thesis, often exist at very acute angles to existing strata.

"As to "capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed" would perhaps depend on the angle of the current - vertically, that is."

Certainly miracle currents would explain it.

"But Earth during Flood was not a water world. There was land - functioning as sea bottom - underneath the waters."

It was covered to the tops of the tallest mountains. The surface winds would move unabated. Good luck surviving a year of persistent category 6, 7, 8 plus hurricanes in a cedar tub held together with pegs and pitch.

"Currents go very far in rather broad lateral bands at any given time, and we do find rocks very far apart across US carved into the trail of what seem to be parallel currents. Or serial ones, same in two places."

Citations please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That's pretty much what miracles are, magic. Or do you have some novel definition from your personal lexicon?"

Even "magic" (which you misuse) does not mean "anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever".

"The Great And Powerful Woo-Woo!"

Sounds like a spoof rather than a serious belief you entertain.

"If you don't know I can't help you. He only reveals himself to the faithful. You know how that works, right."

For the devil, yes. For the true God, no, He does leave sufficient indications of His existence and of His major deeds for non-believer to be without excuse.

"Geological features you are attempting to explain with your magic current thesis, often exist at very acute angles to existing strata."

Currents need not be magic, only strong and changing.

"Certainly miracle currents would explain it."

So would very strong currents carrying very much mud - non-miraculously. A boulder would not budge for pure water, I presume, but once the water is thick with mud, well, it would probably work as well as ice - or better.

That said, I think an ice age did happen. After the Flood.

"It was covered to the tops of the tallest mountains."

Yes, which were how tall exactly in the pre-Flood world?

"The surface winds would move unabated."

Until the waters abated, I presume.

"Good luck surviving a year of persistent category 6, 7, 8 plus hurricanes in a cedar tub held together with pegs and pitch."

That seems to be another argument. We were talking about how currents could shape geological features. Of course, Japanese or Korean navy has tested the Ark by modelling and computer simulation (I'll look it up on CMI in a moment) and concluded waves three times as high as tsunami waves would not sink it.

Here:

CMI : Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

"Citations please."

Oh dear, sorry, that was a video I saw months ago ... I am afraid you will have to do with two links very technical which I found but haven't had time to read ... here:

COCCOLITHOPHORES AND CHALK LAYERS
John Woodmorappe answering a letter
in CEN Tech. J., vol. 9, no. 1, 1995
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_1/j09_1_29-36.pdf

Young evidences in an ancient landscape:
part 1—the Eastern Structural Front of the Appalachian Mountains
Kenneth H. Karle
Journal of Creation 23 (3) 2009
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_76-83.pdf

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Even "magic" (which you misuse) does not mean "anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever"."

And yet in Genesis, light was created BEFORE the sun, moon and stars. Go figure! That Yahweh, such a kidder.

"Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out. "

Did you forget you invoked a similar, arbitrary miracle in your version? And indeed your version CAN be ruled out, a priori, since no miraculous, supernatural event has EVER been reliably recorded or observed.

"So would very strong currents carrying very much mud - non-miraculously. A boulder would not budge for pure water, I presume, but once the water is thick with mud, well, it would probably work as well as ice - or better."

Presume nothing, given your previous and dubious record with hydro dynamics. I look forward to reviewing the results of your experiments on the action of sub-surface mud flows on erratic boulders.

Until then....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And yet in Genesis, light was created BEFORE the sun, moon and stars. Go figure! That Yahweh, such a kidder."

And before lamps. And before candles. The point is, since God is omnipotent and author of ALL creation, He can of course produce light through candleflames and stars, but equally on His own, without these aids. This does not mean that anything can happen in just any sequence whatsoever - for instance, it does not mean it can be dark immediately after God made light.

"Did you forget you invoked a similar, arbitrary miracle in your version?"

God steering the Ark was providential, if the boy falling from a high floor, bouncing on the sheet over the café entrance which would have been rolled in but wasn't, since the café owner had found it stuck, and falling into the arms of a rugby player who walked by was providential rather than miraculous.

I invoked no specific miracle about Ark keeping afloat in the dune waves it would normally go through.

"And indeed your version CAN be ruled out, a priori, since no miraculous, supernatural event has EVER been reliably recorded or observed."

Lots have, not my fault if you are sore at history. This one - of Ark staying afloat - was reliably observed and recorded (by oral text or by writing, whichever) by Noah, his wife, their three sons and daughters in law.

"Presume nothing, given your previous and dubious record with hydro dynamics. I look forward to reviewing the results of your experiments on the action of sub-surface mud flows on erratic boulders. Until then...."

