Re: EddieSchultz62
http://www.youtube.com/user/EddieSchultz62

Quote Originally Posted by EddieSchultz62
Ahhhh, yet another logical fallacy coming from you, 'No true Scottsman" as Martin pointed out. Do you even care what a logical fallacy is, or means?

example of what you're claiming.

"An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy: they didn't really have faith, they weren't true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it."
I am glad you couldn't show it is a "No true Scotsman". This is what you are attempting...

Teacher: All Scotsmen (Christians) enjoy haggis (are OSAS).
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman (Christian), and he doesn't like haggis (is not OSAS)!
Teacher: Well, all TRUE Scotsmen (Christians) like haggis (are OSAS).

What the student said is a false statement, it is not admitted or accepted at all. In the No true Scotsman fallacy what the student said is admitted as factual. But it it is not under the definition of a Christian, so it can't be considered an exception what the student said. Therefore, no true Scotsman fallacious argument is employed. Remember the Bible defines a Christian as one who can never lose salvation, so the student is false or lying when he says someone is a Christian who is not OSAS. It would only be a No True Scotsman if I were to admit to you what the student said was a valid exception, but I do not. So that blows your theory out the window.

As to the matter of falsifiability you mentioned, sure you can falsify Christianity if it was false. You would be able to do one of two things or both: 1) show how the universe could exist without God and overturn the MFA and 4SPFG, or 2) find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs about the resurrection of Jesus.

Since you fail to be able to do so in either case, you're admitting God exists and Jesus is God. Praise the Lord!

Dude, the earth is not around 6,000 years old, the bible you believe is inerrant isn't, the Jesus you believe is the son of "god" or is "god" most likely didn't exist, a global flood never happened, snakes do not talk, we evolved (which there is mounds of evidence for), so you should do yourself a favor and let go of that "statement of faith" you're holding on to, and start reading some Science books, you'll thank me for it later, when you realize that what you're defending is all myths and fairytales.

Peace,
Eddie
You're committing the wrong hill fallacy. I am arguing over here, but you respond by arguing about something else unrelated on another hill. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, but 4.5 billion years old. And I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The significance of the 6000 years is that was when God breathed in the breath of life, directly creating man's spirit, into the pre-Adamic body, and when the spirit made contact with the body man became a living soul who had a spirit and a body. What this means is that since about 6000 years ago when man became God-conscious, he would never cease to exist when he died.

I have heard of thousands and thousands of arguments to try to disprove the inerrancy of the Bible and never once have any of them panned out. Moreover, you don't even need to worry about the inerrancy of the Bible, but by treating it like any other historical document you can glean certain facts. These minimal facts lead inextricably to the proof the resurrection happened and that Jesus is God. Amen.

The flood in the Bible was a local flood. Think of it in terms of their known world. They didn't know there was a South America back then for example. The talking snake is just the communication by an evil spirit through the snake. The snake is not actually talking. It is performed through the spirit of demonic spirits.

The Bible agrees the body came from dust (Gen. 2.7). This is what you call evolution. We don't dispute this. Rather we say evolution could not begin without the hand of God because you fail to reproduce abiogenesis. We even show there has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe for this to be possible. For the first replicating single-celled organism to come into being requires, therefore, requires God to do it.

Once you see all the mistakes you have just made in your argumentation, realize you are just living a lie in the fairy tale and myth of a universe that always existed or started up from nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You might want to stop listening to quacks like Martin Wagner from the Atheist Experience Show or Michael Martin, Case Against Christianity, for starters.