The point is that “extraordinary” is a logically ambiguous term. One man’s ordinary is another man’s extraordinary. A claim — any claim — requires exactly the same evidence as all other claims: namely, evidence that it is true. A claim might be “ordinary” for one person and “extraordinary” for another. If Chelsea Clinton claims that her father was president and Queen Latifah makes the same claim, or both deny it, exactly the same evidence should be required in any case. If you say that your chemical has antigravity properties, you need do nothing but apply it and levitate — with respect to your claim, such evidence is hardly extraordinary, but rather exactly what one would expect.
Ordinariness is a matter of perception, not logic. If you make either claim, I want exactly the evidence that proves it true.
Of course it isn’t. A is an extraordinary claim because ~A is not. Extraordinary means “Beyond what is ordinary or usual”. Hence, the opposite is what is ordinary or usual. Whether or not extraordinary is subjective or not, if you believe A to be extraordinary, then by definition ~A is not.
Still curious about my question to you about The Koran and Moby Dick:
If Book A really is asserting “X”, then Book A is inaccurate in doing so, and Book Y is inaccurate in saying that A doesn’t assert “X”. So that would make the compendium inaccurate, yes. Alternatively, if Book A doesn’t really assert “X”, then Book A is accurate, and Book Y may be too, but then I didn’t find an error in Book A. I’m really not sure what you’re actually claiming here. If I find an actual error in something, then it is not free from error. I can stop looking after I find the first one. Don’t argue that point. It’s a tautology.
I can only conclude that you are asserting that it’s not possible to determine if a Biblical passage is actually in error without considering the totality of the Bible. This, however, is a very odd sort of claim. It’s sort of akin to saying that we can’t know if Richard III contains historical inaccuracies without reading The Taming of the Shrew and Sonnet XXXIV to see if they indicate that Shakespeare didn’t really mean that back in Act II, Scene 3. I’m willing to grant that it may be appropriate to interpret various bits of the Bible in light of others, but if we find in II Kings a description of events that we know from archeological study is false, I don’t need to read Thessalonians to see if it contains any disclaimers before I can conclude that II Kings is in error.
I have irrefutable evidence that the new Pope is actually an android.
It is not the case that I have irrefutable evidence that the new Pope is actually an android.
It is bizarre to claim that these statements are equally extraordinary.
Daniel
Just wait till he explains how we need to alter our understanding of philosophy of science now that we can no longer make use of a methodology that favours the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence. 
I’d like to step in and request that we take the philosophical bickering that I am sure will come to another thread? Let us pit this asshat in peace.
“Rick Santorum Has Never Read the Bible” is not a true statement, and is not backed at all by “I’ve never read the Bible cover to cover”. Even great Biblical scholars might very well have never read the Bible like that. It’s not the way you read the Bible- well, unless you’re trapped with nothing else to read or want to prove a point or something. And, you can have read ‘every word’ in the Bible- without reading it 'from cover to cover". It’s not a novel. You don’t lose any continuity if you just read a Book here and there, separately, non-sequentially.
It’s like saying “Mark Spitz doesn’t know how to swim” after having Mark admit he never swam the English Channel. :rolleyes:
You know, before people start a thread like this, dudes really should know something of what they are talking about, instead of just blabbering along in complete ignorance.
This thread will evolve into a philisophical argument, completely ignoring Santorum’s idiocy and bigotry.
This thread will NOT evolve into a philisophical argument, completely ignoring Santorum’s idiocy and bigotry.
Which of these claims would be considered extraordinary?
Instead, he cites the incoherent word of God.
Ah, I see what you mean. In that sense, I agree with you. However, what I’m saying is that whether or not a claim is extraordinary is not intrinsic in the claim. Ordinariness is a perception, not a truth value.
Sorry. I thought you were being rhetorical. I’ve always stated that the Word of God is Christ, and is not found in any book, including the Bible. And the Qur’an. And Moby Dick.
In an attempt to hijack this thread back to where it was when posted by Eve, the point of the OP was (IMHO) that Senator Asshat has no business waving about his religious cugdel when he has no knowledge of the parent document he espouses.
Sadly, most politicians will claim to be anything that gets them a vote. Be thankful that they aren’t possessing of true chameleon properties, or you’d have pols changing the color of their skin to enhance appeal before a given audience.
Despite his other flaws, Santorum is consistently an asshat. He’s incabable of getting my vote.
You’ve read every book ever written? Impressive.
No, of course not. But you cannot claim that the entire compendium of books is in error if Thessalonians does indeed disclaim II Kings. Let me put this another way. Consider how many logical proofs are created by arguing reductio. The technique is to state the opposite of your hypothesis as a premise, and then prove the premise false. Is the proof in error because a premise is false? No. Or course not.
Ha ha, my plan is working perf-I mean, of course, Eve.
I too am shaking my head over this little revelation, if only because Santorum uses his beliefs to bully others. Of course, Santorum probably avoids reading it, because then he’d have to read the parable of the Sheep and the Goats and that considering the way he treats “the least of them”, that he’s doing unto Jesus, and then he can’t claim ignorance.
This is still very odd. Look, suppose for the moment that II Kings is historically inaccurate. Now suppose Thessalonians does indeed contain historical disclaimers regarding II Kings. How does that make the compendium accurate? II Kings is clearly intended as a more-or-less straightforward history. If Thessalonians says that II Kings isn’t to be taken seriously, not only is II Kings still wrong, but now Thessalonians is too.
Your analogy with a reductio doesn’t work. At no point in a (sound) reductio is one asserting a falsehood. There are no false premises. The structure is this: If ~X, absurdity follows, hence X. “If ~X” isn’t a premise, it’s the antecedent of a conditional. By itself it has no truth value. Well, okay, the more usual format is “Suppose ~X”, but it’s the same thing. “Suppose ~X” doesn’t have a truth value either.
But that’s different. Now you’ve read all the way through Thessalonians, and you may make your declaration about the compendium. (Assuming it goes from II Kings through Thessalonians.)
Every logical proposition/statement/assertion (in first order propositional logic) has a truth value. A premise is nothing but an assertion offered without proof. Einstein’s first premise, for example, in special relativity was that the speed of light in vaccuo is constant. It is accepted as true.
I think I’ll leave it to Bricker, tomndebb, or another Catholic to give the catechetic specifics, but I’m aware that the Church considers the Bible foundational and that the duty of the individual Catholic is to familiarize him/herself with it to the extent appropriate in his/her life and in accordance with Church teachings regarding it.
You misunderstand. If II Kings is historically inaccurate, then, given that it is intended as a straightforward history, any compendium which includes it contains error. Whatever Thessalonians has to say on the subject of II Kings is irrelevant. If it says II Kings is to be read straightforwardly, then it’s without error (in this regard), but II Kings is still wrong, and if it says II Kings is not to be read straightforwardly, then it’s in error as well as II Kings. Whatever it says, the compendium still contains errors.
:dubious: Sure every proposition has a truth value. Are you saying that “Suppose ~X” is a proposition? I repeat: at no point in a (sound) reductio is a false proposition asserted.
I guess treis beat me to it, but by your own logic, shouldn’t you have to read every book first in their entirety before you state that none are the word of God?