Has it not occurred to you that water with lots of sand in it flowing very rapidly is even in everyday use for certain blasting and scouring operations? Water without sand in it if running very rapidly can scour the dirt off house walls very quickly. Mud has a thickness and specific weight (enough to carry boulders) comparable to ice.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And before lamps. And before candles. The point is, since God is omnipotent and author of ALL creation, He can of course produce light through candleflames and stars, but equally on His own, without these aids."

YAY! Magic and miracles again!

If you are just going to invoke a being who can magically change the laws of nature at will, there is no point in us discussing the "science" of supernatural hydro-dynamics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"YAY! Magic and miracles again!"

Miracles, yes. Anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever, no.

"If you are just going to invoke a being who can magically change the laws of nature at will, there is no point in us discussing the "science" of supernatural hydro-dynamics."

I don't think the hydrodynamics as such were supernatural.

If you can't take a debate with a Christian who believes in miracles, leave it to others.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Miracles, yes. Anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever, no."

But you just agreed that Yahweh CAN do things in arbitrary sequences. Miracles are inherently arbitrary.

Claims about miracles are unfalsifiable. You can invent anything to explain them. They are NOT science.

So stop trying to play both games. As soon as you stick God or Miracles in your "data" you have left the realm of science.

"I don't think the hydrodynamics as such were supernatural."

Yes you do... ""Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out. ""

Remember? "involves miracle"

"If you can't take a debate with a Christian who believes in miracles, leave it to others."

I think I am acquitting myself quite well. You are the one who wants to play on both sides of street.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But you just agreed that Yahweh CAN do things in arbitrary sequences. Miracles are inherently arbitrary."

If you take "arbitrary" in the first and oldest meaning : depending on someone's - i e God's arbitration.

"Claims about miracles are unfalsifiable. You can invent anything to explain them. They are NOT science."

Claims about miracles involve God. They are therefore theology.

"So stop trying to play both games. As soon as you stick God or Miracles in your 'data' you have left the realm of science."

In that case only Atheists would be scientists - which is preposterous.

" Yes you do...'Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out.'

Remember? 'involves miracle' "

Yes, the entire scenario as such does. But not the hydrodynamics, that involves very high cirrent strength.

"I think I am acquitting myself quite well. You are the one who wants to play on both sides of street."

If you think believing in natural science and believing in miracles is "wanting to play on both sides of the street", you are still not adequately debating a Christian who believes miracles are miracles and do happen and science is science and can be observed and proven. That is, observed in some parts, proven from observations in other parts.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Claims about miracles involve God. They are therefore theology."

Theology is not science.

"In that case only Atheists would be scientists - which is preposterous."

Theists can be scientist. They just can't use God or miracles as data. Nobody can.

"Yes, the entire scenario as such does. But not the hydrodynamics, that involves very high cirrent strength...."

...and miracles...

Hydrodynamics + Miracles = Miracles.

Anything + Miracles = Miracles.

"you are still not adequately debating a Christian who believes miracles are miracles and do happen and science is science and can be observed and proven."

More like you haven't adequately defined "miracles", as you use the term. So now would be a good time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Theology is not science."

It is the queen of sciences.

"Theists can be scientist. They just can't use God or miracles as data. Nobody can."

False. Miracles are observed data. God is - among other things and more important ones - the ultimate explanatory datum.

"...and miracles..."

Before, as in starting of Flood. Not necessarily in the hydrodynamics.

"Hydrodynamics + Miracles = Miracles."

No. It is =Miracles and Hydrodynamics.

"Anything + Miracles = Miracles."

No, it is Miracles + anything.

"More like you haven't adequately defined "miracles", as you use the term. So now would be a good time."

Any act beyond the power of a merely created agent in his own right, or any event beyond the causal powers of merely created factors. = Anything which clearly depends very directly on God.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It is the queen of sciences."

Theology makes no falsifiable claims. It is NOT science.

"Miracles are observed data."

Citations please.

"God is - among other things and more important ones - the ultimate explanatory datum."

Begging the question logical fallacy (God proves God). Try harder.

[Missed the accusation of vicious circle - see my added answer below.]

"Before, as in starting of Flood. Not necessarily in the hydrodynamics."

What starts as a miracle is still a miracle.

"No, it is Miracles + anything."

If you insist. Miracles + Anything = Miracles. This changes nothing.

"Any act beyond the power of a merely created agent in his own right..."

Actual examples please.

"or any event beyond the causal powers of merely created factors."

I.E. supernatural. I.E. magic.

