Thursday, March 7, 2013

Definitions

I couldn't help noticing that Thoughts For Young Men has not defined a single term that I've asked him to define.  From here on out, I'll be asking for a definition on every claim that he makes.  Failure to provide the definition will result in a claim being treated as unsupported and thus refuted.

I will continue the conversation on evolution when the term "kind" is defined.

I will continue the conversation on the accuracy of the Bible when the terms "rabbit" and "cud" are defined.

I will continue the conversation on knowledge when the term "basis" is defined.

All comments on these subjects from Thoughts For Young Men will be blocked as refuted claims until this information is provided.

Even once these definitions are provided, any equivocation of them will render the claim refuted until a source supporting the definition can be cited.

Unhappy about the rules?  Tough.  It's my blog.

36 comments:

  1. "Kind" = A set of animals/plants whose original ancestors were able to reproduce with one another.

    "Rabbit" = A long-eared, short-tailed mammal with long hind legs.

    "Cud" = Food that has been eaten and partially digested and is then eaten again.

    "Basis" = Something on which something else is established or based.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent; thank you for that. Working by these definitions, then:

    Every animal is the same kind, because if you go back far enough, they all share a common ancestor.

    The Bible contains falsehoods, because rabbits don't chew cud.

    My view of knowledge does have a basis; it is based on observation and reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You don't know that all animals share a common ancestor. Have you observed that?

    Rabbits do eat food that they have previously eaten and partially digested.

    Yes, I know that your view of knowledge has a basis. But what is the basis for observation and reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "You don't know that all animals share a common ancestor. Have you observed that?"
    That's what all of the observable evidence points to.

    "Rabbits do eat food that they have previously eaten and partially digested."
    Source?

    "Yes, I know that your view of knowledge has a basis. But what is the basis for observation and reasoning?"
    What are observation and reasoning based on? Our senses and intellect. If that doesn't answer your question, I'll need clarification on what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's a reference about rabbits eating (again) food that they had previously eaten and partially digested:
    http://www.bio.miami.edu/hare/poop.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent. Now cite your source that the Hebrew word you're translating as "partially digested food" is really translated that way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am so sorry; I didn't mean to reject your comment giving the garah and garar definitions. I clicked the wrong thing, and now it won't let me undo.

    Please accept my apology for the error; I didn't mean to do that!

    Your response pointed out that the word used is translated cud but originated with the term for "to drag away." It's still translated "cud," which is in error.

    The Answers in Genesis explanation you linked to is goofy, as we might expect from them. Of course rabbits 3500 years ago adhere to the modern classification system, because we have fossil evidence that their physiology was the same then as it is now. Also, Hebrew has a different word for "dung" that could have been used for cecetrophy.

    So what does that linguistic equivocation tell us? It shows that God either wasn't able or wasn't willing to communicate what he meant in plain Hebrew. That alone casts doubt on the reliability of the information in the Old Testament.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How do you know that the Hebrew word we normally translate as "dung" would refer to cecotropes? I don't deny that it possibly could, but so could the word normally translated "cud". You are implying that you know better than God (and the original human author of the Bible) what they meant by the words they used.

    Your whole argument is based on the mistaken premise that the author of Leviticus was trying to identify animals based on modern word usage and classification systems. But modern word usage and classification systems weren't even in existence at the time it was written!

    We can only understand the Bible in terms of the Bible. Scholars have studied the Bible and Biblical word usage (and compared it with word usage outside the Bible), and the Biblical statement, "Rabbits chew the cud", is well within our modern understanding of what those words meant at the time.

    Let me give a more modern example:
    I say, "We have a red car."
    My wife says, "We have a scarlet car."
    We could both be correct, although we may have reasons why we chose to use "red" vs. "scarlet". There is no contradiction.

    I just reread your response and noticed your point in the third paragraph. If all you're saying is that the word "cud" is translated incorrectly, I don't have a problem with that. If you think it should be translated differently, that's fine. Based on our modern understanding and usage of "cud", it probably should be translated differently. But that does not make it a contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Except that scarlet and red are synonyms, where cud and dung are not.

    You're essentially saying that the English words used in Bible don't always mean what they say. This may be due to incorrect translation, the word having a different meaning at the time, or the idea that God simply knows more than we do about the words.

    But the effect is the same: The English words on the page don't always mean what they say.

