Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?

Nuggin,The OP looks ambiguous to me. Phat has a title having to do with Biblical literalism, but only mentions "absolute truth" in the OP content.If you take Phat as implicitly equating Biblical Literalism with "absolute truth", then I think you're right. But knowing PB, it's really hard to know if that's what he's really getting at, or if he's just trying to be metaphorical. He takes turns with both.PB, you want to jump in and clarify? Or are you ... taking a "Phat" again? Ben

What your saying is that it is a physical impossibility. This is true. But I didn't say it was a physical possibility but a logical possibility. Logic possibility is not = to physical impossibility(The thought of cows being accelerated at vast rates of changes of speeds is somewhat amusing when one considers the physical side of things)

And I'm saying it's not a logical possibility. Logically, muscle can't store that much energy; logically, bone can't withstand that stress. These are simply not properties that, logically, muscle and bone possess.Now, you could have a cow with a non-existent super-elastic material for muscles, and a skeleton made out of an unbreakable material that doesn't exist (Wolverine's adamantium bones, if you will), but then, logically, you wouldn't have a cow anymore.So I don't see how it's even logically possible, unless you're operating from a radically different definition of "logic" than I am. Starting from the relevant premises, there's no way to deduct that it's possible for a cow to accomplish that feat.

You're misunderstanding the area that logic deals with Crash. You are inserting the word "logically" in here when the actual correct word you need to use is "physically". Insert and read and you will see that that is what you meanPhysically not the same thing as logically. Logic in this case deals with if/then/or/and/nor/not statements. It doesn't care whether it is physically possible for those statements to be true.IF the muscles were powerful enough AND the cow felt the urge THEN the cow would jump over the moon.

I doubt it; logic is an area that I've studied pretty extensively, both formally and privately. No, logic is deduction from premises according to valid rules of transformation.Cows have certain properties; muscles and bones do as well. Reasoning from those premises, we deduce that cows are not capable of the feats you describe.It's really very simple logic. I have no idea where you got the idea that "logic" means you can simply assert any old nonsense that you choose. Perhaps you can show me how you deduce your position, and from what premises you do so?

Is an if/then statement a logical statement?

Sure; but so are statements like "X has the Y characteristic."

So, is there anything wrong with the logic statement IF muscles AND desire THEN cows will jump over the moon?

Yes; it's false.That's what's wrong with it. The logical construct "cow" isn't capable of the feat you describe, even if the muscles and desire were present.

Hpw about this one: IF muscles AND if will AND if evolutionary progresses enough THEN a cow will jump over the moon.Remember before answering, the relative progression that evolution has made from single celled organism to cheetah

I still don't see it. "Cow" implies certain characteristics; the object that has the necessesary characteristics to circumnavigate Earth's moon and return to the surface is not a cow, by definition.So, like I said, show me the logic. Start with your premises and show a valid derivation to "cows jumping over the moon", or just give up and admit that you don't really seem to understand how logic works. I don't find that progression significant. Certainly its not as far from protozoa to metazoa as it is from "cow" to what you propose. Cheetahs and E. coli are made out of the same stuff. The cow you're proposing is made out of materials that don't even exist.

This is not realistic.If the muscles were strong enough, the exerted force would break the cow's bones.If the bones were strong enough, the acceleration would raise the cow to such a high velocity that it would burn up in the atmosphere on the way up.If the cow hide could somehow resist burning up, the velocity attained would be very near escape velocity from the earth, and it is likely that it never would come down again. So it wouldn't really be jumping over the moon.However, I do agree with you on one point. This isn't a logic issue, it is a physical issue. What crashfrog should be arguing, is that it is physically impossible, rather than that it is logically impossible.By the way, this digression is way off-topic for the thread. I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Cows have, were it to evolve sufficiently, a methane powered directional thruster rocket at their...er.. disposalBut I take you point re: topic

Logic isn't a framework to validate nonsense. It's deductive reasoning from assumed premises.Because we're talking about objects in the real world, the premises that we assume are the physical constraints that govern real world objects. In that context, "physically impossible" and "logically impossible" are the same thing. It's entirely appropriate to argue what I'm arguing; it doesn't make any sense to say that this is "logically possible", because it isn't.It's possible, too, that this simply isn't a question of logic; but in that case it doesn't make any sense to say "logically possible" either. The question is logically nonsensical in that case.

So there`s a possibility those aren`t asteroid craters on the moon, but explosive cow-pats? :-p