"Anything which clearly depends very directly on God."

I.E. supernatural. I.E. magic.

[He seems to be allergic to that.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Theology makes no falsifiable claims. It is NOT science."

Theology makes the claim that God documents His existence by both natural processes ultimately reducible to miracle and by more minute miracles.

BOTH are falsifiable. NEITHER is falsified.

Man having consciousness is ultimately a miracle.

Sun turning around us both day and year in different but coordinated ways along with rest of non-terrestrial universe is ultimately a miracle. Life being there is ultimately a miracle.

More minute miracles involve both Flood and Resurrection of Christ, and many more recent ones. All of which are very well documented.

BBL, not necessarily today!

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Theology makes the claim that God documents"

Again with the question begging fallacy.

"His existence by both natural processes ultimately reducible to miracle and by more minute miracles. BOTH are falsifiable."

Please propose a specific experiment or observation which could falsify the existence of any god or any miracle.

"Man having consciousness is ultimately a miracle."

That's an assertion, not a fact.

"Sun turning around us both day and year in different but coordinated ways along with rest of non-terrestrial universe is ultimately a miracle."

That's explainable by physics.

"More minute miracles involve both Flood and Resurrection of Christ, and many more recent ones. All of which are very well documented."

Claims about the flood and miracles ascribed to Jesus and others are reported but not substantiated in any way. Allegorical evidence is not credible evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Again with the question begging fallacy."

No, it is a falsifiable claim.

"Please propose a specific experiment or observation which could falsify the existence of any god or any miracle."

Non-observation of any thought or any even being would very clearly falsify God, though we would not be there to make the observation and falsification.

A specific miracle claim can be falsified by ...

• showing a natural explanation;
• showing story wrong for OTHER reasons than its being miraculous, including, but not limited to showing transmission of message very unreliable or going back only to a claim made much later than the miracle the claim is about.

"That's an assertion, not a fact."

Let's back it up by fact.

Man has hands and feet, or if really handicapped at least a torso that are made of MATTER.

Matter does not inherently have the capacity of life, that is an added thing or of consciousness.

Otherwise lifeless things would be coming to life all the time, like "the swamp thing" and life without endowment of reason in consciousness would acquire this all the time. Even "talking snakes and donkeys" don't make us assume a serpent started to reason or a donkey started to comprehend information only the angel could give. Satan opened the serpent's mouth, God opened the donkey's.

"That's explainable by physics."

Oh, really? Details, please!

"Claims about the flood and miracles ascribed to Jesus and others are reported but not substantiated in any way. Allegorical evidence is not credible evidence."

Where do you get it from this is "allegorical evidence" and what do you even mean by the phrase?

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"No, it is a falsifiable claim."

Then tell us how ""Theology makes the claim that God documents"" can be falsified.

"Non-observation of any thought or any even being would very clearly falsify God..."

What does this even mean? I don't observe any unicorns... therefore GOD? Explain.

"A specific miracle claim can be falsified by ... * showing a natural explanation"

Debunking claims of specific miracles is not the same as flasifiying miracles as a class of phenomena. You need to state a condition or observation which would prove that miracles are impossible. If you can't then you aren't talking science.

"Man has hands and feet, or if really handicapped at least a torso that are made of MATTER. Matter does not inherently have the capacity of life, that is an added thing or of consciousness."

We don't know that. You are begging the question, using your premise as your conclusion = logical fallacy.

"Otherwise lifeless things would be coming to life all the time..."

Not according to evolutionary theory. If things did that, evolution would be falsified.

"Satan opened the serpent's mouth, God opened the donkey's."

Prove that Satan or God exist. And provide falsification for their existence too.

"Oh, really? Details, please! [for explanations of how celestial mechanics works]"

Get a text book on astrophysics or search the YouTube videos for stuff on cosmology.

"Where do you get it from this is "allegorical evidence" and what do you even mean by the phrase?"

Allegorical evidence is evidence from stories. If I say I saw an elephant on main street, that's allegorical evidence. Just an unlikely story.

If I show you a poster from the circus that's in town, show you a photo I took of the parade or take you to the big top, point at the elephant and say, "That's her. She was in the parade!", that's corroborative evidence.

Biblical claims are all allegorical. No posters. No photos. No talking donkeys.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Then tell us how ""Theology makes the claim that God documents"" can be falsified."

If no documentation of the aftermentioned kinds were observed.

"What does this even mean? I don't observe any unicorns... therefore GOD? Explain."

