[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That’s okay, just use your words.
Question: what is the purpose of philosophy? To tear apart words and to wonder exactly how sentences come about as descriptors?
I don’t debate the merits of such nonsense and I wouldn’t write a Phd dissertation about such silliness. If you must know, since you seem fairly bright, I am on strike. I left philosophy after discovering it had left me. If philosophers want to present such nonsense to the world as philosophy, they can easily do it without me. Now let the world judge if it wants to fund ‘philosophy’.[/quote]
At the end of the day you do realize that “such nonsense” is not only important for philosophy, but also computer science? When little Alvin and Alonzo where doing all their work they had more in mind then just philosophy. Anyway, my point is that I’m quite sure that study in formal semantics will continue to be quite well funded for a long time to come–via not only philosophy, but also computer science and linguistics. You don’t have to lose sleep tonight worrying that the students and Russell and the children of the linguistic turn will end up in the soup line any time soon.
If you want to keep pretending that analytic philosophers are a bunch of clueless fools go ahead, but your pleas that “it’s just so obvious” aren’t very convincing.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Question: what is the purpose of philosophy? To tear apart words and to wonder exactly how sentences come about as descriptors?
I don’t debate the merits of such nonsense and I wouldn’t write a Phd dissertation about such silliness. If you must know, since you seem fairly bright, I am on strike. I left philosophy after discovering it had left me. If philosophers want to present such nonsense to the world as philosophy, they can easily do it without me. Now let the world judge if it wants to fund ‘philosophy’.[/quote]
I agree with this.
TL;DR, has anyone told me how they know the bones belong to St. Paul?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
TL;DR, has anyone told me how they know the bones belong to St. Paul?[/quote]
I do not see how they could tell unless they have markings over the tomb, paperwork saying that this is the tomb he was buried in, or something of that nature. Not a purple robe and a pile of bones.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
TL;DR, has anyone told me how they know the bones belong to St. Paul?
I do not see how they could tell unless they have markings over the tomb, paperwork saying that this is the tomb he was buried in, or something of that nature. Not a purple robe and a pile of bones.[/quote]
So they found that stuff?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
TL;DR, has anyone told me how they know the bones belong to St. Paul?
I do not see how they could tell unless they have markings over the tomb, paperwork saying that this is the tomb he was buried in, or something of that nature. Not a purple robe and a pile of bones.
So they found that stuff?[/quote]
Are you saying they found that stuff, or are you asking me if they did. I am not sure if they did find that stuff, but if they did then I would have to follow the evidence if there was nothing contrary.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
TL;DR, has anyone told me how they know the bones belong to St. Paul?
I do not see how they could tell unless they have markings over the tomb, paperwork saying that this is the tomb he was buried in, or something of that nature. Not a purple robe and a pile of bones.
So they found that stuff?
Are you saying they found that stuff, or are you asking me if they did. I am not sure if they did find that stuff, but if they did then I would have to follow the evidence if there was nothing contrary.[/quote]
I’m asking if they have. No one in this thread has addressed the issue of how they know whose bones they are.
Arguing about how they follow Carbon Dating selectively seems a bit pointless, I want to know which Jew the bones belong to.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
TL;DR, has anyone told me how they know the bones belong to St. Paul?
I do not see how they could tell unless they have markings over the tomb, paperwork saying that this is the tomb he was buried in, or something of that nature. Not a purple robe and a pile of bones.
So they found that stuff?
Are you saying they found that stuff, or are you asking me if they did. I am not sure if they did find that stuff, but if they did then I would have to follow the evidence if there was nothing contrary.
I’m asking if they have. No one in this thread has addressed the issue of how they know whose bones they are.
Arguing about how they follow Carbon Dating selectively seems a bit pointless, I want to know which Jew the bones belong to.[/quote]
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?[/quote]
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?[/quote]
Do you cover your windows with tinfoil?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?[/quote]
The difference with a document that is a few hundred years old versus a set of bones a couple thousand is one reason.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?[/quote]
The difference with a document that is a few hundred years old versus a set of bones a couple thousand is one reason.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?[/quote]
The difference with a document that is a few hundred years old versus a set of bones a couple thousand is one reason.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?
The difference with a document that is a few hundred years old versus a set of bones a couple thousand is one reason.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s one thing I was referring to when I said that we have more evidence for the declaration. The point was that we have basically the same type of evidence for both, and that to demand some sort of absolute proof for either misses the fact that no such proof can be produced. It’s not like we have hair that we KNOW belonged to Paul that we can do DNA tests on to see if the DNA from the bones matches…
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have no clue, I have not seen or heard anything. The fact that carbon dating is a shady way to date anything does not prove this guy lived in the first or second century and that they are St. Paul’s bones.
Don’t get me wrong, I can get that the bones are from that time period. Just wanting to know how they can claim it’s St. Paul.
Anyone else know?
Why don’t you look it up? I’m sure that historically there were reasons for thinking these are Paul’s bones. The fact that today we cannot produce “proof” that they are the bones of Paul doesn’t mean they aren’t the bones of Paul.
Think of it like this. Today the only reasons we have for thinking that a certain piece of paper at the National Archives is the original declaration of independence are historical–we have records tracing that piece of paper back to famed one of the revolution, blah blah blah. We cannot though produce definitive proof that it’s not a hoax to entertain patriotic Americans who visit the National Archives. Likewise, the reasons for believing those bones are Paul’s are purely historical–we have records tracing those bones back to the famed missionary, blah blah blah.
Of course the historical evidence that we really do have the declaration of independence is greater then the historical evidence that we really do have Paul’s bones… but nevertheless in neither case can you produce irrefutable proof. So if you’re prepared to accept historical evidence for one item–the declaration–why question so heavily historical evidence for another–Paul’s bones?
The difference with a document that is a few hundred years old versus a set of bones a couple thousand is one reason.
Yeah, that’s one thing I was referring to when I said that we have more evidence for the declaration. The point was that we have basically the same type of evidence for both, and that to demand some sort of absolute proof for either misses the fact that no such proof can be produced. It’s not like we have hair that we KNOW belonged to Paul that we can do DNA tests on to see if the DNA from the bones matches…[/quote]
You’re bringing up conspiracy theories that could happen. I just want to know if the bones are his and if they have any other proof besides he lived around that time?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re bringing up conspiracy theories that could happen. I just want to know if the bones are his and if they have any other proof besides he lived around that time?[/quote]
I’m not bringing up conspiracy theories… All I’m saying is that (1) if you want to know what sort of evidence there is go and look it up yourself, (2) if you’re looking for conclusive evidence like a DNA sample that proves they are the bones of Paul you’ll be disapponited and (3) whatever evidence there is will be largely historical–ie, records, etc…
I already looked, all I have found is hints of historical evidence. This is not a murder case, I do not need a DNA sample for proof.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
So they know how old the bones are… how do they know who it is?[/quote]
Dental records, DUH!!