    That supports my claim that the Bible is not a reliable source of information.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scarlet and red do not have the exact same meanings.

    "You're essentially saying that the English words used in Bible don't always mean what they say."

    No, I'm not saying that. I said that "cud" means "food that has been eaten and partially digested and is then eaten again." I believe most people would understand and agree with that. Yes, there could be disagreement about how the word is used in a technical sense, but that certainly gets across the basic idea of the word.

    You still missing the main point, though. That verse about the rabbit chewing the cud was meant to communicate information to people at the time it was written. If you really want to show that it is an error, you would have to show that it failed to accomplish the purpose it was intended for (ie. that the people it was originally written to could not understand what it meant).

    ReplyDelete
  11. "That verse about the rabbit chewing the cud was meant to communicate information to people at the time it was written"

    Therefore, it is not a reliable source of information for people in the modern day.

    It goes beyond the word cud. You also said that firmament means atmosphere, and that some passages were not intended to be factually accurate at all (but rather, are figurative).

    All in all, this adds up to the fact that meanings of words in the Bible can be hazy. Since we can't be sure of any of those things - that is, we have to supply our own (human, imperfect) interpretations to how words are defined or intended - then it makes sense to treat the whole thing with skepticism.

    Hence, my position is that claims in the Bible should be rejected if they cannot be verified through testing in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You wrote:
    "Therefore, it is not a reliable source of information for people in the modern day."

    That is not a logical conclusion. It is true that it may be more difficult to understand some parts of the Bible, because we cannot simply assume that our modern understanding of certain words and culture is the same as in the Bible. That is why there is a need to study history, archaeology, etymology, etc. so that we can understand the words/culture/etc. of the time they were written and get a proper understanding.

    You wrote:
    "Since we can't be sure of any of those things - that is, we have to supply our own (human, imperfect) interpretations to how words are defined or intended - then it makes sense to treat the whole thing with skepticism."

    That applies to every piece of writing, including your blog. If you want to be consistent, you would have to say that it is impossible to know what anyone meant by anything.

    You really are "The Inconsistent Atheist".

    ReplyDelete
  13. The difference is that I'm not an all-powerful being writing an infallible moral guide for humans to follow for all eternity. If I were, I certainly wouldn't make my followers dig as hard as you're stating we have to in order to make sure my meaning is understood. After all, misunderstanding the slightest bit of it could mean the difference between eternal reward and being punished forever.

    "That is why there is a need to study history, archaeology, etymology, etc. so that we can understand the words/culture/etc. of the time they were written and get a proper understanding."
    I would go one step further: we need to make sure what it's saying is true and not simply assume that.

    "That applies to every piece of writing, including your blog. If you want to be consistent, you would have to say that it is impossible to know what anyone meant by anything."
    I never claimed that we can't understand what the Bible means by something; I said we should be skeptical of it. And yes, I do believe we should do that with all sources until we can establish that they are reliable.

    I'm going to ask you to stop plugging your website here; you've gotten all the free advertising I'm willing to give you. I'm going to censor all future comments in which you do so.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The difference is that I'm not an all-powerful being writing an infallible moral guide for humans to follow for all eternity. If I were, I certainly wouldn't make my followers dig as hard as you're stating we have to in order to make sure my meaning is understood."

    I believe you, but that's the point--you're not God. And if he can be second guessed by His creatures, then He wouldn't be God. All you're really saying is that you think differently than God. So what? God has reasons for doing things the way He does, even if you don't understand them and/or agree with them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ...which brings us right back around to: there's no evidence God exists in the first place. Using the Bible as evidence for God requires assuming that God exists to dictate it. Assumed conclusion fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There isn't "no evidence God exists", there is simply no evidence that God exists for someone who doesn't believe in God. Assumed conclusion fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Evidence can be objectively verified regardless of what someone believes. Really, this thing you do where you simply turn what I say back on me is just lazy. You should really read these things before you post them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Evidence can be objectively verified regardless of what someone believes."

    Have you objectively verified that? Let's see it!

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's part of the definition of the term:

    "Narrowly understood, any kind of observation, observational report, experiential input, empirical information, or datum that can be used to support or discredit a hypothesis or theory. Broadly understood, whatever information or reason can be adduced in favour of or against the justification of a belief. In philosophy of science, typically, the concept of evidence is understood narrowly. Hence, all evidence is taken to be empirical or observational."
    Source: Evidence. (2007). In Philosophy of Science A-Z.