A falsification of a claim involves among other things a consequence of the claim being negated. A consequence of the claim "God is there" is "mind is there". If NO mind at all were there, then God would indeed not exist. Also, we would not exist either and be able to see He didn't.

"Debunking claims of specific miracles is not the same as flasifiying miracles as a class of phenomena. You need to state a condition or observation which would prove that miracles are impossible. If you can't then you aren't talking science."

Neither "miracles can happen" nor "miracles cannot happen" is natural science. Both are philosophy. However, if you really want a test, here is one for your claim. Supposing NO miracle happened. Then either NO or very rare and easily explodable stories of miracles would be involved, I do not say in the history of historians (these can have and recently do have an antimiraculous bias, most of them), but the history of testimonies and of chronicles. Instead we do find very many miraculous stories. Just suffices to look up Medieval biographies of saints, from early ones like Vita Sancti Genovefae (there are two parallel ones in the Bollandists) or Eugippius' Vita Sancti Severini, or for that matter biographies of Saint Patrick by next generation Irish clergy - miracles abound. They do not cease to do so through the centuries for that type of document.

"We don't know that. You are begging the question, using your premise as your conclusion = logical fallacy."

Yes we do know that for following reason (see answer to next one):

"Not according to evolutionary theory. If things did that, evolution would be falsified."

If NOWHERE anything like primordial soup is coming to anything like life, abiogenesis is falsified, which it is. I e, matter as such does not in-he-rent-ly have the capacity of life. Actually, if matter had an inherent capacity for life rather than getting life from the outside, a primordial soup would NOT be the only thing which would come to life.

"Prove that Satan or God exist. And provide falsification for their existence too."

The point was not MAKING these religious claims, but rather NOT MAKING the claim that serpents and donkeys have minds. Capable of such things as conceptual language.

"Get a text book on astrophysics"

Been there, done that. Went to physics class. Heard all about "stone on string experiment" and saw it executed too.

"or search the YouTube videos for stuff on cosmology."

You might REALLY like this one. Since gravity is a force and electromagnetism is a force, the closer parallel to supposed physics for solar system on Newtonian lines is Don Petit's experiment with charged knitting needles and water droplets.

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

"Allegorical evidence is evidence from stories. If I say I saw an elephant on main street, that's allegorical evidence. Just an unlikely story."

Sorry, for one thing, stories are the main type of evidence available especially after long time, for another thing, allegorical means something quite different [do you want to know what?] and finally, the story is not very unlikely.

"If I show you a poster from the circus that's in town, show you a photo I took of the parade or take you to the big top, point at the elephant and say, 'That's her. She was in the parade!', that's corroborative evidence."

Indeed, but it can be produced only for very fleeting time. Say you tell the story one month after circus was in town, when posters are down, and you have no camera, you don't have this corroborative evidence any more, just your story. Those who evaluate it would be better off not saying elephants are allegorical if in reality they know you are a truthful guy.

"Biblical claims are all allegorical. No posters. No photos."

You mean "just stories" - which is true for most of history.

"No talking donkeys."

Actually, if we started meeting talking donkeys everywhere, this would rather invalidate the Biblical world view in which God made a unique miracle in opening the donkey's mouth. Precisely as finding parallels to supposedly billions of years ago occurring abiogenesis would invalidate the idea of "common descent". In either case, we would be talking about sth which is "miraculous" in the sense of being very unique. Only, we are somewhat more logical than you in supposing such unique events presuppose someone who has the power to do such, you consider abiogenesis just happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
added later:

Oh, btw, missed one.

Me: God is - among other things and more important ones - the ultimate explanatory datum.

You: Begging the question logical fallacy (God proves God). Try harder.

Logic lesson : I was not saying "God proves God". I was not saying "this miracle proves this miracle". I was not saying "God proves this miracle and this miracle proves God".

I was however saying God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God.

That is not a circle in logic, if that is what you thought, since explanation and proof are opposite directions.

... on Con-Langs

1) HGL's F.B. writings : On Constructed Languages · 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Con-Langs · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Noster Franzeis - üne Lange konstreute per mei! · 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Are constructed languages (Na'vi, etc) really languages? Why or why not? (quora)

Creating a Language!
Alyssa Williams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-64QB3hOZg

0:39 - You'd enjoy my Noster Franzeis - unless you hate the sound of German. It's basically French with some Spanish, Italian etc traits adapted to German phonology.

6:08 Order who are government ... have you studied things like the domains of the Teutonic Order in Medieval History?

6:15 where knights of an ORDER were ruling, the ruler was usually the Grand Master (elected for up to death, excommunication or treason) ... where there were Kings and Queens, knights were usually vassals, and if from an Order, usually dispersed as a kind of privileged exception.

