Meant to address this to @Klax. Edited accordingly.
Apologetics Apostacy 101, lesson 1:
anyone holding a belief contrary to your interpretation of scripture does not just disagree with you but is logically incoherent and quite likely insane.
2 Likes
Hi Mark, let me know if you get this message and I’ll be glad to respond…
(Craig Keener may be one of my favorite apologists alive today, and while me and him would disagree on a couple things, he certainly defies many people’s expectation of what an apologist is)
Sounds like me
“But God…” (there’s a neat little book by that name by Casey Lute)
No problem, consider what I said to be an open invitation
Mark, I hope you don’t mind, if it resonated with me. I read it, before you addressed it more specifically. Actually, I encountered just this thing earlier today:
===============
One of my brilliant husband’s favorite songs. We were just listening to this in the car the other day. It’s playing in my head now.
1 Like
Am I mad? Are you kidding? Your endorsement of Phil’s post sent me looking for that song which I just very much enjoyed. (It also sent me back looking for the quote you had cited. So frustrating, the self righteousness of the true believer who is just trying to help mind the guardrails - never wondering if it might have been they themselves who flew off the more important track.). So thank you for directing me back to the song @jpm had recommended it. Very Dylanesque lyrics. Must have come out during one of those spells when I had my head under a rock. Learning it had also earned your and Scot’s endorsement tipped the scale toward filling in this hole in my cultural education. So thank you.
Found myself thinking of a passage from Crime and Punishment again which I quoted here shortly after I first started posting here but before it occurred to me to start the pithy quotes thread. The quote I shared follows the one this link takes you to.
It talks to me about how different sources speak to different folks at different points in their lives and only they can know when it is time for that part of truth in their lives. That is why I cannot support the nons who insist on their meager version of the truth without regard to where others may be in their progression though ‘the’ truth. I could never be a pusher for a single view of truth for all right now and forever for everybody because I know they’re on their own way to the truth which is actually a journey and not a destination. It is more important to me that everyone preserve their humanity and individual integrity on the only journey that can allow them to remain a peer in the realm of my fellow humans being human rather than singing my or anyone else’s tune to satisfy me.
1 Like
Although a superpositioned alive/dead cat would be a practically infinite Einstein Bose condensate to be able to have multiple (understatement) eigenstates: With 10^23 atoms in a small cat, what are the combinations of alive and dead atoms?
1 Like
As a non, me, Erik is making a counter-factual claim; there COULDN’T well be. There is no need whatsoever to invoke anything but nature to explain Jesus and the unrecognisable movement that claims Him as founder. Not the supranatural or some imaginary aspect of nature that isn’t warranted in any way,
1 Like
@klax and @MarkD it’s one thing if you want to ignore me elsewhere, but I will ask you refrain from airing your opinions which are off topic in a thread I started
1 Like
Irregardless of what a waveparticle is in super(natural)position, it is necessarily impossible for A to be non-A at the same time and in the same (even spatial) relationship.
As Kant said, “Without a contradiction, I have through mere pure concepts a priori no mark of impossibility.” Or is it possible he was mistaken?
Man this derailed fast
Like herding cats 
I had it on my mind to make a comment regarding what was said about the physical impossibility of an infinite number of objects. If that is presumed upon, then I suppose it should follow for an infinite number of events in time.
Or in the way a physical singularity tears a hole in the fabric, so a sufficiently held expectation reorders the course of events.
There is some talk about this in New Age circles. I’ve heard of A Course in Miracles, and I’ve been more or less meaning to look into it.
Where was it supposed to go?
1 Like
I think the main point is that what seems to be a contradiction at face value may not be a contradiction in reality. Another example I came across recently was watching World Cup with some friends, and they were confused as to how someone could be British and Welsh at the same time (live in the US, in case it isn’t obvious). Their minds were really blown when they learned that England was only part of Britain.
3 Likes
- Depends: Concrete objects or Abstract objects?
- An infinite number of Concrete objects would be physically impossible because they couldn’t move … anywhere.
- But an infinite number of Abstract objects, such as "points in Absolute Space is absolutely possible, and necessary because without them there could be no motion of anything Concrete, Animate or Inanimate.
- There being an infinite number of “points” in Absolute Space, there must be an infinite number of “instants” in Absolute Time, otherwise there could be no such thing as “Continuous Motion”. Concrete Objects, Animate or Inaninate, would always “jump around” from one point to another.
1 Like
And Britain is only part of the United Kingdom.
Which is only a part of the Commonwealth?
1 Like
And a relatively small part at that.
2 Likes
This is an important consideration, and I understand what you are saying. Yet when a genuine contradiction is found, like when a person claims (or it is claimed about a person) that they were born in the US and England, it is necessarily false. There could be figures of speech involved, but not if it is literally said they were born in two different places.
I understand this seems silly, and I recall my logic professor talking about deductive logic and whether it can provide new information about the world. I seem to remember him saying that it cannot, as I remember thinking that it can with the ontological argument which I had recently learned at the time.
Someone once told me they could imagine an infinite number of points in their mind. I’m pretty sure they were lying.