    Since it is empirical or observational, it can be observed by anyone, not just those who believe or don't believe a certain way.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have already provided empirical evidence that can be observed by anyone regarding God's existence--the Bible.

    "Using the Bible as evidence for God requires assuming that God exists to dictate it."

    False, you do not have to believe God exists to observe and examine the Bible--people do it every day.

    ReplyDelete
  21. However, the claims made in the Bible, in many cases, cannot be verified through examination.

    For example, the Bible claims that God exists. Please explain how one would observe and examine this claim.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This gets back to the issue of reliable sources/witnesses. Do you know that George Washington existed? How? Do you know that Julius Caesar existed? How? Either through artifacts or eyewitness testimony.

    The same is true of the Bible. The Bible claims to be eyewitness testimony, and there aren't any opposing witnesses. Furthermore, the Bible has *never* been shown to be incorrect by any outside source (archaeology, other ancient writings, etc.).

    So yes, there may be some claims in the Bible that have not (or perhaps cannot) be verified by outside sources. But, since the Bible has proved to be a reliable witness in the cases where it has been checked, it should be considered a reliable witness in the cases where it hasn't.

    Here's a different, but related question. What would you do in a case where there was only one witness to a murder? If the witness was deemed reliable, should the accused murderer be convicted? Or should the accused murderer be set free because there is not a corroborating witness?

    The Bible answers those questions, but I'll have to get back to them later. What about you? What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thoughts for Young Men said:
      "The Bible has *never* been shown to be incorrect by any outside source (archaeology, other ancient writings, etc.).
      We can look at the prophecies against Tyre and Egypt for starters. Both events never happened.

      Delete
  23. This is the last time I'm responding to these claims; they will be blocked from here on out.

    You have given an example of the Bible being proven incorrect; there is no water above the atmosphere, nor has there ever been. If you think there has, let's see the evidence.

    Since that is wrong, the rest of your argument is invalid. Until you can refute that, you can no longer claim the Bible as evidence in and of itself; I will block all such claims.

    On your hypothetical murder situation, it depends on the circumstances. We have an excellent court system here in the US; I trust it to do its job. I don't really care what the Bible has to say on the subject, since it's irrelevant to the judgment of the court.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You have not proved that there has never been water above the atmosphere. At best you could say that you do not have evidence (outside of the Bible) to confirm or deny that statement in the Bible.

    That gets back to my murder example. Based on what we have checked of the Bible, it is a reliable witness. There is no reason to doubt it about things we have not (or cannot) confirm. If you want to keep searching for an error in the Bible, go ahead. But don't say that the Bible contains errors when you have been unable to prove a single one.

    That's interesting that you don't care about what the Bible has to say about witnesses and the court system, since the U.S. court system was originally based on the Bible. Maybe you should move and create your own country where you can set it up the way you want instead of trying to convert the U.S. to your false worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is how solar systems and planets form:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation
    The burden is now on you to refute that.

    "Based on what we have checked of the Bible, it is a reliable witness"
    Nope, still isn't. Refute my claim, and we might have something to talk about.

    "the U.S. court system was originally based on the Bible"
    Unsupported assertion. Let's see a source if that's really a line of conversation you want to pursue.

    "instead of trying to convert the U.S. to your false worldview."
    We've already covered why you're lying when you say things like this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I checked the Wikipedia article you referenced. It begins:
    "In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System."

    A few observations. First of all, that is just a hypothesis, not a known fact (even if it is the most widely accepted model). No human observed the formation of the earth. Secondly, even if it were true, that hypothesis does not rule out the possibility of there ever having been water above the earth's atmosphere.

    Regarding the Christian history of the U.S. court system, see:
    THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
    HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
    143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
    Feb. 29, 1892
    In this decision, the court declared, "this is a Christian nation."
    http://vftonline.org/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm

    See also http://isamericaachristiannation.org/

    The "United States" was formed from individual States.

    Consider the first legal code established in New England, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html). It is full of Biblical language and references.

    Here is part of Section 94 (and yes, the Bible references were in the original text).

    94. Capitall Laws.
    1.
    (Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)
    If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.

    2.
    (Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)
    If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.

    3.
    (Lev. 24. 15,16.)
    If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.

