For instance, if I claim that Barbara Streisand is or might be the empress of the Universe, and then claim all assertions to the contrary are equivalent to doubting that the first moon landing ever took place, have I made a valid argument?
Similarly, if I claim that the Judeo-Christian deity is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, and then claim all assertions to the contrary are equivalent to doubting that the first moon landing ever took place, have I made a valid argument?
2007-03-09 07:36:57 · 11 answers · asked by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Obviously not- valid arguments need to be supported by valid evidence.
2007-03-09 07:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither argument is valid. What people who disagree with you are comparable to is not relevant in any argument. If I say that the Sun is very hot and if you don't think so you are insane, I have not made a good argument. But that would not make me wrong about the sun.
If you know you are right about something, just give the facts and present evidence. There is no point in calling those who disagree weird.
When it comes to matters of faith, whether it be in Streisand or in God, because proof cannot be presented to a non-believer, people often resort to arguments that just don't work.
But not making a good argument, or not knowing how doesn't necessarily make someone wrong.
2007-03-09 08:13:35 · answer #2 · answered by out of the grey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but you have created a self-enclosed theory hostile to all other theories.
Now all you need to do is make a clause that warns people of the dangers of making a false claim against your theory.
For example, something that goes like this: Be aware of those who claim that Barbara Streisand is not the empress of the universe, they will claim that they are the empress, or that no empress actually exists at all. But they are wrong. There is an empress. one and only empress, and that empress is Barbara Streisand. All others are false empresses and will suffer tremendous pain and suffering in Streisand Land for as long as Barbara wishes.
2007-03-09 07:44:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do not understand the position those numbers got here from. The textual content of the hot testomony has been *shown* to be very on the fringe of the originals-- something on the order you record. it is also genuine that the NT is an particularly sturdy historic record. the individuals, places, and activities that we are able to verify finally end up to be recorded appropriately. that is only no longer too astounding given the close proximity of the activities to the dates of composition for the NT. There are some astounding exceptions. The census recorded in Luke, as an party has no longer been confirmed by technique of exterior aspects. and we may assume that it will be. yet there is various of stuff contained in the textual content that we gained't likely make certain externally. So assigning a percentage looks more suitable like rhetoric than scholarship. peace Edit: examining your data, i imagine I see a touch mistake. attempting out historic claims easily does advise study. besides the undeniable fact that the outcomes are rather a lot in no way previous accessible dispute. it truly is only no longer how historic previous works. the familiar public figures, places, and activities spoken of contained in the textual content were confirmed, in rather a lot all circumstances. One party i recognize that illustrates my aspect is the recorded communication between Pilate and the Jewish religious administration. They make the declare that each and each one those who releases Jesus is not any buddy of Rome. properly, all of us understand from exterior aspects that there became an before revolt that had tainted Pilate's political acceptance again in Rome. So it truly is the subtext of the threat that provides it tooth quite than the declare itself. this kind of issue occurs usually contained in the textual content, and is utilized by technique of historians to gage the reliability of it universal even after we gained't discover yet another source for its claims.
2016-12-05 11:31:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And it HAS to be Barbara Streisand?? It couldn't be say.. The Rock?? Viggo Mortensen?? you know.. someone *I* can worship?
Lol no, the argument is NOT valid in any way, shape, or form, and hence the reason why they aren't going to convert us on that basis.
2007-03-09 07:42:23 · answer #5 · answered by Kallan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No you haven't because you don't have the proof or evidence to back up your claim. I would simply say nice try though. Simply saying something doesn't make it a fact. If anything what you would be saying is an opinion.
2007-03-09 07:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. It's just plain old poisoning the well. Rather than deal with your opponent on a level playing field, you would be using special rules just for you.
It makes you a crappy person.
2007-03-09 07:40:15 · answer #7 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only way this would be true, would be if you were to say something like "I am insane and anyone who disagrees with me is insane" might in fact prove you're insane...
2007-03-09 07:40:45 · answer #8 · answered by Laptop Jesus 2.0 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, do not pass Go. Do NOT collect $200.
Though I've heard that works in fairytale land.
2007-03-09 07:39:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No , and I doubt you would be so foolish to do such a thing. :)
I wish people (christians) would wise up to the BS they are being taught.
2007-03-09 23:34:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