7:19 a homosexual "couple" ... was religion not Christian or was observance lax?

7:49 It's even fun when you have (at least as yet) no fantasy world to go with it.

I am partly considering making Noster Franzeis the language of a dwarf race living in the old Lotharingian area (including Switzerland, BeNeLux and Alsatia-Lorraine) ... a gag would be to let a sibling couple of French speakers go:

"Je trouve son Allemand très compréhensible ... mon prof d'Allemand va être ravi de mes progrès ..."
- "Eu, non, frérot, c'est du Français, c'est pour ça que tu le comprends ..."

Credited As: ConLangers (How to Create a Language)
Academy Originals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0knxW76bDuI

Mark Okrand - I have bad news for you! Recent reconstructions of PIE (if not the most recent one by Jouna Pyysala) do resemble Klingon!

Before the Laryngeal Theory, the reconstruction for father was basically p@teer (@=schwa). Now it is more like pxtehr (x=chi=ach-laut). Usual writing in reconstructed roots is with H1 for h and H2 where I put the ach-laut, but the reconstructed probable sound values for these are such that "h" is very probable for H1 (non-specific as to position in mouth > does not change vowel qualities, just prolong vowels), and ach-laut is as probable for H2 (specifically back of mouth and low, tends to produce the low and extreme open vowel A).

So, by now your Klingon DOES resemble sth. I have of course made the point that this might argue there is sth wrong about the reconstruction, including idea of reconstructing a proto-language.

And chosing object first does of course resemble Malagash ...

Paul Frommer: Creating A Language
NOVA's Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdF1d5MM-B4

Own comment

As having some Jewish connexion, I feel bad about certain things about the Jewish community.

Paul Frommer is NOT one of them.

Sorry not to be able to say this in N'avi? Na'vi? (Posing the aleph correctly is a problem to me, was a problem in Danish and would be a real problem if I tried to learn Hebrew), but I hope he doesn't mind me saying it in English (my Quenya vocabulary is too small for it).

THE BEST Lombax

If its working and people youse it and understand its not fictional Language now its like Egipcian language

Hans Georg Lundahl

It is still a CON-STRUC-TED language.

Most people involved in it don't use the term "fictional language", since its philosophical overtones are a bit wrong.

... on Creation and Marriage

Creation and marriage (Creation Magazine LIVE! 5-16)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYy_XZXP41o

4:44 Hagar. Good point in general, but Palestinians are not Ishmaelites, mainly. They are Israelites, of Christian and Muslim confessions. Check Acts how both Jews and Samaritans became Christian. Palestinians descend from these.

15:53 In skin colour, whites are one extreme In some other characteristics, whole Spectrum, including middle of the road. Hair structure, nose shape.

19:46 I must confess I took a chance of being legalistic and sounding PC about Åke Green. I jumped back then on his saying sth like God being against "homosexuals" saying myself it doesn't matter if that is your temptation, as long as you don't live it. I later found a full quote of sermon and found he had spoken about those who do.

Didn't I mention I had apologised already, to the one providing link, when I did find the sermon?

20:17 Wonder how many Muslim internet providers and Copy Shops have by now discriminated against me ... as a Catholic blogger and writer.

25:27 I think there is a genetic predisposition for androgynity.

[Or perhaps two different ones, according to sex]

But only in certain cultures would androgynity result in mental predisposition for homosexual desires or behaviour.

Also - some cases seem to have reverse cause: excessive estrangement from codes of other sex.

25:50 sth - note, it is important whether one punishes or discriminates for sodomy OR discriminates for "homosexuality".

Precisely as one should go to prison for stealing, not to mental hospital for cleptomania.

A judge presumes innocence until proven guilty. Not so doctors judging about aberrations.

I think that at 26:50 I added that therapy seems a bit erratic, to say the least.

Joe Sciambra is a Catholic ex-homosexual. After not sure whether 10 or 15 years of therapy, he is no longer a homo, but neither is he married to a woman.

Josh Weed is a Mormon, a homosexual (he says when he's tempted that is still how he is tempted). He is married to a woman, he has - last time I checked - four daughters.

He did not go to therapy, he simply decided to obey God's law and to confide in a girl who was his friend. That girl is now his wife.

If the comment was deleted because "that is their business", no, both are public figures. Of course, it is possible some internet provider did it during my session?

After all of video : You missed that context of Mark 10:6 is the forbidding of divorce and remarriage under Christ's law of the New Covenant.