It has now come to the point that you are simply going over the same arguments again and again without contributing anything new to the discussion. I've addressed every single objection you've made, and you keep trotting out the same things over and over. You're picking out one word or sentence to criticize while ignoring the rest. You're continuing to intentionally mischaracterize my views or claim that I haven't explained things that any reader can see that I have. You're simply spinning your wheels now, and doing so dishonestly.
Keep lying about things we've discussed, and I'll keep pointing out the lies.
If you have any arguments that you can make and rationally support, you're welcome to do so.
My view, however, is that if you were capable of doing so, you would have by now. All you've offered are logical fallacies and dishonest attacks on things we've already been over. You might as well quit wasting both our time and move on.
I would agree that we have gone as far as we can in our discussion. You have been confronted with the illogicality of your worldview, and yet you still cling to it.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing more I can say is, "Repent and trust in God."
May God have mercy on you.
I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't take a charge of being illogical too seriously from someone whose entire worldview is based on an assumed conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDVD,
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand my position (or your own, for that matter). You say my worldview is based on an assumed conclusion. I presume you are referring to the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. But those are not conclusions. Those are the starting points of reasoning. To use your vocabulary, the existence of God and the truth of the Bible are the basis of my "methodology".
Here's an article that gets the basic issue across.
ReplyDeletehttp://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-most-offensive-verse-in-bible.html
DVD, I would be happy to continue discussing your "methodology". My argument is basically complete, but there is still room for application, since you obviously haven't understood it yet.
"But those are not conclusions. Those are the starting points of reasoning."
ReplyDeleteRight! You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate is true without providing any reason why anyone else should do so. That's the definition of an assumed conclusion.
We know God exists because it says so in the Bible, which we know is true because it's the word of God (who exists). Circular logic.
DVD,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are finally starting to get it. Let’s use your response and apply it to your “methodology”.
We know things by making observations and drawing rational conclusions based on these observations, which we know is true because we have observed that and rationally concluded it. Circular logic.
Actually, you can test my methodology yourself to see if I'm right. Go ahead. Find me an example where repeatable, empirical testing reveals something to be true when it isn't.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you are agreeing that your position relies on circular logic?
ReplyDeleteNo, for the last time, it relies on repeatable observations that can be verified by anyone. Still waiting for that example that refutes it.
ReplyDeleteBut that's circular logic. You are using repeatable observations as your methodology for determining truth and then telling me that your methodology can be verified by repeatable observations.
ReplyDeleteI have no reason to provide any examples to refute that. I believe that repeatable observations can be used to determine truth (but not the only way). I am saying that your position that repeatable observations is the *only* way to determine truth is circular logic.
Or perhaps you believe there are other methods of determining truth? I've asked you that before, and you haven't given any other methods by which you believe we can determine truth, so I've been assuming that you think that is the only way. If you believe there are other ways of determining truth, please tell us what they are.
You're lying. You're not refuting it because you can't.
ReplyDeleteDid you even read my response? I have no need to refute it. I believe it's true.
ReplyDeleteYou, however, need to show that it is valid, but so far you've only offered circular logic.
Oh, my apologies for misreading it. I've offered you a way to validate it yourself, but since we agree, I don't see where that's necessary.
ReplyDeleteDVD,
ReplyDeleteHere's something else for you to ponder.
As I understand your view, we can only know that things are true by observing and replicating them. However, that severely limits the "knowledge" we can have.
For example, the statement "George Washington was the first president of the United States", cannot be verified as being true, because while that was an observable event, it is not replicable.
Perhaps you could clarify how your view of knowledge accounts for situations like that. Do you believe that such statements cannot be known to be true, or do you use a different methodology for dealing with "historical claims"? I know that I use a different methodology for such issues, but I haven't seen you explain how you deal with them.
There were witnesses to the existence and achievements of George Washington, who left documentation and evidence that is all mutually-supporting.
ReplyDeleteI never said direct observation was the only way of knowing things. But I certainly don't think blindly taking the word of an internally-contradictory set of books that are full of falsehoods is a good way.
Based on that, you should believe in God, since, "There were witnesses to the existence and achievements of God, who left documentation and evidence that is all mutually-supporting."
ReplyDeleteNow you're lying. You have not shown any contradictions or falsehoods in the Bible.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
ReplyDeleteGood luck.
I looked through the list and didn't see any contradictions. Most of the things are pretty obvious, although I will admit there are some things which are difficult to understand and take a bit of thinking.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the supposed "contradictions" fall into two categories:
1) Parallel passages that record different information about events. Those are not contradictions. Not every detail has to be recorded exactly the same in every account. Otherwise, what would be the point of multiple accounts? If I say, "I have a red car," and my wife says, "I have a red Toyota," that is not contradictory.
2) "Contradictions" regarding definitions. eg. God is "good" but also punishes evildoers. Rabbits "chewing the cud". I have already addressed the God is good issue in detail. Other similar cases can be dealt with similarly. The issue is, "What did the word mean for the person who wrote it down?", not, "What does the word mean in our language today?"
Here's one of my favorites, that I was planning on bringing up anyway:
Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
These verses provide my methodology for dealing with atheists (and other fools). On the one hand, I don't accept your faulty presuppositions (v.4). On the other hand, I take your faulty presuppositions and show their logical inconsistency (v.5).
The Bible is the basis of everything people need to know, even how to respond to unbelievers. Regarding the truth and accuracy of the Bible, here is Peter's testimony.
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Okay then, please cite your sources regarding the biblical definitions of the words rabbits and cud. You can't, because you're just making them up.
ReplyDelete