Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world with no death prior to the alleged fall?

[HisChildForever]

On January 4, 2016 at 1:12:31 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

I miss Rexi.  

Oh me too! Sadly I forget his real name. I believe he deleted his Facebook a long time ago. 

[Nihil Obstat]

36 minutes ago, HisChildForever said:

Oh me too! Sadly I forget his real name. I believe he deleted his Facebook a long time ago. 

I know it, and I believe I found him in his university's website. I would like to be back in contact with him, but it seems that he did not leave that avenue open.

[HisChildForever]

Maybe one day he'll return 

[Peace]

On 1/4/2016, 11:38:05, Cam42 said:

I was speaking about me, Josh.  I've only ever had one account as well.  I insinuate nothing.  If nothing else, you will always see what you get from me.  There is no agenda from me, other than to promote authentic Catholicism from the Early Church through today.

There was a time when I got pretty snarky, but we all go through "dark nights" don't we.  I just didn't handle mine very well.  Some of what people know about me is true, some of what people know about me is not.  That is what makes a legend.  And I am sure there are legends around this place about me.....I hope not, but I think so.

Anyhow, I was referring to myself.  What you'll find is that my sign on date is within 9 months of yours.  We're both old timers.  

Just to clarify, that moniker applies equally well to any person who disagrees with me on any point.

Peace

[Cam42]

18 hours ago, Peace said:

Just to clarify, that moniker applies equally well to any person who disagrees with me on any point.

Peace

Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt.....because you're NOT just some random guy on the internet.  Just what I thought.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Cam42 said:

Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt.....because you're NOT just some random guy on the internet.  Just what I thought.

Certainly, from your perspective, or from the perspective of any other poster on this forum, you would be justified in considering me "a random person on the internet". I don't expect anyone to be persuaded by what I say because just because I am Peace (as amesome as I may be) or because of various items that are on my personal resume.

[Cam42]

20 hours ago, Peace said:

Certainly, from your perspective, or from the perspective of any other poster on this forum, you would be justified in considering me "a random person on the internet". I don't expect anyone to be persuaded by what I say because just because I am Peace (as amesome as I may be) or because of various items that are on my personal resume.

There's where we disagree.  A resume actually does lend credence to the importance of your view.  If, for example, you have a degree in marketing and/or requisite experience and are talking about marketing things, I would consider you a subject matter expert.  The same holds true if you had a degree and/or RE in theology or philosophy.  That's the point of a resume.

But then again, I'm just some random guy on the internet.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

There's where we disagree.  A resume actually does lend credence to the importance of your view.  If, for example, you have a degree in marketing and/or requisite experience and are talking about marketing things, I would consider you a subject matter expert.  The same holds true if you had a degree and/or RE in theology or philosophy.  That's the point of a resume.

But then again, I'm just some random guy on the internet.

I went to Northwestern and I can assure you that there are many people who graduated with degrees from that university who are not experts on anything.

But I respect your view. If you desire to give deference to a person because of his or her credentials you are certainly free to do so. And the fact that a person has a degree would be an indicator to me that the person may know what he or she is talking about as well, especially in the situation where I was seeking to hire someone.

But when we are discussing a specific issue, I do not care about the person's pedigree. I care about the logic of what is coming out of the person's mouth at that particular point in time. If an undegreed pauper says something that is more logical than a person with a PhD then I will have to go with the undegreed pauper. It is the argument itself that I value, not the credentials of the person making the argument. I think this is also a valid view.

[Credo in Deum]

I have a B.S. in bs.

[Cam42]

On 1/13/2016, 12:41:03, Peace said:

I went to Northwestern and I can assure you that there are many people who graduated with degrees from that university who are not experts on anything.

But I respect your view. If you desire to give deference to a person because of his or her credentials you are certainly free to do so. And the fact that a person has a degree would be an indicator to me that the person may know what he or she is talking about as well, especially in the situation where I was seeking to hire someone.

But when we are discussing a specific issue, I do not care about the person's pedigree. I care about the logic of what is coming out of the person's mouth at that particular point in time. If an undegreed pauper says something that is more logical than a person with a PhD then I will have to go with the undegreed pauper. It is the argument itself that I value, not the credentials of the person making the argument. I think this is also a valid view.

I don't really care about a pedigree either.  I'm not talking about the ancestry of someone.  But, chances are better than not, that a person who actually holds a degree or has the requisite experience is going to be more coherent or will be more cogent in a discussion regard the area he holds a degree in 99% of the time, as opposed to the one who is not have the same education and/or background.

Or is it always your policy to take things to the extreme end and operate as if that is the norm?  While it may very well be a valid view, it certainly isn't very sound.  And if you're trying to make a logical allegory out of this, you're going to fail, because the proof lies not only in the validity of an argument, but also in it's soundness.

6 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

I have a B.S. in bs.

Yes, but we all know you're a rockstar in Buffalo Sweetness.  Nobody is questioning that.

[Peace]

32 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

I don't really care about a pedigree either.  I'm not talking about the ancestry of someone.  But, chances are better than not, that a person who actually holds a degree or has the requisite experience is going to be more coherent or will be more cogent in a discussion regard the area he holds a degree in 99% of the time, as opposed to the one who is not have the same education and/or background.

I am not so sure about 99%. But I will grant you 51% as a consolation prize.

32 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Or is it always your policy to take things to the extreme end and operate as if that is the norm?  While it may very well be a valid view, it certainly isn't very sound.  And if you're trying to make a logical allegory out of this, you're going to fail, because the proof lies not only in the validity of an argument, but also in it's soundness.

On the contrary, an argument from authority is the weakest form of proof. Therefore my view is both valid and sound.

I answer that, weighing the merits of an argument based on the strength of the argument itself, rather than the credentials of the person making the argument, is more likely to result in a determination of the truth.

[Guest]