    4.
    (Ex. 21. 12. Numb. 35. 13, 14, 30, 31.)
    If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.

    5.
    (Numb. 25, 20, 21. Lev. 24. 17)
    If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.

    6.
    (Ex. 21. 14.)
    If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.

    7.
    (Lev. 20. 15,16.)
    If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.

    8.
    (Lev. 20. 13.)
    If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.

    9.
    Lev. 20. 19. and 18, 20. Dut. 22. 23, 24.)
    If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.

    10.
    (Ex. 21. 16.)
    If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.

    11.
    (Deut. 19. 16, 18, 19.)
    If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "First of all, that is just a hypothesis, not a known fact (even if it is the most widely accepted model)."
    If you have a better model, let's see it. And please explain why I should take your word over the experts'.

    "Secondly, even if it were true, that hypothesis does not rule out the possibility of there ever having been water above the earth's atmosphere."
    Actually, it does. Nowhere in the process described is there water above the atmosphere. If you believe there was, let's see your evidence.

    On this "Christian nation" nonsense:
    Your sources suffer from foundational bias and are thus unreliable.

    Also, you left out an important detail about the Supreme Court opinion that Justice Brewer wrote:
    "Justice Brewer published a book in 1905, titled The United States: A Christian Nation, in which he disagreed with the interpretation of the court's decision as a statement or endorsement by the Supreme Court that the United States is officially in law a "Christian Nation""
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States

    Finally, since the Founding Fathers didn't see fit to integrate that set of state statutes into the governing documents of the nation, I don't really care what Massachusetts did on its own; it doesn't support your claim, which was about the nation as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "If you have a better model, let's see it. And please explain why I should take your word over the experts'."

    I have no reason to provide a different model at this time. If you can overcome your problems with the point below, I'll go ahead and propose a different model. But that really won't settle the issue anyway. How would we know which model is correct? That's my point. You're just speculating. You don't have any proof that the Bible is incorrect on this or any other point.

    "Actually, it does. Nowhere in the process described is there water above the atmosphere. If you believe there was, let's see your evidence."

    That is an argument from silence. Does the model exclude the possibility of water above the atmosphere? I didn't see that, but maybe I missed it. If it's there, please point it out. Otherwise you're just speculating.

    About America being a Christian nation, and the Bible being the foundation of our legal system, I never said that the United States is officially in law a "Christian Nation". Actually, I wasn't speaking of the governing documents of the nation (the Constitution, which I have previously said is an anti-Christian document). My point is similar to what Justice Brewer meant by his statement that "this is a Christian nation." Whatever he did mean, he most definitely did not mean, "The United States is in absolutely in no way, shape, or form based on the Bible."

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I have no reason to provide a different model at this time."
    Then we agree that the one provided is the best one.

    "You're just speculating."
    No, YOU'RE speculating. The experts are basing their opinions on the evidence. When YOU have evidence that they're wrong, I'll have a look. Until then, the Bible's wrong about this. End of discussion until you provide evidence that the prevailing model is inaccurate.

    "Does the model exclude the possibility of water above the atmosphere? I didn't see that, but maybe I missed it. If it's there, please point it out. "
    At no point in the process of planetary formation would the laws of physics allow there to be water above the atmosphere. If you disagree, point out where in the process it's possible. Until then, end of discussion.

    "I never said that the United States is officially in law a "Christian Nation". "
    Good, then we can put that nonsense to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Some of the embryos, which originated in the asteroid belt, are thought to have brought water to Earth."

    The above statement was in the Wikipedia article you referenced. That sounds like water above the atmosphere to me.

    I guess that settles it. The Bible is right after all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Except that there was no atmosphere at that point in the process. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you please provide a reference for that? There is nothing in the Wikipedia article that mentions the atmosphere one way or another. The water is said to have come during "The last stage of rocky planet formation".

      In any case, since the article clearly says there was water above the earth at that time in its formation, how do you know there is not still water above the atmosphere? Are you saying that all the water which was in the asteroid belt during the earth's formation came to earth before the atmosphere formed? I'd love to see the evidence for that.

      Delete
    2. You're right; I was interpreting atmosphere as something breathable by humans. There would have been gasses surrounding the earth at that time.

      However, as my "Shame on Me" post details, that doesn't matter anyway.

      Delete
  32. ...but you know what? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Please see my latest blog entry for my response to that idea.

    ReplyDelete