Is this inconsistency in the Quran evidence that it is man made?

[Thurisaz]

It is called an inductive inference/enumerative induction. Similar to the pessimistic meta inductive argument.

That's a convoluted way of saying "that's my hunch". I'm still not impressed by your vocabulary. I would be puzzled by your running behind technical jargon if it didn't reliably show up whenever you notice you have absolutely no case. Too bad for you I understand it quite well, even if I prefer to not use it.

Your grasp of logic is embarrassing.

Coming from someone who thinks many wrong answers mean there is no right one that's certainly a lot. Too bad you couldn't substantiate that in any way. In other words you're not making an argument.

Arithmetic statements are analytic. The statements concerning us now are synthetic. This shows how ignorant you are about logic.

The nature of those systems is completely irrelevant to my point, which apparently went over your head like usual.

I hope you are trolling.

Guess what that is not?

If you don't see the difference or understand induction or the reduction, then it is no surprise you spout such BS here and believe you have the truth.

When one thinks the other has not noticed something relevant, he points him to the right direction. What you do, is simply fling shit and wonder why I am not impressed.

I doubt you know what a reductio is.

Since when is posturing an argument? Do you think your "guess what I mean by this!" shtick impresses anyone? It simply underlines the fact that you have nothing to say.

Logically, if we have a set of mutually inconsistent miracle claims we have 2 ways the truth value of the set can be distributed: 1) they are all false or 2) only one is true and the others are false. Since a miracle claim alone is not enough to determine its own truth value (and thus the truth of its religion) and given that (1) either all miracle claims are false or (2) all of them but one are false, it is reasonable to conclude that they are all false (inductive inference), or at least conclude that miracle claims alone can't be used to support the general truth of its religion.

Not only is your initial if false, it also attacks a strawman. But that was an attempt at argument, which is nice to see for once.

Add the reductio's conclusion to this and you have a strong case against the miracle claims of christianity or any other religion.

Your hunch isn't much of an argument.

lol, how ironic. Again, the truth value of an analytic statement (2+2=5) is not establish or falsified through observation because it is a priori. My 10 year old sister has a better grasp of logic than you. How embarrassing.

Butthurt much?

Whether it results in good or bad says nothing about whether it is divine or human.

True, in a sense.

Universalizability. Again, I wouldn't hold my breath...

I won't hold my breath waiting for your explanation for what about Christian morality isn't universalizable.

Thurisaz, please respond.

So you held your breath after all. FYI I do have a family and it's Christmastime.

 

[meauneau]

That's a convoluted way of saying "that's my hunch". I'm still not impressed by your vocabulary. I would be puzzled by your running behind technical jargon if it didn't reliably show up whenever you notice you have absolutely no case. Too bad for you I understand it quite well, even if I prefer to not use it.


Coming from someone who thinks many wrong answers mean there is no right one that's certainly a lot. Too bad you couldn't substantiate that in any way. In other words you're not making an argument.


The nature of those systems is completely irrelevant to my point, which apparently went over your head like usual.


Guess what that is not?

When one thinks the other has not noticed something relevant, he points him to the right direction. What you do, is simply fling shit and wonder why I am not impressed.


Since when is posturing an argument? Do you think your "guess what I mean by this!" shtick impresses anyone? It simply underlines the fact that you have nothing to say.


Not only is your initial if false, it also attacks a strawman. But that was an attempt at argument, which is nice to see for once.


Your hunch isn't much of an argument.


Butthurt much?


True, in a sense.


I won't hold my breath waiting for your explanation for what about Christian morality isn't universalizable.


So you held your breath after all. FYI I do have a family and it's Christmastime.

I'm LMFAO. You must be a clown or a comedian by profession. You literally danced arround every point and evaded them all.

I didn't hold my breath, you don't know what a reductio is.

I will refer everyone to this post for why no one should take your posts seriously. If anyone does, then they must be of the same intellectual calibre as you.

 

[Thurisaz]

I'm LMFAO.

When you have to spell it out, everyone knows it's not genuine.

You must be a clown or a comedian by profession. You literally danced arround every point and evaded them all.

More tedious posturing with no substance. That's rich from someone who has simply not even deigned to acknowledge when he has been repeatedly corrected, gamma boy.

I didn't hold my breath, you don't know what a reductio is.

Again, I'm familiar with the terminology even if I don't use it. While it's commonly used as short for reductio ad absurdum, I'm not inclined nor interested in finding out if you're after that particular meaning or something else. That one is getting his kicks from hiding behind ambiguous terminology tells all about how meaningful it is to have a conversation of any sort with you.

So I have to admit making a mistake. I initially thought you were genuinely curious, but it appears you're just trying to win instead of having a reasoned discussion, very likely because you're still hurt about the last time you tried. A lesson learned, some time wasted.

Bye, gamma boy.

 

[meauneau]

When you have to spell it out, everyone knows it's not genuine.


More tedious posturing with no substance. That's rich from someone who has simply not even deigned to acknowledge when he has been repeatedly corrected, gamma boy.


Again, I'm familiar with the terminology even if I don't use it. While it's commonly used as short for reductio ad absurdum, I'm not inclined nor interested in finding out if you're after that particular meaning or something else. That one is getting his kicks from hiding behind ambiguous terminology tells all about how meaningful it is to have a conversation of any sort with you.

So I have to admit making a mistake. I initially thought you were genuinely curious, but it appears you're just trying to win instead of having a reasoned discussion, very likely because you're still hurt about the last time you tried. A lesson learned, some time wasted.

Bye, gamma boy.

Everyone can see my arguments and how you never even came close to addressing them. The reductio argument I put forth concerning miracle claims is a very famous one from David Hume. You think it is an ambiguous term I am using when it means just one thing, an argument where you start with an assumption and end up with an absurdity.

It is obvious to everyone that you are out of your depth here. All you do is spout whatever you read in the bible and assume it is true. When shown that you spout is wrong you respond with accusations of posturing, using technical or ambiguous terms, and that we are stupid or trolls. If it helps you sleep good for you.

Merry christmas bro. Thanks for the lulz.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yeah and the Christian book says thou shalt not kill, and yet if someone has served other gods, then you shalt stone them with stones until they die.

And the Jewish book says the highest form of wisdom is kindness, but it also says if a non-Jew has fallen into a crevice, then it's okay to take a ladder away from them.

And if you're a Scientologist, well please don't make me read L. Ron Hubbard right now, but let's just all assume there is some bullshit in there too.

Shall not MURDER, but that's nuance.